Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Christians

Jehovahs witnesses are not Christians, by definition Christians believe in the Resurection of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.49.229 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That point has been vigorously discussed in the past and the use of term is the result of consensus based on verifiable sources. JWs, incidentally, do believe in the resurrection of Christ and it's unclear from your comment whose "definition" you refer to here. BlackCab (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What I know, Trinity is not involved in any regular definition of Christianity. Are you for example "Cultural Christian", if you know something about chr. traditions or cogitations? Answer to both questions is: "No. You don´t." If you refer to any specifical definition, some unknown one to nowadays, you´re welcome to place it to talk here. However WP:NOTFORUM --FaktneviM (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah witnesses are not Christians. Christians believe in the Resurection of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Let us first look at the Ressurection: The Watchtower organization says that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body he died in (You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth, p. 143-44). Instead, it says that He rose as a spirit creature and that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father. Therefore, they deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this important? Most definitely!

1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." In other words, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time and we are then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of Christianity. But what of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are they accurate in their assessment of Jesus' resurrection in denying the bodily resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a definite, "No."It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead: "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body." They also do not believe in the Trinity which the Bible says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1. The Bible goes further to state Jesus is the word John 1:1,14.

Please remove the part about JW's being Christians because it is not factual. Hysteria2424 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hysteria2424, please stop your misrepresentation of the Bible verses and misrepresentation of the JW teaching with using trance sentence out of context and modify it to your own understanding. Please stop such despicable approaches. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your theological opinion is not important here. This issue has been discussed at length previously. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia says nontrinitarians are Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Heretical" Christians are still classifiable as "Christians" for secular purposes, such as Wikipedia. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

They're confused. Let them be confused by themselves. Everybody has a right to their opinion. You can tell by their lack of spelling and grammatical expertise that they're not very intelligent. Report them or not, but don't debate them. It's useless. Gets you nowhere. Update: some of that bad spelling was from a member of our own Wikiproject; but that's okay! He's on our side! They was robbed! Update of update: Oh, simplified English. I got ya.. Lighthead ^þ 22:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I´m not on "your side". I´m not on side of any man. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Stupidity, pride and nasty behavior, which you have been shown are particularly clear proofs that you can´t be one of Jehovah´s Witnesses. Sorry for my sincere talk. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pinas2020, 19 June 2011

I want to edit some articles in Jehovah's Witnesses

Pinas2020 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrepentantly practice etc

Many Brooklyn etc

• In various places, I replaced "most" with "many". Editors should feel free to provide references if they feel "most" is well-supported.
• In recent weeks, someone added the idea that the GBJW is "located in Brooklyn"; the article elsewhere states that Brooklyn is the current headquarters and the ref for this three-word addition is dated 1969. These three words have been removed.
• The article formerly stated, "They do not observe holiday celebrations..."; in recent weeks that was changed to "They do not observe celebrations...". The misconception that JWs do not celebrate ANYTHING could be reinforced by that edit, so the former wording has been reinstated ("They do not observe holiday celebrations...").
• I changed "about one in seven Bible Students had chosen to sever ties with the Society rather than accept Rutherford's leadership" to the less-speculative and better-supported "about one in seven Bible Students had ceased their association with the Society". The actual wording of the cited ref has now been quoted with the ref.
• In recent weeks, the section "Life after death" has become oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. The sentence: "Their hope for life after death involves being resurrected by God to a cleansed earth after Armageddon." has been changed to: "Aside from a "little flock" of a few thousand with a heavenly hope, Witnesses consider themselves among "other sheep" whose hope for life after death involves being resurrected by God to a cleansed earth after Armageddon."
• The article formerly stated that by their 1931 name change JW's would "distinguish themselves from other groups of Bible Students". In recent weeks someone changed that to the alliterative but unnecessary phrase "distinguish themselves from disassociated groups of dissenting Bible Students". The cited ref states explicitly, "to distinguish...from the other groups". I've reverted to the former neutral wording "other groups of Bible Students".

Also, I plainly have less time than others do to devote to Wikipedia, but it seems necessary to revisit the issues discussed here.
Contrast the discussion of Russell at 22:52, 11 February 2011 with the subsequent edit.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the GB and the headquarters are somewhere other than Brooklyn? (The Watchtower 15 July 2006, p. 20: "The ‘faithful slave’ is represented by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a small group of spirit-anointed men serving at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York.")

Birthdays are not 'holiday celebrations', which sounds a little redundant anyway. I have simplified the statement in the lead regarding celebrations.

I've added a {{request quotation}} template "one in seven", which is not clearly supported by the source provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't meant to imply disbelief that the GBJW is based in Brooklyn (in 2011); I had removed the factoid only from the lede (leaving it intact in the body at Jehovah's_Witnesses#Organization) because it seems not lede-worthy and entirely superfluous in the lede. Stating world headquarters to be based in Brooklyn is one thing; insisting that the lede enumerate the location of the committee leading the world headquarters seems pedantic (IMHO). I still feel it's unnecessary to stuff the lede with such a detail, but feel it's unworthy of my time to argue the point.

I see my other edits above have essentially survived. I still hope to find time to address Jehovah's_Witnesses#Background (1870–1916), which still hides Russell's intentional establishment of a religious rather than merely publishing organization.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unrepentantly practice

About four months ago, an editor added this sentence:

"Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness"."

The quote from the cited ref shows several sentences (technically, two paragraphs though I've here removed both paragraph breaks) separating the loaded phrase "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" and 'disassociated or disfellowshipped ones':

"However, he [God] will reject those who unrepentantly practice lawlessness, saying: “Get away from me.” (Matt. 7:21-23) Why such a judgment? Because such individuals dishonor God and cause harm to others by their lawless practices. God’s Word commands that unrepentant sinners be removed from the congregation. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.) This is necessary for at least three reasons: (1) to keep Jehovah’s name free from reproach, (2) to protect the congregation from contamination, and (3) to help the sinner come to repentance if possible. 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?"

A previous Talk discussion of the matter here focussed on whether disfellowshipped and disassociated could be lumped together, which was never my point. Instead, the newly-added idea is plainly WP:SYNTH because the references don't imply and JWs do not assume that an expelled person forever continues to "unrepentantly practice" sin (or sin's infrequent and loaded theological synonym "lawlessness"; incidentally, I couldn't find any JW publication which ever put "lawless-" in the same PARAGRAPH as "disassociat-"). The evidence is that JW publications explicitly note no human certainty regarding the condition of disfellowshipped or disassociated persons; note this:

The Watchtower, December 1, 2001, pages 30-31, "Does this mean that all who are expelled from the Christian congregation for sinning unrepentantly have committed sins that “incur death”...? This would not necessarily be the case because in some instances such transgressions are not sins that incur death. In fact, it is difficult to tell if they are. ...Thus, we should not jump to the conclusion that a person must be guilty of sin that incurs death solely because he is expelled from the congregation. It may take time for the true heart condition of the individual to be revealed. ...Since the [expelled] person is no longer in the congregation, any change in heart and attitude may be observed first by those close to him, such as a marriage mate or family members. Those observing such changes may conclude that the transgressor did not commit a sin that incurs death. ...While some may be in a position to observe sufficient evidence to believe that the sinner has repented, this may not be the case with the congregation in general."

Thus, the recently-inserted example of WP:SYNTH has been removed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue of whether disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are deemed to be continuing forever to practise lawlessness or whether JWs think this merits their death is irrelevant. The paragraphs and the question, as discussed here, are plain enough and without synthesis. In the context of a tightly-focused discussion, paragraph 18 of the article reads: "By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or disassociated one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome." Review question for that paragraph reads: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" The descriptions are clearly synonymous. In the case of a person who has chosen to resign membership of the religion, it is their resignation that is deemed to be a sin, or act of lawlessness. There's no hint of any other reason to direct that JWs "hate" that decision and thus shun the person. At the end of that previous lengthy discussion there was no consensus to remove the statement. BlackCab (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be correct to say "Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals who have no intention to return to the congregation are considered to unrepentantly practice lawlessness". Also "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" may be applicable at the time of disfellowshipping. However as user:AuthorityTam pointed out JWs do not assume that an expelled person forever continues to "unrepentantly practice" sin. I think its a good practice to compare other publication of WT society when a single source is disputed for WP:SYNTH.--Fazilfazil (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fazilfazil, it is of no value to speculate about possible alternative meanings of a clear statement; what the WTS might have meant or how it might have expressed the view of the Governing Body. Neither the WT article nor the Wikipedia article deals with future, or long-term, treatment of people who are expelled from, or decide to resign from, the religion. The WT article simple uses synonyms to equate the behavior of a disfellowshipped or disassociated person with lawlessness. The Wikipedia article then states that published view. BlackCab (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed the case that individuals who are expelled are shunned unless eventually 'reinstated', suggesting that their 'practice of lawlessness'—by the very nature of having left—continues until such reinstatement, however the suggestion that such individuals 'continue' practicing lawlessness in the objection above is a red herring, because the article makes no such claim. The source material ('paragraph 18 and its review question') very clearly correlates "disfellowshipped and disassociated" with "practicer of lawlessness"; there is nothing ambiguous or 'synthesised' in regard to the connection. "whether disfellowshipped and disassociated could be lumped together" is also irrelevant because the source material explicitly refers to both.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I am not endorsing nor opposing the statement.--Fazilfazil (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, JW publications explicitly state that a person must be repentant before he can be reinstated; ergo by definition some disfellowshipped/ disassociated persons are 'repentantly practicing non-lawlessness' (or specifically NOT "unrepentantly practicing lawlessness").
JWs do not shun a former member because they know him to be currently practicing lawlessless but because they know he was found to have unrepentantly sinned and has not yet been reinstated. At the time his disfellowshipping or disassociation is announced, he is considered (at that time, by JWs) to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". But—almost immediately thereafter—it becomes inappropriate to say that JWs believe a disfellowshipped/ disassociated person is (rather than was) "unrepentantly practic[ing] lawlessness". If the interpretation of BlackCab and Jeffro77 is so iron-clad, why is only one single solitary reference cited for this supposedly article-worthy belief? I have edited 'Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".' to read 'Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to have "unrepentantly practice[d] lawlessness".' --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we now agree that the WT article does dictate that a person who formally resigned from the religion is to be regarded as someone who committed a lawless act, and that unless they "repent" and return, shunning by their family, friends and former acquaintances is an appropriate response.

A complicating factor in your argument, though, is the subhead on Page 31 of the Feb 15, 2011 WT: "Adopt Jesus' view of those who love lawlessness." The use of present tense there indicates that the subsequent discussion of how to treat disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals is based on their current status and assumes the "attitudes and actions that led to that outcome" remain. In fact, in the case of a person who quit because they disagreed with a doctrine, they would be deemed to be still "practicing lawlessness" unless they "repented" and returned. Question 18,19 (a) also uses the present tense and could be deemed to assume that a person who resigned is still lawless: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" Though the use of past tense in the sentence you changed may be accurate in cases of disfellowshipping over dishonesty, immorality and certain other behaviors, it is wrong in the case of people who are disfellowshipped for apostasy (which will probably involve ongoing disagreement with a doctrine), and it is also wrong in the case of disassociated individuals. The writers of the Watchtower article know that, and therefore used the present tense in the relevant subhead. BlackCab (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"one single solitary"???—it's the holy redundant trinity! Anyway... JWs are shunned until their reinstatement, not at some arbitrary point prior to reinstatement; and they are reportedly shunned because JWs are supposedly to 'avoid lawlessness'. If those shunned are no longer 'unrepentantly practicing lawlessness', then there's no [JW] 'reason' to continue shunning them. If your position were correct, JWs would be 'allowed' to associate with those 'progressing' toward 'reinstatement'—if such is not the case, then your position is incorrect.

I did not add the phrase to the article, and I don't think it's absolutely essential to include it. But if it is in the article, I will certainly ensure that it is presented in a manner consistent with the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The word 'practice' indicates ongoing action. It doesn't make sense to interpret the source article as meaning that the expelled person did 'practice' lawlessness in a single instance that resulted in their expulsion. The intent of the source material is clearly to indicate that expelled individuals continue to be 'practicers of lawlessness'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The two editors above interpret contrary to the plain meaning of the cited article, differently than seems intended by JWs, and with an interpretation unsupported from decades of available Watch Tower references. If the notable beliefs of JWs include this (that is, all expelled individuals continue to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness"), then the notable belief should be significantly better sourced than a tortured interpretation of a single article. The JW state of 'disfellowshipping' or 'disassociation' would continues until 'reinstatement' is requested and granted; by contrast, a 'disfellowshipped' or 'disassociated' person quite possibly could be repentant (that is, not unrepentant) for the entire duration of his disfellowshipping or disassociation, but he would not be reinstated without a request.
As a parallel point, Christians in general accept that all humans are sinners (James 3:2, 1John 1:8–9); thus since the Bible itself explicitly equates "sin" and "lawlessness" (eg 1 John 3:4), the latter term only seems notable. The term "lawlessness" is not notable in this context.

• NIV: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
• ESV: Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
• NASB: Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
• ASV: Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
• Darby:Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
• ERV: Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness.
• WEB: Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.
• YLT: Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness
• NWT: Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness, and so sin is lawlessness.

Since JWs (indeed all Christians) believe that all humans are sinners, the matter becomes one of degrees; a faithful Christian is a sinner, and a purple Christian, a tall Christian, or an expelled Christian is a sinner (according to Christianity in general). Plainly stated, JWs do not teach that every disfellowshipped/ disassociated person remains forever unrepentant. The matter is so clear that I have no doubt how it would be resolved if escalated. Again, it is wrong to insist that: Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". If the sentence is to remain, its wording should be less influenced by editors' opinions about JW theology. Until then, I've removed it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is quite disingenuous and you are grasping at straws. Yes, the article was about "lawlessness", yes, the article does cite the Bible text equating sin with lawlessness and yes, conventional Christian doctrine is that all Christians are inherently sinners. However the article warns JWs about a few narrow areas of what it calls "wicked" and "bad" conduct: heavy drinking, occult practices, immorality, pornography and ... contact with people who have quit or been expelled from the religion. Your argument that since all Christians are sinners (practicers of lawlessness) there is no notability in decribing DFd and DAs JWs as "practicers of lawlessness" renders the point of the article meaningless. A 1952 WT (March 1) referred to the expulsion of "lawless" people; the Feb 15, 2011 WT simply escalates the rhetoric to ensure that those who quit the religion are also demonised and shunned. BlackCab (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems a lot like WP:SYNTH to get to that conclusion. I'd appreciate if editors think on this a bit more. JWs do not insist that a disfellowshipped / disassociated person is (by definition) forever unrepentant. If an editor believes that is true and notable, he should provide better references. I hesitate to escalate this matter primarily because it will take time! --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's you, not I, who is introducing the issue of whether they are forever unrepentant. The article discusses current activity ("practicers of lawlessness") rather than future activity. The article directs Witnesses to shun DFd and DAd persons because those people are deemed to be bad and wicked. BlackCab (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

An editor felt it necessary to move additional comments to a new section at Talk:JWs#"Unrepentantly practice" revisited (or try #"Unrepentantly practice" revisited).--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Asides to 'Unrepentantly practice'

I agree with you that terms like "Unrepentantly practice", "practicers of lawlessness", etc. were primarily intended about disfellowshipped and disassocited, including those who formally leave. However, I am not sure if WTBTS think all former members are doers of lawlessness forever, until they will die (their death) or until coming back to congregation with repentant attitude. I don´t know if this is intended in such sense. February 2011 Watchtower just says what is in harmony with clear logic and is reasonably expected. Imagine that absurd situation when an apostate (for some reason) voluntarily leaves before that elders could expelled him/her. Is it normal to expect that such people are still ´good´'and ´well-minded with relation to God´? Of course, not. They are same sort of apostates, perhaps even worse, because they renounce their faith and betray all, Jehovah, Jesus, congregation co-believers. Is it normal deem these people as still accepted persons or even friends and members? They have to be shunned with even stronger contempt than normally. Surprise is only such article was not released until 2011. A catastrophic. How much people could misuse this liberal rule before? As a result, I don´t contest validity of those terms in the article. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

to BlackCab, ---- cited ---- "and yes, conventional Christian doctrine is that all Christians are inherently sinners.". ---- No! That is hardly wrong. Christian teaching according to the Bible is all Adam´s offspring (7 billion of his seed recently live in the world) ((7 x 10⁹)) is unperfect, because of first sin are all people (includes non-believers, other religions members, christians itself) unperfect (state of imperfection) and due that people do errors, and things like aging and dying. All mankinds is under slavery of ´sin´. Sin does not mean something what man could change. It is genetically degenerated seed. Sin is congenital defect of all people. Like genetically determined error with 100 % of people have that error (in body, in brain, in soul, etc.). 2nd sense of word "sins" means intentional wrong doing to own or to others. Just breaking rules, which Bible clearly stated as laws. Not only advices or recommendations. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, this is not the place discuss whether JW doctrine is correct or incorrect, so therefore a discussion on whether it is right or wrong to shun some people ("They have to be shunned with even stronger contempt than normally") is inappropriate here. And you have completely misunderstood my point about inherent sin. I am not disputing the point. But I'm glad you accept the truthfulness of the one-sentence statement in the article. So far it remains one user, AuthorityTam, who disputes the issue by introducing straw man arguments about "forever unrepentant". The subject barely requires further discussion. BlackCab (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote it on purpose to upset you. :)) As joke for someone who catch it, you know. I could be very well in POV statements if I would like to. :)) Take it easy. What about reaction to other sentences, please? You claimed, for example, only christians are inherently sinners, what I stated above as wrong. And what about sentences "all former members are doers of lawlessness forever, ....". Should be stated in article this disputed meaning. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't state that "only Christians are inherent sinners". I acknowledged that it is a common church doctrine that all Christians are sinners. And your challenge about "former members are doers of lawlessness forever" is an act of stupidity that I presume is similarly designed to be provocative. If you have sensible and constructive comments to make, do so. Otherwise don't bother. BlackCab (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, please be aware of the behavioral guideline: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please contribute positively to the discussion or remain silent. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to stir up the discussion again, but isn't our current text backwards? Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" - I thought it was the other way around: people are disfellowshipped because the elders (and/or the congregation?) believe that they "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". That's what the WTS quotes seem to say, anyways. It makes sense to say that only those who continue to be considered "unrepentant" are inelegible for reintegration, while those who stop their "unrepentant" ways are permitted back in. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It may sound backwards, but it's an accurate representation of their teaching. Someone who, for example, rejects a core teaching of the JWs and is thus brought before a judicial committee, or someone who chooses to write a letter of resignation, is described in The Watchtower as a practicer of lawlessness. Witnesses are told they must have no dealings with, or conversation with, that person because they are (not just were) therefore a wicked person. The magazine could have given as a reason that they committed a wrong act by disassociating, but chose instead to refer to them as "practicer of lawlessness" who warrants ongoing shunning. The shunning process can be lifted if a person later "repents" of a sin or, presumably regrets resigning and seeks readmission. BlackCab (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@BlackCab: You seem to heavy nervous today. I suppose your motives are not bad, but your uncivil response, with even rejecting answer for my 2 points I mentioned in my last comment, is quite disappointing. You, again, said all Christians are sinners, but this is wrong. NOT ONLY them are sinners. Read it carefully again what really christian teaching is, as in my previous comment as well. You just were feisty and not taking it easy. I apologize if you not catch it as I intended. My second point was referring to the sentence including text from my previous contribution, from which I partially! cited. I suggest you help with Ctrl+F and find such text including related sentences. You probably find my comment in reverse sense, than you realized. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Answer from BlackCab here.... hopefully

No, the response below is clearly indicated as my response, not an "answer from BlackCab". Do not falsely attribute statements to other editors. ("hopefully" was only added above later[1].)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

<blockquote>Answer from BlackCab....</blockquote> was intended to show where BlackCab could answer for my comment and finally resolve last 2 issues I mentioned. // Please do not join discussion parts, when is not appropriate to have them joined, because they dealing with non-coherent issues. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I will join any discussion at Talk pages as I see fit. Additionally, the placement of your comment was as if to introduce a comment made by me. Do not blame me for the poor placement of your comments. If BlackCab wants to respond to something you've written, he will do so, and does not require your solicitation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Another uncivility. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was direct, but not uncivil. You are achieving nothing. Please restrict your comments to discussion of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying "all Christians are sinners" is not a claim that only Christian are sinners. This is basic set theory. Additionally, BlackCab explicitly stated, I didn't state that "only Christians are inherent sinners".--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But in another comment he again repeat the same wrong understanding. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not falsely claim editors have contradicted themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested to continue this endless talk. Thanks for understandings. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article status

This article have made a remarkable improvement since the last peer-review. I think it owes at least a good article status. What do other editors think about it? Between I don't know the procedure for nomination :)--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

done nomination--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fazilfazil, I saw that and your suggestion is very kind. I have my own view on this propose, but wouldn´t like to prejudice reviewers result. No one of "WP:JW project members", who are "reviewers" concurrently should review this. (some of most active WP:JW members are reviewers) Wikipedia:Reviewing, Wikipedia:Peer review. Thx for an idea. --FaktneviM (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is indeed in better condition than I've ever seen in the past. For example, as some may recall, I once wasted a great deal of effort trying to find the original source of the 1975 prediction when it was already cited, because that most relevant citation in the whole paragraph was so corrupted with irrelevant information that I didn't recognize its relevance. When I discovered that, I got so fed up that I left it for someone else fix, for which I now apologize. I'm glad to see that someone has finally corrected that citation, and that the current statements about the 1975 issue are much more concise and coherent!

However, during my attempts to find the original source, what I found instead were several statements from the Watch Tower Society, from 1966 through 1975, that they did know when Armageddon would happen, and some statements forbidding the membership to predict anything would happen by 1975. (Disobedience to this prohibition appears to have been rampant, or at least received great publicity.) Complete absence of this information continues to give the paragraph about 1975 a biased POV. Is this a good time to correct this?

I also find it ironic that although the Wikipedia article on shunning observes that the word is a pejorative term, articles such as this seem to have no qualms about using this word almost exclusively in place of terms preferred by each religion to indicate its specific practices. However, I doubt that this irony isn't going to be resolved by work on this article, but would require considering Wikipedia's treatment of the word as a whole. Downstrike (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the draft version of edits to that section on your talk page is current, but I would offer two points of criticism if you are still working on it: (a) It is far too long for inclusion in the JW article (the 1975 embarrassment may actually warrant a Wikipedia article of its own where the issue could be explored in greater depth) and (b) your edit reads like an apologetic. It has a very defensive tone and therefore casts its own point of view. Your comments re shunning are interesting, but are based on an article written largely without sources cited. Jehovah's Witnesses are, without dispute, directed to shun certain individuals and the term is used by non-Witness authors. The JW publications may try to soften the blow with their own language "disfellowshipping", but the effect and intention of that practice is clear. BlackCab (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Disfellowshipping means withdrawal of the community. An individual could be disfellowshipped from the community of coo-believers and from the church. This practice is really common in most of Christian churches, Judaism, Islam, many other religions, including dangerous sects or cults, in which shunning is practiced with much harder and cruel form, than in JW and other Christian churches. // Several other problems within JW related topics is perhaps due emotional interested editors to the topic. (for example bad experience like disfellowshipping took wiki-editors to write rather bad-biased sentences and searching exclusively for bad-sources and references which are rather critical. Despite good endurance are rather negative-biased articles here. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I abandoned that project in March 2010, and probably should have deleted it. However, I find myself wishing there was a way that I could memorialize it - and all the revisions I put it through and all the the critique that Jeffro contributed - as an example of wasted effort that can result when WP editors try to make sense of sloppy work done by previous editors.

The Shunning article is indeed another example of sloppy work - and at least 3 years of neglect. Even so, this article links to that one, and that article does explain some very different religious practices that are frequently stereotyped as "shunning", and identifies which religions practice them. I'm suggesting on its Talk page that it be merged into Excommunication, which article shows much better work.

Would you write anything less biased? Your tone is just as critical as mine was defensive. However, I was working in reaction to what appeared to be unsourced POV in the article, because up until my very last item of my research, everything I found showed the 1975 prediction to be a product of inept journalism by the news media. I did find enough sourced material that I could have written an entire article about the 1975 issue, but I'm trying to achieve NPOV, not to dig up the past or be critical of the news media. Downstrike (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

'Shun' is the correct generic term; it is used accurately in the article, it is used in other reliable sources, and the term is also occasionally used (in this context) in JW literature. Though the specific term used by the group should be (and is) provided in the article, there is no reason to exclusively employ the jargon term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The term shunning means that someone is ignored, not spoken to. Disfellowshipped JW are treatet like that. The Witnesses do not greet them. BUT, if there would be any need for help, (nursing, feeding, help out with personal finance, or working as colleagues) than the Witnesses do talk to them, but just about the basic needs or about the job. That does not fall under the term Shunning.

Disfellowshiping means (At least on what the witnesses self understand) that do not socially gather, and talk with eachother in terms of friendship.

In all cases where someone gets disfellowshipped, witnesses will not greet them, sit down with them. If a DFS is in need, he/she approaches the elders, who can point out members to help, or family members can help out with some basic personal need (Finances, Health care, or in case of dissasters, building houses again, etc. Black Cab, being an EX-JW can vouch for this. I myself have worked along side with a DSF JW. We didn't lunch together, but we discussed our work on daily bases. That is allowed. But I would not greet him on the streets.

The reason is this.. The DSF JW has done something which was against the rules of the bible or the society. He therefore gets punished.

Like a child at school, who had to stand in the corner, faced to the wall. Why? Otherwise the others would get the Idea that it is okay to do something wrong. But when he falls, he would be helped up again. This is the principle which has been practised long before Jehovah's Witnesses existed.

Shunning is something else. A member of a community, who gets expelled, is neither helped, or spoken to. The community turns their back at this expelled person. The meaning of the word Shunning and Disfellowshipping are quite simular. Never the less, there are differences.

I leave it up to you, I am a witness, and therefore deemed to be POV, but I hope that my explanation gives a bit of the Nuance as I feel that shunning is not quite correct. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 09:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Another special fact is that former JW could "come back". And, for those, who are recently disfellowshipped are no "hard restrictions". Disfelowshipped person still could attend to congregation meetings, read books and magazines in congregation´s library or visit congress, and etc. // The only restrictions for former members are forbid of "public" comments within regular congregation meetings, forbid of public preaching service (((together with other JW, //.... He/She could still preach alone without allowance from organization))). Disfellowshipping is rather term for "lost friends" and "lost of superb privileges". In sense of JW religion practice is disfellowshipping "only very little worse situation", than has non-believers. ((non-believers and purely new visitors could do their public comments in the JW attendance). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite Rodejong's irrelevant apologetics regarding the JW implementation of shunning—and his no true Scotsman fallacy about his opinion of 'real' shunning— JW literature explicitly refers to their practice of "shunning".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not dispute wording. I dispute definition and weasel words in relevant shunning articles. Disfellowshipping (or Shunning) is in the case of JW religion different. There is no kill. No forbid of all communication. No lost of all rights. JW shunning is not such asi it stated in relevant articles. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a distorted opinion about what 'shunning' is. JWs practice a form of shunning, and it is accurately described in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Statements like those from me (in this talk section - about "what is shunning in reality") are not there. There is only information that difellowshipped person could come back to congregation if elders will see repentant. No other "positive", even "objective" information are there. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A person being required to 'repent' for a 'sin' (such as not accepting JW doctrines) so they can avoid being shunned by their family and 'friends' is little more than emotional blackmail. Your claim that 'JW shunning' is "only very little worse situation" is clearly not neutral. You are quite correct that your comments are not "objective". But you don't seem to be suggesting any actual change to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I said that current state of sections about shunning (across whole Wikipedia) are not objective. Do not reverse sense of last response. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are disputing how the topic of shunning is covered at other articles, discuss at the relevant Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize again. I didn't mean to start an argument. After reading this one, I'm still sure that this issue won't be resolved by work on this article, or any other single article. The issue isn't about whether "shunning" is the correct word, or whether this religion or that one uses the word, but about how that word is perceived in popular usage, and the stereotyping for which it is manipulated by the same sort of propagandists who scold us for calling this religion or that one, "Christian", or simply vandalize articles with their opinion. Their purpose for the word "shunning", is to make sure that everyone "knows" that all minority religions:

• Require members of a family to alienate a shunned member, forcing him out of the home.
• Require members of a community to refuse to do business with a shunned member, depriving him of the means of life, forcing him out of the community.
• Shun members who did not join the religion of their own will, or join without first learning the religion's requirements or the consequences of failing to meet them.
• Shun members with no opportunity to appeal.
• Shun members who simply stop participating in that religion.

Does ANY religion practice ALL of that? I suppose; is Bigotry a religion? Downstrike (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

All minority religions don't do those things. The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses, however, directs that members do many of those things. The article notes that "disfellowshipping" is the ultimate sanction for those who breach organisational and moral requirements, and it is indisputable that the intention of "disfellowshipping" is that members cease almost all contact with those individuals, not even greeting or acknowledging those people. That is, they shun them. The article also notes, with fairness and balance, that critics and sociologists have noted that in a religion that urges members to reduce their circle of friends to only other members, the consequences of being shunned by friends, acquaintances and (as much as it is possible) by family can be traumatic. The fear of being shunned then, serves as a powerful tool to ensure obedience and discourage defection. If you're suggesting a conspiracy by "propagandists" to taint Jehovah's Witnesses on this article because of their shunning policy, you'll have to come up with better evidence. This article discusses the disciplinary policies of only one religion and makes no comparison with other religions. BlackCab (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Downstrike here uses an association fallacy to attempt to negatively characterise those who correctly employ the word 'shunning'. Whilst it is true that Wikipedia should avoid contentious terms ("unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"), the term shun is not only the correct term, but the term is also used in JW and third-party sources. Additionally, jargon terms such as 'disfellowship' should not be used exclusively because the term is then being used as a euphemism to avoid the more 'uncomfortable' word shun. The same Wikipedia page that says to avoid contentious terms also says to avoid euphemisms. It probably comforts those who shun former members of their religion to say that there are other groups (you know, those 'crazy' groups) who practice more extreme forms of shunning, because it minimises the perceived impact of their own behaviour.

To be clear on the JW attitude toward 'disfellowshipped'...

• The Watchtower 15 November 1952: "Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof."
• An article in the 15 April 1988 Watchtower (which deals specifically with JWs' legal right in the US of "shunning" former members) stated, "Cutting off from the Christian congregation does not involve immediate death, so family ties continue. Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped or who disassociates himself may still live at home with his Christian wife and faithful children. ... The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum".
• The Watchtower, 1 November 1994: "For a [JW] to “quit mixing in company” with a close friend or relative who has been disfellowshipped can be a real test. In such a case, it is important that one not give in to feelings of pity."

Ironically, the July 2009 Awake! stated, in an article about people who face family opposition for becoming JWs, that "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro, I have not, and will not suggest that an article on any religion exclusively use the term that religion prefers. What I find ironic is that such articles almost exclusively use a term, about which the WP article for that term observes that it is a pejorative term. Some kind of balance would be appropriate.

Considering that LDS, 7DA, Christadelphians, Churches of God, some Pentecostals, and various minority religions use "disfellowship", I'm not sure why you call it "jargon". Downstrike (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The jargon term disfellowship as used by LDS (and some of the others you've listed) is an entirely different meaning to the term used by JWs. They do not employ it to refer to systematic shunning, for which they use the term excommunication. The LDS jargon term disfellowship is similar to what JWs call restrictions. Such ambiguity demonstrates further that it is better to use the generic term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I am not able to see any ´real´ difference in those terms. Shunning, Disfellowshiping, Excommunication, are clear synonyms in most of existing religions. Especially in sense of JW, all 3 terms lead members to same ´results´ in access to former-members. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I just said above that the other religions mentioned above do not use the term "disfellowship" to refer to shunning. It is not possible to make it any clearer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. // Is there any reason have 3 wiki articles? How about merging? // Is there specific reason to use term "shunning" in case of JW, while disfellowshiping is more accurate and comprehensible? // Those terms simply mean all the same. = Dismissal of communion with coo-believers. That´s all. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the term disfellowship is used quite differently by other groups, it is clearly not more comprehensible to use that term in a general sense. Most religions that excommunicate don't shun. The context of communion is different among various religious groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the Shunning article that the term is used as a pejorative is unsourced, as is much of the article. Additionally, Wikipedia articles cannot be used a source for other Wikipedia articles. Much of the article you refer to needs to be rewritten and properly sourced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and you and I already discuss that on that article's talk page. Downstrike (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

BlackCab, if I were suggesting that the use of "shunning" reflected a conspiracy in this article, I would stop saying that the issue isn't going to be resolved by work on this article. However, thank you for asserting that Jehovah's Witnesses practice many of the things I listed. Downstrike (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are not suggesting a problem regarding the use of "shunning" in this article, then you are at the wrong Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's still ironic, and could be relevant to whether this article obtains "Good" status. That's what this section is about. However, there may very well be considerable irrelevant discussion in this section. Downstrike (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not second-guess the reviewers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifying Jehovah's True Words!

Would it be alright to submit in chronological order the print by print verification from the source themselves perhaps from 1870's til' present all of which is in dispute? No one should dispute that it would be a tell all experience! --Newbndreamz (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Verification of what? The article is already comprehensively sourced, so you'll have to explain more what your intention is. It's also unclear whether you're employing sarcasm in referring to "Jehovah's true words", but Watch Tower publications were all written by humans, without any evidence of divine inspiration. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I read it as requesting whether or not it would be proper to give a chronological listing of the doctrinal contradictions and changes from the days of Russell to the present time. (e.g. a "truth" from 1917 was subsequently called "false doctrine" in 1935). I would suggest that this would not be proper because it would be highly subjective, and violate neutrality. We aren't trying to demonstrate whether JWs are a true or false religion, nor that their doctrines are valid or invalid. There are already articles on the development of their doctrines, and there is a detailed outline of the administrative and doctrinal changes instituted between 1917-1942 in the JFR article. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! ("truth" from 1917 was subsequently called "false doctrine" in 1935") Many times I read specific claims from "Bible Students´s era" and from "JW´s era", that believers recognize their beliefs as "present truth". (e.g. book "Jehovah´s Witnesses - Proclaimers of God´s Kingdom" explicitly cited some of such claims). Many knows that doctrines could changes in future. Those sincere ones did not apostate in hard times. Those lofty and foolish one rather fully stop their believe in God and Christ. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

'sincere'? 'foolish'? All very subjective, and nothing to do with article content. This is not a forum!--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You react neither to Newbndreamz´s ask, nor mine and Pastorrussell´s confirmation about "present truth" views, Instead of it, you are feisty and react to less significant end of the sentence. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing what Newbndreamz is requesting, any discussion here is pointless. BlackCab (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Newbndreamz´s request is very hard to understand. (Even for me!). Pastorrussell and me think he request chronological order of doctrine changes since the very early beginning to nowadays. Phrases like "present truth", "present light", "present understandings", which they changed over time specifically assume that no people (even with divine leading) can´t know right it all. Understandings is changing and is still better. But not perfect and probably contains some faults. Due this reason is chronology needed, because "previous truth" is not relevant to nowadays teaching. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The claim that JWs' current teachings are 'better' than previous ones is subjective and irrelevant.

Chronological discussion of JW beliefs is dealt with at History of Jehovah's Witnesses, development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The request is simple. What did Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a period of time ?

Make a chronic time line with what doctrines changed through the years.

I suggest that it is written in a separate article, like Timeline of doctrine changes of the Jehovah's Witnesses or something similar. He want's to use the old publications as sources for that time line.--Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 01:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The information is already contained in Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine#Timeline of doctrinal changes and the preceding section of that article dealing with Russell's initial millennialist teachings. BlackCab (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Friendly communication requested

I've tried to read back the talk page.. How about quitting to batter your co-writers, and start talking friendly?

I gave my opinion in a friendly way, and although you may not agree with me, show some respect. I don't trash your comments in to the ground, and neither do I have to accept that my comments are treated the same way.

But it is very obvious that some people here like to set the moral standard, which I will label as Fanatic. It's often suggested that Jehovah's Witnesses are Fanatics, and that is everyone's good right, but when I read the messages here on this talk page, than I can only come to the conclusion that the Fanatics are those who keep battering others, with I am right, and You are wrong. Such a childish way to communicate.

I request a pause for all to settle down, and find a way to be friendly while disagreeing. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 01:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all you just described. However, your and mine request probably couldn´t be satisfied (at least fully) because of this 2 Cor 6:14-18. It does mean very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that. Some kind of balance, however, would be appropriate. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem which you described is perhaps more deep inside. Not only about content of discussion, but due the fact the major editor is fanatic non-believer and if we sometimes touch with some believer meaning (like argue with Bible verses or mentioning something about most important beliefs), he just kill the talk with saying that is "irrelevant" or "take you off" - mostly to other talk page. He, as an atheist, is very useful in most of cases (((and we are glad to have him in our project))), especially with editing controversial religious topics. When you want to have really good article, meaning fully objective (not rather negative-biased), however, this cause problem. Dominance and control over articles lead to sort of censorship with no chance to have better (less-biased) topics. I don´t know if other former JW editors have some rest of faith or not, but generally saying, disfellowshipping articles were written by disfellowshipped JW. That is surely not ideal. Jehovah´s witnesses outside of Wiki who read Wikipedia see this bad-biased situation here, but they can´t "break the wall" in our project to change it. // For easing of it read this. {{WP:HUMOR}} --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Love to all :)

In regard to the statement above: "However, your and mine request probably couldn´t be satisfied (at least fully) because of this 2 Cor 6:14-18. It does mean very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that." This very biased demonstration of bad faith is quite disappointing. Please leave your religious bias at the door and focus on facts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your typical response! You don´t even accept some problems exist. You just "trash out our comments in to the ground" as Rodejong quite preciously described. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC) With love from my side

If someone claims that 2 + 2 = 5, I'm not going to say "well isn't that a nice opinion," I'm going to say, "well, no, that's wrong." If someone says 2 + 2 = 4, I'm not going to say "Oh, you're a great person, thanks for saying that," because the statement is obviously correct and doesn't need my endorsement. If you believe that JWs can't have a reasonable exchange of ideas with "unbelievers" because of your own assumption of bad faith, well that's your problem. It was you who compared non-JW editors to 'lawlessness, darkness, and Belial' in contrast to the JW editors as 'righteousness, light, and Christ[-like]' (1 Corinthians 6:14-15). So, again, please leave your religious bias at the door.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not interpret all people are bad and have bad motives. Such interpreting would be wrong. I have many relationships with people, who are non-believers. Moreover, I communicate with other beliefs people. However, as a statistic result (in math sense), values of those ´friends´ are often hugely differ from mine. Relationship could continue with them, but can´t be so deep. If you look to my user page, common sense (2+2=4) is one of my most important viewpoints. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop misinterpret what I´d like to intent. No righteousness and lawlessness was thought by me. I just simply stated a fact, that full understandings between us is not able. I do not say, you are evil or whatever you maybe think about I think of you. Stop be feisty and emotional, please. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have close friendships with people who have very different religious and philosophical beliefs to myself. I feel sorry for you for your belief that whilst you may have distant relationships with other people, that "very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope" just because they don't accept your religious beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First sentence answer = Me too. // Last sentence answer = I don´t think so, but statistics is clear. // Closest relationships are not based only on e.g same sport-interests, sexual attraction, social interactions or long-terming relationships e.g. from schools and works. These all could continue, (if is there both-sided interest for), but are they really close? No! It´s only public greetings, few words, talking about life-experiences in a pub with drinking beer, and some others person who I met within philosophy, education, sport-based relations, etc. Question is, if (you and me) considering those people as "friends". I think they are rather "acquaintances". Friendship is not depending on belief or non-belief of each other, but if other one share your values (e.g. beliefs - but not only), chance for long-lasting friendship is higher. Other relationships are firm in rare cases, indeed. That´s not bias, it´s only a statement of fact according statistics. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Friendships that are conditional on sharing certain beliefs are tenuous and easy to lose if beliefs change. Real friendships are not so fragile. Which statistics?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My own personal stats from my life ( = experience = empiric science ). Your appendix is also wise and truthful. I suggest we should stop talking about terms like friendship and do something for GA status (Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Suggestions for cleanup pre GA Review). :)) --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Subjective personal opinion is not "statistics", and citing them as such is misleading. I've commented in this section based on the context in which this section was started. However, I have also responded in the other section about changes required for GA status.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have re-read the current talk page. I see a robust discussion; I don't see anyone trashing anyone else and I don't see incivility. User: FaktneviM claims disfellowshipping articles were written by disfellowshipped JW. That is surely not ideal. Jehovah´s witnesses outside of Wiki who read Wikipedia see this bad-biased situation here, but they can´t "break the wall" in our project to change it. I don't know which "disfellowshipped JW" he refers to and I don't see that a person's status within or outside the organisation has any bearing on their work as an editor. Wikipedia has clear policies on balance, sources and accuracy. I have butted heads in the past with JWs who edit this article because they don't accept the basic rules of Wikipedia about verifiable sources. Many come from an unfortunate situation in which they live within an organisation where information is tightly controlled, so they have a very narrow, blinkered outlook. Many of those JW editors have since quit editing, in a couple of cases asserting that God is somehow controlling the content here and "permitting" falsehood as a witness to the nations.

The current hot topic here is coverage of Watchtower dictates on shunning people who have been expelled, or formally resigned from, the religion. The subject can adequately be covered with the multiplicity of sources available, including those from the Watchtower and non-JW academics. I'd contend that the article is so far accurate and balanced. If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to bring additional sources to the discussion page. In the meantime, speculation about the motives of editors is unhelpful. Please stick to content. BlackCab (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thx for your insight as well. You expressed situation much better than I was able to. However, I disagree with statements like blinkered outlook, dictates, tightly controlled information, unfortunate situation and similar ongoing weasel words, which are unlikely and impossible in 2011. I am not interested to comment that at all, but I feel it as unfair.
• I am just curious. If you were not disfellowshipped, you probably "formally leave". ?
• I don´t know what rules are applied for those formally leaving. They have perhaps same status as "people from world". (better than those excommunicated). ?
• I used that Bible verse to prove that deep relationship with non-co-believers could be potentially dangerous. Not because organization said so, but because Bible itself guide us in such cases. However, this shouldn´t be taken dogmatic and literally. (in 1 Cor 5:9-13 is clearly stated in verse 10 that shunning is relative! Can´t be absolute! <blockquote>Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world.</blockquote> (= Which is not able = leave out the world in absolute sense). Should be also stated that another type of access is also practiced to "inactive" and "irregular" publishers (both terms are differ). They are not considered as "apostates" and are not dissfellowshipped if there is not other huge rationale for that. ?
• Much more information about how to access with disfellowshipped members is in other sources. Did you also checked "Organized to Do Jehovah's Will", "Shepherd the Flock of God", "The Watchtower - Study Edition", "Our Kingdom Ministry bulletins", etc. whereas are continuously written new attitudes ?

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How I left the Jehovah's Witnesses has no bearing on this article. The issue of how those who formally leave, that is announce verbally or in writing that they no longer wish to be members of the religion ("disassociation" in the JW jargon), is contained in the article. The WTS directs that such individuals "practice lawlessness" and therefore are to be shunned. They are not treated as "people of the world", they are treated as worse, and therefore must not even be greeted or acknowledged by friends and congregation members and, as far as is possible, by family members. Your use of Bible verses to indicate your views isn't welcome or appropriate on this talk page. This is a secular encyclopedia and your use of Watchtower interpretations of scriptures in explaining your thinking is irrelevant. BlackCab (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I used scriptures with my own understanding of those verses. My interpretation could be, and in many cases probably is, likely rebellious and often innovatory attitude in meaning.

Is the Bible irrelevant source for you?

Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you all are getting a little off topic here. As noted at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jehovah's Witnesses article." Let's stick to discussing article edits. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of scriptures

In other words, Is Bible verse reliable source as reference or at least note for explaining beliefs and practices of JW? Could be Bible (or several other ´sacred texts´) used in religious articles like this? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bible is considered a primary source and should be used with care on Wikipedia because it can be interpreted in many ways. I recommend you find a secondary source that can explain the beliefs and practices. Check out WP:PRIMARY for more information on appropriate sources. Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:JW#Use of scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed something. When and where was there a discussion about the use of scriptures as a source in this article? The article already has a sparing use of scriptures where they are needed to explain the basis of a JW belief. I haven't seen any discussion suggesting more be included. BlackCab (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM inquired about use of scriptures for article sources in his most recent comment above, after 72Dino requested that discussion here be relevant to the article. It was indeed a non-sequitur to his previous use of scriptures at Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: We already have had with Jeffro77 some talk about using scriptures and other issues. (= No result)

• Watchlist and RC
  
• To do
  

• {{WikiProject}}
  
• {{WikiProject Talk}}
  

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, I still don't know what it is you're proposing. What do you want to discuss? BlackCab (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just read those ´blue links´ named "Watchlist and RC" and "To do". Later just express your ideas about such issues. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for cleanup pre GA Review

Hi guys; I've just been going through this article inserting non-breaking spaces as and where advisable according to the MOS. It was hard! Enormous amounts of prose included within refs, which (while I understand the desire to provide as many refs as possible) isn't really best practice. Also, I noticed with the refs that there seems to be no standardisation of ref format, which (if I were reviewing this) I would require to be addressed before passing it. So this is maybe something that you could work on while waiting for a reviewer, so that once the review process gets started the review itself will take less time and flow more smoothly. It is possible to have "too many citations" - many of those given are really surplus to requirements; the majority of statements really only need one citation unless very, very contentious - and if they're contentious, the citations would have to come from very different types of source - so providing three citations all from Witnesses' own publications, for example, for one statement, doesn't bolster up a statement more than one single citation from own publications. I suggest you go through pruning out multiple citations wherever possible - just keep the 'best' one for the statement.

Anyhoo, those are just my thoughts - hopefully they'll be helpful in getting this article quickly up to GA standard. I have to say that, as it stands at the moment, without these issues being addressed, I would personally fail it if I were the reviewer - but these are easy fixes, and just "stuff I noticed" while doing gnomish work on non-breaking spaces. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've attempted to trim prose from within refs in the past, and advised the editors involved that only a brief relevant excerpt is required, if at all. The refs certainly need a lot of cleanup for consistent presentation too.

In regard to multiple JW citations, I'm not aware which in particular you're referring to. However, there has in the past occasionally been a need for more than one JW citation where, for example, it may be disputed whether JW publications really said such-and-such or where the context of a single statement might be disputed.

When I have time, I'll take a closer look at the refs, though probably not until at least the weekend. Of course, if someone does it before I get the chance, that's even better.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem has often been in the past that JW editors have claimed that the article unfairly applies certain Watchtower statements and that the publications really weren't saying that. The surest response has been to add another one or two Watchtower quotes to emphasise that the statements weren't isolated or taken out of context. This has been particularly important given that all Watchtower statements cited are primary sources and thus theoretically subject to interpretation by the Wikipedia editor using them. Adding another one or two uses of the sources helps to overcome that argument. BlackCab (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to GA1 'First reading'

1. There was (is?) an informal minimum of 6 months of expulsion. I'm not sure if this can be reliably sourced. More generally, eventually was inserted because expelled individuals in any case cannot be reinstated in a particularly brief period, such as a few days or weeks. [This first point has been copied to a new subsection below at #eventually be reinstated ].
2. The serial comma is used in the second instance to separate the listed phrases rather than the first instance which separates only single words. If consistency is preferred here, it is more important that the phrases are unambiguously offset, such that it would also be preferable to add a serial comma after doctrines. Fixed
3. Fixed
4. It won't be a simple task to pare down the references, as some care should be taken to retain the most direct citations. The style of citations also needs to be made consistent. I have separated the obvious 'footnotes' from the 'references'.
5. I'm not sure that the broader context of the main JW article requires mention of 'quick builds'. The 'quick build' process is addressed at Kingdom Hall#Construction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with My76Strat (the GA editor): the article should mention the association between JWs and "quickly built" construction. In many countries, JWs are as notable for this as for preaching and there are literally thousands of references available. To the section Jehovah's Witnesses#Organization, I've added this sentence: Branch offices appoint local elders and ministerial servants, and may appoint regional committees for matters such as involving quickly built Kingdom Halls or disaster relief.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Eventually be reinstated

1. There was (is?) an informal minimum of 6 months of expulsion. I'm not sure if this can be reliably sourced. More generally, eventually was inserted because expelled individuals in any case cannot be reinstated in a particularly brief period, such as a few days or weeks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC) [This first point has been copied from above.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)]

Point 2) "Imitate Jehovah’s Mercy" article from (w98 10/1)

Although it seems that the wrongdoer in Corinth was reinstated within a relatively short period of time, this is not to be used as a standard for all disfellowshippings. Each case is different. Some wrongdoers begin to manifest genuine repentance almost immediately after being expelled. With others, it is quite some time before such an attitude is evident. In all cases, however, those who are reinstated must first show evidence of godly sadness and, where possible, must manifest works befitting repentance.—Acts 26:20; 2 Corinthians 7:11

So, the answer how long should lasts time for penitence is really individual. No time limit. Someone who sin, is NOT automatically expelled. It depends on own´s approach. If regret breaking Bible´s rule or not. In most cases, expelling is not needed. In such case is not needed even reinstatements, becuase expelling were not done. Prayers and acknowledge of mistakes is mostly enough. = James 14-16.

Further reading with "Expelling" (dx 30-85) and (dx 86-10). See also terms "Disfellowshipping" and "Reinstatement" etc. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this was point 1. It is not necessary here for you to attempt to justify or minimise the JW practice of shunning. Cases where persons are not expelled at all are not relevant to the point discussed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In the article sentence "Expelled individuals may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant by local elders." could be without any adjective there. Word ´eventually´ is not needed for proper sense of sentence. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The adverb "eventually" is present in the sentence to (correctly) indicate that reinstatement does not occur shortly (hours, days or weeks) after expulsion, but rather, after months or years, if ever.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but from prison is also not exemption next day. It will be unpractical and fruitless. Those processes normally haven´t so fast progress. Month or few weeks should be viewed as ´very soon´. It doesn´t depends on ´speed of elders´, but on ´approach those who expelled´ instead. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Shepherd the Flock of God (Watch Tower Society), page 119: "The committee should be careful to allow sufficient time, perhaps many months, a year, or even longer, for the disfellowshipped person to prove that his profession of repentance is genuine."--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This mean elders shouldn´t be overly optimistic, but rather carefully identify if repentance is sincere or feigned. Not claiming any rigid limit for reinstatement. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the whole paragraph at issue is too wordy for the lede. So I'd replace:

Baptized members who violate the organization's moral code or who dispute doctrinal matters may be subject to disciplinary action including expulsion and shunning, which they refer to as disfellowshipping. Members who formally leave the religion are also shunned. Expelled individuals may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant by local elders.

with this:

Congregational discipline may include disfellowshipping, their term for expulsion and shunning. Members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated members may request reinstatement.

Although published refs support "perhaps many months", it is possible for reinstatement to take weeks rather than months.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer has already indicated that the discussion at Talk indicates that the use of the word 'eventually' is justified. The recommended action of JW 'judicial committees' is to take a long time ("many months, a year, or longer"). It is misleading to omit that recommendation, and the suggested replacement text is less informative.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but AuthorityTam´s text is more sensible. For non-native-English readers, even for English-born, his ´version´ is much more comprehensible. Your version includes several different terms what are hard to explain. Fewer words is sometimes better as well. Do not take it personally. Or you could try to invent some compromise, hopefully better, version. :)) --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The original text was not 'my version'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Eventually" is accurate. BlackCab (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We are not dealing with word "eventually" anymore. It was accepted by all. In this we tried to find better formulation in the lead section. This is already done as well. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to GA1 'Second reading'

Regarding the statement, For a better rendering of the lead, I suggest you remove all inline citations which occur within the lead ensuring that they are included where these facts occur in the body. - There have been attempts in the past to reduce the number of references in the lead, and this rapidly resulted in complaints that 'contentious' statements in the lead were not properly sourced. While it's possible that many could be removed, some will need to remain. Per WP:LEAD, "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." If no one else gets to it, I'll see what I can do about reducing the citations in the lead when I get time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

One way to reduce the visual clutter in the lede would be to save footnote markers for the end of the sentence, or if possible, the end of the paragraph. So instead of "millenarian[1] restorationist[2] Christian[3] denomination, blah[4] blah." it would be "millenarian restorationist Christian denomination, blah blah.[1]". The footnote for the new [1] would be longer, containing multiple references as needed. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus reference mislead

/* Jehovah and Jesus Christ */

I had to change that misunderstands and bias. See hidden notes.

"They believe that references in the Bible to the Archangel Michael<!-- former, pre-human existence -->, Apollyon (a.k.a. Abaddon)<!-- fully nonsense, or refer to future role in Armageddon battle -->, and the Word<!-- former pre-being existence, - even before Michael being --> all refer to Jesus."

Here, in this sentence, is no mention about which roles has Jesus nowadays. JW believe, He, since his resurrection in 33 CE, and now, 2000 years later, He still has some important roles. There is no mention about what really JW think about Jesus.

(a) Change the wording of whole sentence, (b) Delete nonsense refer to appollyon and better describe his role as Logos and Michael, (c) In any case, do not revert me in hard way, but change smoothly revision with applying my suggestions here.

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is entirely accurate. JW literature states that all those names refer to Jesus. That small section within the article is a summary of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Jesus Christ, which provides much the same information, with the additional statement that after his resurrection he "then ascended into heaven to sit at Jehovah's right hand until he would become the promised king of God's heavenly kingdom". Your claim that the identification of Abaddon and Apollyon is "fully nonsense" is simply wrong. See "Apollyon" and "Abaddon" in the Insight book. BlackCab (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Accurate is part "They believe that ---references in the Bible--- to the Archangel Michael, Abaddon, and the Logos, all refer to Jesus." .... But he haven´t all such roles simultaneously. It is due ´past-recent-future´ time-line in the Bible, but should be stated there, that He is not all in the same time. And mention about "King of God´s Kingdom" since 1914 (okay, this could be disputed by many scholars), "Leader -not only one- of great army in the Armageddon" (= this is probably intended with terms Abbadon and Apollyon, which I never heard, neither in English, nor in Czech). And moreover, in the article is no mention about "what Jesus did" (since 33 to 1914), nor since 1914 to today. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The summary in this article does not need to go into excessive detail about JW's theological speculations about what Jesus has been up to since 33CE. The article outlines the basic JW beliefs about Jesus as co-creator, redeemer and king, and then briefly presents the other names in the Bible with which JWs associate Jesus. Abaddon and Apollyon are at Revelation 9:11; JW literature unambiguously claims both names refer to Jesus.---Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just read it in CZ and seems to me this clearly refer to Satan according to context of other close verses in the chapter. I have heavy doubts about this could be ´speculated´ (your idiom), for Jesus. In any case, this is one of the most meaningless! information, and it´s not needed to have such info in ´the main article´ with GA nommination. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that most Christian religions associate Apollyon/Abaddon with Satan. However, JWs do not. Revelation—Its Grand Climax at Hand, chap. 22 p. 148 par. 20: "“They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is Abaddon [meaning “Destruction”], but in Greek he has the name Apollyon [meaning “Destroyer”].” (Revelation 9:11) As “angel of the abyss” and “Destroyer,” Jesus had truly released a plaguing woe on Christendom." (formatting and bracketed text from original). It is a little disappointing that you need non-members to tell you the beliefs of your own religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a fairly notable contrast to most Christian religions that JWs use those terms to refer to Jesus. The fact that you, a JW, were not aware of this JW teaching also demonstrates that the information is of educational value.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I known also English variaton of that verse. // In any case, those ´destroyer´ roles refer to future events, and shouldn´t be linked explicitly, because we can´t be sure how future preciously will happen. For main article is meaningless information, if special more explanation is not in the lead possible. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a plain statement of fact about what JWs believe. The JW teaching about those names is current. It is not relevant whether the supposed 'role' is in the 'future' (and it is even more disappointing that I need to tell you that JWs believe that scripture was fulfilled in 1919, not "the future".) More information about the names is available from the linked articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another sarcasm coming? Okay! ´The fact that you, an atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, or whatever ´xxxxx´ you are, also demonstrates that you should learn much more´. (((By the way. I read book ´Relevation-Grand Climax´ as well, but don accept it as immutable truth or even as ´right´ present truth teaching))). I still think, this is not needed for main article. Could be there only with more explanation of that. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is true (or the JW jargon 'present truth'), or whether you believe it is irrelevant. It is the current JW teaching, and that is all that matters here. Your suggestions regarding my own theological positions are not relevant here. I have not claimed that JWs believe anything other than their official teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If it was fulfilled in 1919, I probably something missed. Oh well, present world order is still here. :) False denominations of Christendom still prosper and the entire World is still in state of imperfection. There are only 2 possibilities. First, you wrongly understood content of Grand Climax book. Second, WTBTS something miss. Or both. I´ll take a look in the book again. However, this is not important part of belief evidence for me at all. And, at least is not in TOP 10 teachings for other JW.

In any case. This, (((= sth. called Apollyon and Abaddon = I remember few years ago when I read this article, I mistook it as Apollo. :-D =))), without additional details and further explanation is inappropriate there. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit here and explain JW beliefs to a JW. If you don't know your own religion's teachings, that's your problem. I have correctly provided JW beliefs on the matter, with a source. You are welcome to provide additional sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another one! Some kind of Wikipedia fairy tales. Please! I want it! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your response doesn't make any sense. You can look up "Apollyon" and "Abaddon" in the JW publication, Insight on the Scriptures. The JW belief is correctly summarised in the article. I have already explained why it is notable that JWs identify those names with Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In my point of view, I have no religion. Maybe from your extremist viewpoint seems so. I rather call it as evidences and relations. As I said you should learn more and be sincere and deep. Not frivolous as you are. I stop this discussion. If you want neither delete incomprehensible mention about Apo and Aba, nor add better explanation there, I am not willing to continue the issue. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your religious affiliation is not especially important here, apart from issues of bias affecting articles. However, your claim of 'no religious affiliation' above is misleading (specifically, a denial of bias relevant to article context).[2].

Why and What is it ´misleading´ for you? Yo are not so clever, as me and as Lighthead, but you´re not fully stupid as well. I am quite sure you are able to catch it (after long and many times re-trying, if you will be hard on yourself). What misleads you? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion that I am not as "clever" as JW editors such as yourself is a personal attack and not welcome here. It is quite clear from my statement that I was not tricked by your lie about your religious affiliation. I commented for the benefit of other readers who might be misled by your dishonest claim. Please restrict your comments to article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated before, you are welcome to present other sources if you dispute the JW belief about biblical references to Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another try to tell me kind of Wikipedia fairy tales? Why do you still trying? In fact, you have no interest to have it better. You are smug and self-satisfied. You couln´t try to simulate good will. Everyone knows you have not. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Provide sources supporting your view, or stop arguing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I stop it before. Leaving my home and just after look here I see you continue!!!! You don´t understand, what does mean "I stop"? (

I stop this discussion. If you want neither delete incomprehensible mention about Apo and Aba, nor add better explanation there, I am not willing to continue the issue.

). If you are not smart enough to catch meaning of "STOP", so what? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, your claim that my views are 'extremist' is also irrelevant. I have presented JW sources for a JW belief. My own view is that Jesus, if he ever existed at all, decomposed a long time ago. It doesn't matter to me personally, beyond knowing the article is accurate, to say that Jesus is or is not identified in the Bible as Appolyon or Abaddon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You are plainly extremist, but rather we say it "irrelevant". --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your irrational comments are becoming annoying. Please restrict your comments to relevant discussion of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not use revert function to me, but normal edit next time, please. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, it is irrelevant what you think about the use of the names. The article is about the official teaching of the JWs. The references are clear and explicit that JW teaching is that those names refer to Jesus. The article does not claim that Jesus is all those biblical characters at once. It does, however, make the point that JW teaching is that those names refer to Jesus. BlackCab (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to complain that 'Jesus isn't all of those names at once'. JWs believe the Bible uses those names to refer to Jesus when the Bible uses those names.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@BlackCab. Main difference is, when you say too little information, many readers could be mislead about JW teachings, because in the article is not available intended meaning. Pure facts cited on Wikipedia are sometimes very confusing, because reader often knows only "a", but don´t know "b" and "c". I am sure, that refer in the article could be written more clearer and comprehensible. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning to User:Jeffro77 ... WP:NOT#CHAT ...... --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's quite funny. I have repeatedly requested that you restrict your comments to article content. Hopefully you will now do so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mediator

As an editor familiar both with JW theology AND with criticism of it, to me it seems that the paragraph of interest to [an editor in the section #Jesus reference mislead, above] does/did include wording influenced more by propagandism and less by encyclopedicality. I changed the formerly problematic sentence thusly...
[Pre-edit]Jesus is considered to be the only mediator between God and humankind—though his mediation role is restricted only to the anointed—and appointed by God as the king and judge of his kingdom.
[Post-edit]Jesus is considered to be the only intercessor and high priest between God and humankind, and appointed by God as the king and judge of his kingdom.
The former wording evokes a common bugaboo in works theologically critical of JWs, but it unduly highlights a technicality so as to imply something untrue. I believe that's WP:UNDUE.
In fact, JWs do believe that Jesus is the Intercessor between humankind and God.

• Insight, Vol 1, ©Watch Tower 1988, page 137, "Those approaching through Christ Jesus as their High Priest and Intercessor know that “he is always alive to plead for them”"
• The Watchtower, January 15, 2009, page 28, "Jesus ‘interposed,’ or interceded, on behalf of sinful mankind... Paul wrote: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him [Christ], and through him to reconcile again to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.”—Col. 1:19, 20. “The things in the heavens” that are reconciled to Jehovah by means of Christ’s shed blood are the anointed Christians... “The things upon the earth” are Christ’s other sheep, who have the hope of living forever on earth."
• The Watchtower, September 1, 2006, page 28, "Hence, we are required to pray in Jesus’ name, recognizing Jesus as the sole channel through which God’s blessings are extended to all mankind."
• The Watchtower, April 15, 2009, "Jesus’ words as a prophet and his actions as a mediator affect the entire human family. As a Deliverer, Jesus brings not temporary but eternal salvation for redeemable mankind."
• The Watchtower, November 15, 1991, page 6, "[Saints] were never authorized to intercede with God for anyone. Jehovah God has decreed that only his Son, Jesus Christ, can do this."
• The Watchtower, September 15, 2002, page 5, "We can be confident of Jehovah’s willingness to hear prayers offered in Jesus’ name. ...Jesus is willing to intercede in our behalf"
• The Watchtower, November 15, 1995, "Jesus’ office as a mediating High Priest toward mankind does not end his life. The good effects of his service as King and High Priest will remain with mankind forever, and humans will be eternally indebted to him for his having served in these capacities. Moreover, throughout eternity Jesus will take the lead in the pure worship of Jehovah."
• The Watchtower, December 15, 1978, "The resurrected Jesus as a mediator reconciles God and sinful humankind."
• Insight, Vol 2, ©JWs 1988, page 363, "Christ’s mediatorship, having accomplished its purpose by bringing “the Israel of God” into this position, thus results in benefits and blessings to all mankind."
• The Watchtower, May 15, 1973, "Jesus at Jehovah’s right hand continues forever...his office as a mediating High Priest toward mankind does not end his life. The good effects of his service as King and High Priest over mankind will remain forever with mankind"
• Awake!, November 2010, page 21, "Jesus Christ has been given great authority, including the responsibility of serving as mankind’s Intercessor. ...Jesus can serve as the sympathetic Intercessor in behalf of those who ‘approach God through him.’"

The former wording was undue here, and concerned only one aspect of JW theology: the "new covenant" of Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24. JWs explain "the new covenant" as a legal contract with signatories and beneficiaries, and teach that only the signatories have legal representation (ie, a Mediator). So, Jesus is Mediator only to them only in that narrow legal sense; in fact for decades, JW publications have consistently and pointedly capitalized "Mediator" when describing Jesus' formal role in "the new covenant". In other non-specific contexts, JW publications describe Jesus as the "Intercessor" and "mediating high priest" for all humankind. It was unencyclopedic for this article to repeat the intentionally-distorted misrepresentation of a little nugget of JW theology. I edited it.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you saying incorrect accusation against me? I did not such changes. We were not dealing about sentences you cited. Thus, I suppose you mistook other edit and think that was by me. Again. We were not dealing about ´mediator´, ´humankind´, or any other similar issues. You´re simply wrong. And moreover, you talking badly about me, while I have no idea, what are you talking about. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I call for your apology. Moreover, for my satisfaction (deleting all mentions about myself, where other editors talk badly about me). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor seems confused, so I'll state this simply.
[The editor in the section #Jesus reference mislead, above] was concerned about a paragraph in the article (in other words, it is a 'paragraph of interest to him').
The same paragraph also concerned me, but for a totally different reason.
I here created a sub-section (below his section) to discuss my issues which seem totally unrelated to his issues.
I had imagined that my additional step would keep the new matter from cluttering the former matter.
The closest thing to an "accusation" was that some unknown past editor was "influenced more by propagandism and less by encyclopedicality".
I didn't/don't even know who the past editor was/is! Still, I'm sorry. Sigh. Fin. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I am not intersted about nothing here. Stop using my name. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, your edit is accurate, yet incomplete. It avoids the elephant in the room. The Catholic Encyclopedia reflects the view of orthodox Christianity that Jesus acts as a mediator for all mankind. Jehovah's Witness doctrine, as the Insight on the Scriptures book concedes, differs from this and excludes all but 12,000 humans from this legal relationship. The Bible says there is one mediator between God and man, but Watchtower theology is that Christ's role is restricted to 0.00017 per cent of mankind. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to highlight notable information about its subject and that must include, in this case, notable divergences from mainstream Christian doctrine. The section must note that Christ's mediator role is thus tightly constricted. BlackCab (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He offended me with false accusation and you just agree with it? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, far from being an elephant, the practical difference is more similar to a gnat. JWs agree that Jesus is the mediator (intercessor, go-between, high priest, reconciler) between God and all humankind. JWs are simply careful to discuss the matter and apply the title "Mediator" in a manner consistent with their understanding of the legal concepts. Incidentally and in a similar vein, the term "Orthodox Christianity" may be NPOV, but "orthodox Christianity" is not.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, AuthorityTam said nothing at all about you, and did not mention your name (at this point in the conversation, I was unaware that FaktneviM had altered AuthorityTam's wording). You seem to have misinterpreted the context of the word 'mediator'. AuthorityTam's subsection is about Jesus as mediator for humans, not about mediating your dispute.

JWs believe that Jesus is a mediator in a special sense with the 'anointed', but still that he is a mediator in some sense with other humans. I therefore agree that the parenthetical statement should be left out of the sentence in this article. However, it should be properly explained at the Beliefs article. (See below)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Penton (who has now been removed as a source on the issue) makes the point, which is also stated in the Insight book, that Jesus is not a mediator for those outside the New Covenant. The issue here is that though the Bible states plainly that Christ is a mediator between God and mankind, JW doctrine rejects this, applying that relationship to a tiny group of humans. In other words, Christ is a mediator between God and some humans. That doctrine diverges from mainstream Christianity (for which the mediator role is a fundamental and uncontroversial point of belief) and is therefore notable. Penton draws attention to that point. I'll reinstate that fact. BlackCab (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I have again removed the here-undue grain of theology. JWs do teach that Jesus is the mediator for all humankind, according to the plain meaning of the term "mediator" and almost all that is implied by the theological term "mediator". A thesaurus includes the following synonyms for mediator: agent, channel, delegate, envoy, go-between, instrument, interceder, intercessor, intermediary, liaison, messenger, representative, spokesman. JW publications have used all those synonyms (and "mediator" itself) to apply to Jesus' action between God and humankind:

• Agent: The Watchtower, March 15, 2010, page 12, "Being baptized in the name of the Son means acknowledging what Jesus has done for you and accepting his authority as “the Chief Agent of life.” (Acts 3:15; 5:31) Previously, you had no relationship with the Creator, and actually you had no valid hope. But by exercising faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and being baptized, you now have a relationship with the Father.
• Channel: The Watchtower, May 15, 2007, page 6, "Christ continues to be the “Wonderful Counselor,” serving as the principal figure in Jehovah’s channel of communication to mankind."
• Delegate: The Watchtower, March 15, 1990, page10, "Jehovah is willing to delegate authority. The one to whom he has delegated the most authority is his Son, Jesus Christ. Indeed, God “subjected all things under his feet"
• Envoy: The Watchtower, October 1, 1953, page 607, “Apostle” means an envoy... Even Christ Jesus is spoken of as God’s apostle because he was sent forth from God on an earthly mission."
• Go-between: The Watchtower, April 15, 1957, page 238, "Jesus said to his followers: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6, RS) The reason why Jesus said this was that he had come here to be the go-between or mediator between Jehovah God and men. [incidentally, this discussion relates to prayer and worship, and Jesus is also described as mediator with a lowercase m]"
• Instrument: The Watchtower, January 1, 1997, page 22, "Jesus is the one who has become “Yes” as Jehovah’s instrument in bringing to reality the many “promises of God.” "
• Interceder: The Watchtower, September 15, 2002, page 5, "Concerning Jesus, the Bible says: “He is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead [“be interceding,” footnote] for them.”—Hebrews 7:25. ...Jesus is willing to intercede in our behalf"
• Intercessor: Awake!, November 2010, page 21, "Jesus can serve as the sympathetic Intercessor in behalf of those who ‘approach God through him.’ "
• Intermediary: Insight, Vol 2, page 61, "Jesus Christ introduced a new and essential element for gaining eternal life in the sense of being an intermediary or go-between, but he is such in an administrative sense as well. He is God’s High Priest who can effect full cleansing from sin and liberation from sin’s death-dealing effects"
• Liaison: Insight, Vol 1, page 349, "Paul uses the functioning of the human body to illustrate the operation of the Christian congregation... God has set each one in his position...Jesus Christ, as liaison member, supplies the members of the body the things they need"
• Messenger: The Watchtower, January 15, 1997, page 11, "Jesus Christ is Jehovah’s greatest messenger of peace."
• Representative: The Watchtower, September 15, 2008, page 21, "It is also vital that we accept that Jehovah has appointed Jesus as His representative and the one through whom God has provided his spirit."
• Spokesman: The Watchtower, April 1, 1993, page 10, "This “great light” is Jehovah’s Spokesman, Jesus Christ. Jesus said: “I am the light of the world." "

I can understand that some critics are obsessed with portraying JWs as ignorant freaks who can't read the Bible (eg 1 Timothy 2:5). But Wikipedia is more interested in presenting information in an encyclopedic manner, where a grain of theology is perhaps discussed in articles on theology (such as at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs), but is not allowed to unduly distract from a primary discussion such as here at the main Jehovah's Witnesses article's section on Jehovah and Jesus Christ. This article is not of sufficient length to include this granular point in a manner which is not undue, even if Penton and other former JWs wish to highlight it. Again, I removed it from here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Watchtower publications themselves draw attention to the fact that Jesus is not a mediator to all mankind as the Bible (apparently erroneously) states.

• Worldwide Security Under the Prince of Peace: "Likewise, the Greater Moses, Jesus Christ, is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members." (p.10)
• Insight on the Scriptures: "While Jesus’ mediatorship operates solely toward those in the new covenant, he is also God’s High Priest and the Seed of Abraham. In fulfilling his duties in these latter two positions, he will bring blessings to others of mankind."
• Watchtower: "Christ does not act as Mediator of the new covenant toward them, yet they benefit from this covenant through the work of God’s Kingdom." (Feb 15, 1991).
• Watchtower: "Consequently, 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 is not using “mediator” in the broad sense common in many languages. It is not saying that Jesus is a mediator between God and all mankind." (Aug 15, 1989).

It is a fundamental point of Watchtower doctrine, one they have used much ink to explain, including Questions from Readers in the Watchtower. Why you suggest this is a "bugaboo" and "granular point" concocted by former Jehovah's Witnesses and critics is a mystery. A succinct 15-word sentence noting an unorthodox doctrine about a plainly-written Bible text is not undue weight. BlackCab (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

None of the quotes supplied by AuthorityTam unambiguously state that Jesus is mediator for all mankind. The quotes BlackCab has supplied quite explicitly state that Jesus is not the mediator for all mankind. In light of these references, I agree that the statement is suitable to include in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

JWs are careful with the term "mediator" in connection with the "new covenant" specifically because JWs also believe Jesus to be the mediator (intercessor, channel, intermediary, et al) in a greater sense between God and all humankind: so as not to obscure the detail within the big picture (JWs even deliberately capitalize "Mediator" to reduce ambiguity in connection with the 'new covenant' and 1 Tim 2:5.) I've provided twenty-something refs above to show the JW belief that Jesus is the mediator (ie, intercessor) between God and humankind. Here are just two:
* The Watchtower, January 15, 2009, page 28, "Jesus ‘interposed,’ or interceded, on behalf of sinful mankind"
* The Watchtower, November 15, 1995, "Jesus’ office as a mediating High Priest toward mankind does not end"
The mediator point isn't "concocted" by those seeking to dispute JW theology, but the disputers do present 'mediatorship' distortedly to inflate the difference between JWs' view and that of other Christians. The fact remains that many (most?) Christian faiths accept the belief that Jesus intercedes for all humans while the "new covenant" is a legal contract only between God and anointed Christians (rather than between God and all humankind; see New Covenant#Membership). The point other editors insist upon including here at JWs is a corollary of that theological point; where JWs are unique is their belief that 'anointed Christians' are a minority subset of 'all Christians'. That's a significant but pretty dry theological difference, worthy of mention in the main article on the religion. Again, just like many or most other Christians, JWs believe that Jesus is the Mediator of the "new covenant", and the "new covenant" is between God and anointed Christians. Now then... if this point about the "new covenant" is so notable that it must be in this article, then it is also so notable that we should both make it clear just what we're discussing and Wikilink to the actual discussion of the theological matter at hand. I have edited "His role as a mediator (referred to in 1 Timothy 2:5) is restricted to anointed Christians." to the current wording: "His role as 'Mediator of the new covenant' is on behalf of 'anointed' Christians." See here. It seems unnecessary to refer directly to dispensationalism or supersessionism here (though it also seemed unnecessary to refer to this non-issue at all here!).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses' official doctrine on Jesus' role as a mediator, as noted in 1 Timothy 2:5, certainly deviates from orthodox Christianity in regard to the extent of his mediatorship and that sentence of the article simply notes that. Your edit, while true, has the unfortunate effect of hiding that simple fact. Encyclopedia articles should illuminate, not obfuscate. Your long list of references above shows the hair-splitting WT doctrine that all mankind benefits from him being a mediator to a comparatively tiny number of humans, but the sources I raised earlier contain the explicit acknowledgment that Jesus is not mediator to all humans. More importantly, the sentence as it was written reflects the source cited, Penton, pages 188-189. BlackCab (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as his use of "orthodox Christianity" is overbroad while "Orthodox Christianity" would be specific, so too User:BlackCab seems intent on implying the common meaning of the term "mediator" while only a specific meaning (the formal '"Mediator" of the "new covenant"') is accurate. Sadly, the editor further claims that JW beliefs are 'deviant' regarding "the extent of his [Jesus'] mediatorship". No they're not. JWs do consider Jesus to be a mediator to all, and the personal mediator/ go-between/ intercessor between each human and God; of course, JWs additionally teach that each human also benefits from Jesus being 'Mediator of the "new covenant"'. There seems no reason to sacrifice accuracy just because the editor believes that accuracy to be "unfortunate".
To me, this theological nugget about the "new covenant" seems remarkably granular and likely better-located in Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs or some other of the dozens of subcategories and articles under Category:Jehovah's Witnesses. But whatever. If this article must include JW beliefs about Jesus' mediatorship... is the article (1) better to hide the context and plop a non sequitur Scripture citation in the middle of the sentence, or (2) better to state the matter plainly and include the relevant Wikilinked term?
The editor has already acknowledged the truth of the sentence he reverted, so there seems no real complaint against it (only a difference with the personal preference of editor User:BlackCab aka User:LTSally). I've replaced his preferred sentence ("His role as a mediator (referred to in 1 Timothy 2:5) is restricted to anointed Christians.") with the more-precise and better-elucidated statement ("His role as 'Mediator of the new covenant' is on behalf of 'anointed' Christians.") because the latter sentence better serves Wikipedia's audience; see here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

An editor removed the linked, directly-relevant term "new covenant" and instead plopped in a Scriptural citation devoid of context; he entirely reverted my edit without explanation. I have reinstated the superior wording for reasons explained in this thread.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediator collateral

Mediator collateral
I have no interest about this topic, Mediator and I never said reversely. AuthorityTam just mislead the whole community, in fact, he lied about me in this public site. He claimed that I did some changes, which I didn´t. See prove here. Another comments (almost 10 other nonsense reactions, /// just deleting my name and sincere apology was enough) were needed for he+others finally! accept he did fault. (<blockquote>didn't/don't even know who the past editor was/is! Still, I'm sorry. Sigh. Fin. --AuthorityTam (talk) 11:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)</blockquote>). But my name was still used in that section see few first sentences and upper section, ... even after his apology! (crazy and stupid together). Again, I have neither interest recently, nor I had in the past about such meaningless talks like section named Mediator. (NO RESPONSE on this, Please. I am not willing comment this silly discussion anymore). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

AuthorityTam said nothing bad about you, and did not say you were responsible for any of the changes specific to Jesus as mediator. The reason AuthorityTam mentioned you in the first sentence was that AuthorityTam's subsection of Mediator seemed to be within the scope of (what he perceived to be) misleading references to Jesus, which is the topic of the section you created. There was no attack, and no need for an apology. You simply misunderstood. Crisis over.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He misunderstood (which ´reference´ I mentioned to solve in section I created before).

If he talks badly (see first sentences in this ´Mediator´ section, which was intended originally against me), there was not reason for apology from your opinion? (You have really strange habits, if you think so).

Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence was not against you. AuthorityTam thought you might be interested in something in the article AuthorityTam considered to be a 'misleading reference about Jesus' because you started a section about misleading references to Jesus. AuthorityTam did not say you were wrong or that you changed anything in relation to the mediator topic. The only thing AuthorityTam said about you is that you were interested in the article's paragraph about Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry that my comments originally included the username of a certain editor. My insult was unintentional. I discern that the editor is not fluent at the English language, and it was thoughtless of me to use his username in a manner which has proven to be ambiguous. I should have thought more. My thoughtlessness added nothing to the discussion, and had the unintended consequence of seemingly unambiguous disruptive editing; if other editors agree, I could clean up the thread somewhat.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Support for clean up of ´unproductive edits´ including threads ´Mediator´ and ´Jesus reference mislead´. Thx for your well-minded attitude after clarification. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Civil liberties

Weasel word alert: The sentence opening the "Legal challenges" section claims that "Their persistent legal challenges have broadened the definition of civil liberties in many countries". I have no access to the source cited; is anyone able to confirm that this statement does apply to many countries? I know such claims have been made about civil liberties in Canada and the US; what other countries have benefited in this way and does this constitute many countries? BlackCab (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have it at my local library, but a page number would be nice. A whole-book cite is hardly helpful. Any idea when or by whom this was added? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording was added in September 2010 in this edit by User:Logicalthinker33 who was blocked for sockpuppetry. That section had initially identified Canada, El Salvador, Germany, India, Japan, Philippines, Russia, the United States "and some European countries" as places in which the definition of civil liberties had been widened by persistent legal challenges. Trawling back through the history I have discovered -- worryingly -- that I was the one who first named those countries! The edit was made here. It looks as if I drew that list from the article Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country. If that's a comprehensive list, the phrase "some countries" would be more appropriate. BlackCab (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, wow. Welll, I think we could change it to "some countries", but it still seems like weak sourcing. I can look into that book unless there is a better option. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to that source, but online synopses for the source seem to indicate that the book (full title: Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution) seems to discuss JW legal challenges within the context of US First Amendment rights. On the face of it, it would therefore not seem to be a source relating to JWs' legal rights in "many countries".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I did want to contribute to this article, and this discussion by saying that I did remove the Wikipuffery following the Bold Revert Discuss cycle. When you see an example that appears contrary to policy, as has been noted in the discussion, it is more proper to revert the POV, and then discuss. It seems this discussion was following more of a Bold Discuss Revert cycle which is less conducive to the "GA" standards that this article should endeavor to maintain. IMO My76Strat (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Are Jehovah's Witnesses pacifists?

Your input would be appreciated at Christian pacifism talk, pacifism talk and/or peace churches talk. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirected discussions to this talk page only:

In terms of pacifism, are the Jehovah's Witnesses actually pacifists? They have been cited on Christian pacifism, peace churches and pacifism. I find no reference to pacifism on this Wikipedia article and a quick internet search revealed this:

Pacifism is "opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes" (American Heritage Dictionary). Quite significantly, the Watchtower Society is not a peace church. Despite being neutral in war, Jehovah's Witnesses are not pacifists. A Witness may draw arms in self-defence. Jehovah's Witnesses are only forced to stay neutral until they are in the situation where they are required to defend themselves.

The situation may be such that the only thing a person can do is to use whatever is at hand to protect himself or others. As a result, the attacker may receive a fatal blow. From the Scriptural standpoint, the one acting in self-defense would not thereby incur bloodguilt. (Awake!, Sep. 8 1975, p.28, Should You Defend Yourself?)

True Christians love peace. They stay completely neutral in the world's military, political, and ethnic conflicts. But, strictly speaking, they are not pacifists. Why? Because they welcome God's war that will finally enforce his will on earth-a war that will settle the great issue of universal sovereignty and rid the earth of all enemies of peace once and for all. (Awake!, May 8 1997, p.23)

Furthermore, pacifist churches such as Quakers are against the death penalty, which the Watchtower Society is not. The Watchtower Society "recognize the right of governments to do as they wish" in regards to the death penalty, noting that the Mosaic Law advocated the death penalty. (g96 3/8 p. 23).

See source for more. Furthermore they believe that "Jesus Christ was installed as God's heavenly King" on October 1914. This they say has "been marked by dramatic world developments - war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences... and the beginning of 'the last days' of this present wicked system of things." (Source: What Does the Bible Really Teach?, bh-E, pp.217 and 218). Jehovah's Witnesses have claimed that this is proof that Jesus himself is not a pacifist.[3] Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than respond at all three of the other discussions, I will reply once here.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves to be pacifists. They consider themselves politically neutral, and as conscientious objectors, they object to involvement in political and military conflicts. However, they believe that various accounts of murder and genocide in the Bible, as well as their hoped-for future slaughter of most of the planet's population by their god are justified. As mentioned in the Awake! articles you've quoted at the other discussions, JW literature teaches that they are allowed to defend themselves if endangered. They therefore cannot be defined as pacifists in the strictest sense.

These matters are addressed in The Watchtower, 1 February, 1951, "Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists" and Awake!, 8 May 1997, "Should Christians Be Pacifists?"--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Taken from an essay on Eisenhower: "The Watchtower has established in the courts that they are not pacifists but conscientious objectors, opposed only to wars initiated and carried out by humans. The Watchtower teaches that involvement in war, except those that God wants us to fight, is not only a violation of God's law that 'thou shalt not kill' and 'thou shall love thy neighbor' but is also wrong because Watchtower doctrine considers it an improper use of time in these last days before Armageddon."[4] Also from source below: "Jehovah’s witnesses...fight only when God commands them to do so, because then it is theocratic warfare." i.e. as per Abraham in the Old Testament rather than on the command of civil government (The Watchtower, 1 February, 1951, "Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists"). This brings me to the question of when would JW agree to bear arms in God's name? Is this when The Watchtower says so?

Thank you for your references. I had briefly read "Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists" (The Watchtower, 1 February, 1951) but I thought this was a lone JW rant against pacifism, rather than official JW doctrine. Another essay from the same publication is "Pacifism and Conscientious Objection — Is There a Difference?" (The Watchtower, 1 February, 1951). I cannot find "Should Christians Be Pacifists?" (Awake!, 8 May 1997) online, but I am guessing this is along the same lines. Given whether a human should kill or not kill is a central part of ethics in any religion, I am surprised this topic is only the subject of three articles in WT/Awake. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of The Watchtower articles I have removed JW from the above articles. The only nonviolent articles I see they are relevant to is conscientious objector and persecution of Christians. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You said "Given whether a human should kill or not kill is a central part of ethics in any religion, I am surprised this topic is only the subject of three articles in WT/Awake." Quite frankly, very few Jehovah's Witnesses have ever been put in a situation where they in fact chose to kill someone. It's not a very common event, so I personally see this as a rather tenuous distinction. In normal use of the term, I don't think "pacifism" is a binary label, only applied to those that are 100%. Jehovah's Witnesses are a lot more pacifist than most Christian churches, but their teachings certainly aren't the most pacifist. ...comments? ~BFizz 10:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, JWs cannot be defined as pacifists in the strictest sense. In by far the majority of scenarios, a JW would not typically kill another person (just as most people wouldn't), and such a view is fairly clearly indicated in a lot of their literature. However, the specific sense of being 'pacifists' is not covered often in JW literature because it is a quite specific definition regarding attitudes toward non-violence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that they are, but not necessarily for the same reason as Quakers. Quakers play an important role in politics, JWs keep out of it. But by being conscientious objecters, I believe that they are in fact indulging in a form of pacifism. There are many things to be said against the JWs, but they do not believe in killing people (Jehovah does that) and they are prepared to go to the gallows rather than fight.

More importantly, JWs' civil disobedience has helped religious pacifists in other denominations. Albeit unintentionally.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. Regarding the death penalty, since JWs do not serve on juries, let alone on the panel, they are unlikely ever to be involved in anything to do with it.

"they do not believe in killing people (Jehovah does that)" - Not quite. JWs still believe in wielding the sword but in God's name only (not government or country) as per the Old Testament (e.g. Abraham, King David etc). Its just that they have not had the opportunity/calling to do this yet. See Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists (The Watchtower, 1 February, 1951). They are COs, not pacifists. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

MacRusgail has claimed above that JWs do not serve on juries. However, this is incorrect. Jury service is considered a 'conscience matter' for individual JWs to decide. See The Watchtower, 1 April 1997, page 27.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And when exactly will Jehovah order that? In the never-never. Therefore they are pacifists as much by accident as by design. Likewise, you can read about wine and vineyards in the Mormon scriptures but true blue Mormons will never drink the stuff.

JWs are pretty anti-statist, so I doubt any that did jury service would be particularly popular.-MacRusgail (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter what either of us think i.e. whether they are, or are not, pacifists. JWs do not regard themselves as pacifists. Possibly some individual JWs do, and if this is case, then they can be cited on the pacifism articles along with a source. However the WT has quite clearly stated their official position on this matter. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If they do not engage in state violence, and refuse to do so, and refuse to help out in war efforts... then that's pacifism. When exactly is Jehovah going to step down and tell them to fight? --MacRusgail (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Conscientious objection to military service is a personal decision, whereas pacifism argues against warfare by anyone. Editors may be interested to note too the difference between pacifism and pacificism; a pacifist eschews violence and warfare altogether, while a pacificist may tolerate violence and warfare when necessary to further a greater peace.

• A pacifist (eschewing all violence and warfare) might be expected to disapprove of Armageddon (by many theologies, a future violent war).
• A pacificist might approve of Armageddon, believing that it leads to a greater peace.

Thus, JWs are not pacifists; JWs do not disapprove of Armageddon, for example. JWs are perhaps pacificists. Incidentally, an editor above asks "When exactly is Jehovah going to step down and tell them to fight?" JWs teach that certain Christians will be told to fight:
"Will the resurrected ones of the anointed class now with Christ in heaven share in the destruction work of Armageddon? ...Neither the anointed remnant nor the other sheep on earth when Armageddon strikes will fight the political nations in a fleshly way. ...Only the invisible heavenly forces with Christ, including the resurrected anointed ones, fight at Armageddon"–The Watchtower, 1956-10-15
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Unrepentantly practice" revisited

I'm moving Tam's new comment into a new section, since the previous discussion is nearly two weeks old. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Once more... the sentence currently in the article (ie, Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".) is NOT accurate. The current sentence is inaccurate because it strongly (and wrongly) implies that JWs insist that anyone who is currently disfellowshipped or disassociated is unrepentant. JWs do not teach that; for an editor to conclude that the belief is both hidden in JWs publications (and is notable) requires the sort of synthesis that is disallowed to Wikipedia editors. I have previously edited the inaccurate statement to correct its tense (eg, Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to have "unrepentantly practice[d] lawlessness".), and I believe others have insufficiently demonstrated why the wording I suggest is inferior. I have reinstated the wording which does not insist JWs to believe that every disfellowshipped or disassociated former Witness continues to be unrepentant as long as he is not reinstated; see my edit here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the sentence over and over, and honestly, I think it would be fine to delete it. The general idea of it is already clear from the surrounding text: these people are shunned, these people are considered to have departed from the fold, these people can be reinstated by "repenting". Mentioning this specific terminology seems almost UNDUE in this article; it would be fine in Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline but it is really an unusual level of detail for this summary article. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

AuthorityTam's wording is itself a synthesis. Unless he can provide a source for his claim that those who disassociate practised lawlessness (adding a "d" to the end of the word to alter the tense in the source currently cited) then he should desist with his one-man crusade.

The current wording in this article evolves from a statement that existed earlier in the year, namely: Members who formally disassociate themselves are described in Watch Tower literature as "lawless" and are also shunned. This is a valuable explanation of why the religion maintains one of its most distinctive disciplinary behaviors of shunning a member who chooses to formally exit. The reason: official doctrines decrees that that person is "lawless" or "wicked" (to use the phrases in the article), and thus must be treated as a pariah. It is entirely understandable that JWs may use those judgmental terms about a person who committed adultery, for example. It is very remarkable, though, that a person who simply decides "I'd rather not be in this religion any more; I therefore quit" is dubbed "lawless" and "wicked" just for that act.

It would therefore be better to return to the original statement (italicised above) and delete reference to the less notable fact that disfellowshipped persons are also deemed "lawless" or "wicked". BlackCab (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Even though it might be the case that individuals who 'seek to be reinstated' may not be considered to still 'practice lawlessness' (though they are are still shunned), changing the statement to past tense falsely implies that the 'practice of lawlessness' only applies to the act of leaving and not subsequent action. That interpretation as past tense ignores the basic meaning of the word 'practice', which indicates a continuation of a behaviour, and also ignores the fact that individuals who have been shunned even for many years but who do not intend to return are considered to still 'practice' lawlessness.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It saddened me to see editors trying for weeks to force a square peg into a round hole, insisting on unsupportable language. As I noted when I began the thread above at Talk:JWs#Unrepentantly practice (or try here), the ostensibly-quoted reference explicitly mentions currently disfellowshipped/ disassociated persons TWO PARAGRAPHS before the phrase "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". Furthermore, I'd shown their belief that "repentance" must precede JW "reinstatement", ergo some disfellowshipped/ disassociated persons must be repentant (that is, not unrepentant). It was correct of User:BlackCab to eventually delete the "unrepentantly practice" language.
But I'd also previously noted that Christianity in general holds that all humankind is sinful, that the Bible (not merely JWs) uses the term "lawlessness" as a DIRECT SYNONYM for "sin" (ie, "lawlessness"="sin"), and thus the term "lawlessness" is simply not notable here. Furthermore, I could find no JW publication which unambiguously identifies disassociated persons generally as "lawless and wicked" (including The Watchtower of February 2011). Per comments by User:B Fizz, the undue material has been removed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

AuthorityTam continues to flail around in a bid to deny the obvious. The directive to shun those who break free from the religion is contained in paragraphs 15 and 18, pg 31-32, of the February 15, 2011 WT article. Those paragraphs (and the catechestical review questions attached to those paragraphs) refer to disassociated individuals as "lawless", "wrongdoers" and "practicers of lawlessness". They are contained in a small section of the article with the subheading "Adopt Jesus' view of those who love lawlessness". In paragraph 2 of that article it equates the word "lawlessness" with "wickedness". It is simply dishonest to try to pretend there is no connection, when it is the plain thrust of the article.

He again raises the straw man argument that since all humans are sinners, the use of the term "lawless" is not notable. If that was so, the Watchtower would not have written the article. It isolates occult practices, alcohol abuse, immorality and disassociation as acts of lawlessess and directs its readers on their necessary response. It is notable that a religion brands those who formally resign as "wicked" and directs members to shun them. That is why the statement should remain. BlackCab (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Instead of whiningly interpreting, the editor should share the supposed quote wherein JWs explicitly identify disassociated persons as "lawless and wicked". Let's avoid WP:SYNTH. I have again removed the claimed "quote" until it can be verified.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop being so disingenuous. Paragraph 18 reads: "By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or disassociated one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome. However, you are also showing that you love the wrongdoer enough to do what is best for him or her." The review question for that paragraph reads: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" The paragraphs are contained under a subheading about "Those who love lawlessness in an article entitled "Do you hate lawlessness?" The dots are pretty easy to join. BlackCab (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Plainly, then, JWs do not explicitly identify disassociated persons as "lawless and wicked". Unsurprisingly, the editor provides a quote that could only yield his insisted conclusion after significant and tortured interpretation. Per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"; a dubious interpretation of a single article is certainly not among "exceptional sources". The editor's preferred sentence ("Members who disassociate (formally resign) are described in Watch Tower Society literature as lawless and wicked and are also shunned.") has been reverted to "Members who disassociate (formally resign) are also shunned."; see here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You requested a quote, I provided one. That section of the article unquestionably uses the phrases "lawless", "practicers of lawlessness" and "wrongdoers" in that section about only two sets of individuals, and the point is reinforced in the review questions for that section. If those phrases are not used about those people, what was the point of that section? About whom was it written? Your persistent denial of that plain fact is verging on disruptive editing. BlackCab (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, BlackCab's claimed "quote" (supposedly identifying disassociated former JWs explicitly as "lawless and wicked") cannot be found in the one publication from which he quotes. In any event, it seems rather obvious that a truly notable factoid will be referenceable from multiple sources (see WP:REDFLAG); obviously, User:BlackCab's claimed factoid is not thusly sourced. Whatever the editor may sincerely believe to be "truth", Wikipedia is actually more concerned with verifiability than with "truth". The inadequately-sourced assertion has been removed, again.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Undue and demons

Here is what is written at WP:UNDUE:
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. [1] If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; [2] If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; [3] If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
So, editors are pointedly instructed to 'keep that in mind' when trying to shoehorn-in these factoids here in the main article. The guideline explicitly suggests putting that "perhaps in some ancillary article".--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the primary problem here is deciding what is due and undue for a summary style article. Whether BlackCab has any third party neutral source which includes the term "lawless and wicked" so that it is notable enough to this article? Similarly I see that the recent addition of "Jehovah's Witnesses' fear of demons" is not a notable claim to owe a place here. Wikipedia is not a place to any current JWs or former JWs to promote their personel propoganda. --Fazilfazil (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, the use of those descriptors from a recent Watchtower is helpful in explaining why people who voluntarily resign from the religion are shunned. Without that explanation it would remain a mystery to the reader why Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden to speak to someone who quits the religion. I have added another reference by Raymond Franz in which he notes the specific policy change in 1981 that directed members to treat an individual who disassociates "in the same way as if he had been expelled from the congregation".

I have also added a further reference on the Witnesses' abject fear of demons and demonism. Both those sources regard it as a notable feature of JW thinking. Your claim that the inclusion of such a fact, noted in reliable reference sources, on the outlook of Witnesses constitutes a promotion of personal propaganda is baseless, baffling and insulting. Is it propaganda to restate an observation by academics that is clearly supported by the high number of articles in Watchtower publications on the subject of avoiding demonic practices? Even a 1988 Watchtower article that commendably addresses the issue of higher rates of mental and emotional difficulties in society today ("Mental Distress—When It Afflicts a Christian", October 15) includes a four-paragraph section raising the question of whether the sufferer is the subject of demonic attack or has "received any suspicious items directly and deliberately from individuals who are involved in some form of demonism". BlackCab (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Witnesses' abject fear of demons..."? What in the world?
Incidents like this make one wonder if editors are trying to be intentionally outrageous. Into this main article on Jehovah's Witnesses, an editor inserted this:
"James Penton and James Beckford have noted Jehovah's Witnesses' dread of demons that Penton says is "sometimes so extreme that it becomes quite superstitious"
I couldn't find where Beckford says "dread of demons". Here is what Penton wrote:
"Jehovah's Witnesses therefore have a sixteenth-century fear or outright dread of the demons that is sometimes so extreme that it becomes quite superstitious. But, paradoxically, it is true that by avoiding what they regard as 'demonistic practices' they have broken the hold that fear of spirits has had over large numbers of persons, particularly in Africa and Latin America."
Who is Penton? In May 1981, Newsweek magazine called him "one of 50 ex-Witnesses in Alberta, Canada, who are now working actively to debunk the sect's teachings".
What do independent scholarly reviewers think of Penton's anti-JW double-speak?
* "However, to conclude...as Penton does...is demagogical rather than the result of solid analysis. [...H]is presentation suffers from his aversion against his former religious community. ...If Penton would have been able to transform his seemingly personal vendetta into a detached analysis, this study would have rendered considerable surplus value. As it is now, the...scientific community will frown upon the author's lack of objectivity."–"Review" by Richard Singelenberg, Journal of Church and State, vol.47 no.3, page 627
* "I would like to refer the reader to my comments about Penton's previous publications... His statements, source selection, and interpretation reflect a deep-seated aversion against this religious association, of which he had once been a member. ...from a historiographic viewpoint Penton's writings perhaps show a lack of scientific objectivity."–Between Resistance and Martyrdom: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Third Reich by Detlef Garbe, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2008, page xx
* "Penton is a bit too reproachful in his evaluation of the Witnesses' actions...the weakness of Penton's study shows itself"–"Book Reviews" by Kevin P. Spicer, Church History, July 2006, ©American Society of Church History, page 205
Of course, Penton's claim that JWs have "dread of the demons" is patently false; Penton himself immediately contradicts his own silly claim, and here are direct quotes from JW's The Watchtower:
* "Demons are dangerous, but we need not dread them. Their power is limited.–The Watchtower, 2006-01-15, page 7"
* "God’s people do not dread demons.–The Watchtower, 1986-10-15, page 24"
In any event, what the editor has insisted-upon in this main article on Jehovah's Witnesses is even more detailed than the topic's discussion at the ancillary article Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs! At the least, it is undue here at JWs and I have removed it. If an editor wishes to re-introduce this "dread of demon" material, he should do so in an ancillary article and include the relevant refuting quotes from The Watchtower.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Academia is a robust environment and naturally there will be some commentators who take issue with the viewpoints of others. How many academics argue with Freud and Darwin, but do we ignore their writings? Penton and Beckford both clearly meet the test of being reliable sources and are freely cited by Holden and Crompton. Their viewpoint is notable and I have included it. I have also added it to the spinout article, Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. The protest in The Watchtower that Jehovah's Witnesses do not dread demons is interesting, but unhelpful in this context. They are a primary source making a claim that is clearly at odds with the observations of academics. The WTS can make any claim it likes ("We are not a cult", "No one should be compelled to remain in their religion because of family pressure", "Jehovah's Witnesses have free choice to receive blood transfusions without any control or sanction on the part of the association"), but secondary sources will always trump such misleading statements. BlackCab (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the laughable (and self-contradictory) claims about JWs being paralyzed by supposed "dread of the demons" were not here-deleted from this article because Penton is a biased source (though independent refs do contend that he is anti-JW) and the claims were not here-deleted because JW publications explicitly contradict what Penton claims. These "dread of demons" claims are removed here because (1) it is not integral to a general understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses as a main topic, and (2) the matter cannot be discussed sufficiently here without unduly weighing the article.
The expression 'dread of demons' has specific theological implications; does Beckford actually use the loaded expression? If he does, and/or if this factoid really merits encyclopedic discussion, the discussion should be moved, perhaps to JW beliefs or JW practices; JWs' own explicit refutations of these claims should be included, as well as the views of other academics. As for this article, that which BlackCab aka LTSally insists upon including here I have again removed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)