Talk:Faithful and discreet slave

Bible Student View "Out of Scope"?

Not quite sure I understand the reasoning on this one. The development of the doctrine is addressed, and it leads in to what the JWs believe today (as the interpretation and application have evolved over the decades). But why is noting that the Bible Students still hold to the original interpretation "out of scope"? Are we suggesting that this article is wholly about the Jehovah's Witnesses and any other views belong in a separate article? If so that seems excessive to me. But I'm interested to see what others think about this. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The current Bible Student view is out of scope of the paragraph from which I removed it. If the 'faithful and discreet slave' is currently a primary teaching of Bible Students, it should be discussed in more detail in a separate paragraph, Or even in its own section, which would also require some refactoring of the existing material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hoekema

Today's injections of Calvinist minister and theologian Anthony A. Hoekema (...) were removed, as there is no added value in referencing him here and Hoekema's works are unabashedly anti-JW and anti-Watchtower.. Hoekema himself uses his dedication page thusly:

• "May the Lord use this book for the advancement of His kingdom and for the glory of His name. May He particularly use it to lead many from the errors of the Watchtower to the truth as it is in Christ."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be the same Anthony Hoekema who was approvingly quoted by The Watchtower on July 15, 1997? Please don't inflict your prejudices on Wikipedia. Hoekema is widely cited by other authors of JW studies, including Andrew Holden, W.C. Stevenson and Robert Crompton. Wikipedia articles depend on reliable secondary sources and it is counter-productive to delete citations to such works; it is particularly irrational behavior when, as in this case, the statements the author makes are non-controversial and non-judgmental and accurately reflect the statements and doctrines of the Watch Tower Society. BlackCab (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Hoekema hasn't demonstrated vehement anti-Hebrew bias, and that is the tiny area of discussion about which WT quoted Hoekema in 1997 (to wit: "Anthony A. Hoekema notes: “It is unfortunate that the word came to be translated be cleansed, since the Hebrew verb usually rendered cleansed [ta‧her′] is not used here at all. ...If Daniel meant to refer to the kind of cleansing which was done on the Day of Atonement, he would have used taheer [ta‧her′] instead of tsadaq [tsa‧dhaq′].”).
Interestingly, The Watchtower in 1966 quoted Hoekema thusly: “In the history of the Christian church, people who taught that the ‘resurrection’ was a non-physical one were branded as heretics. ...Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming to be listening to Scripture alone, are again reviving this ancient heresy!”.
Plainly, Hoekema is not an unbiased reference regarding JW theology.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

He is certainly critical of aspects of JW theology, as he is of the theology of other cults. However there is nothing I have sourced from him that is controversial nor deniable. You made a kneejerk response because he has said unkind things about your religion. On these issues, regarding the JW doctrines of the faithful slave, he is a reliable and usable source. BlackCab (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hoekema references quite literally add nothing encyclopedic to the article. The tone of the referenced Hoekema title is not that of a scholarly (ie disinterestedly academic) analysis of JW theology; the tone of Hoekema's referenced work is unrelentingly anti-JW. Calvinist Hoekema therein repeatedly identifies JWs and JW beliefs as "heretics", "heretical", "heresy", and "heresies". It would seem the editor injected the Hoekema references as a way to draw attention to Hoekema rather than to add any encyclopedic usefulness to the article (see here). Furthermore, Hoekema (and even certain Wikipedia editors) use the term "cult" as a pejorative, rather than as a mere sociological term with a plain definition. Scientists have favored the term "new religious movement", recognizing that the term "cult" is used as a weapon by the so-called "Christian countercult movement". The title at issue here? "The Four Major Cults". It's a waste of time when certain editors push to inject such blatantly biased writings as though they were mere academic studies. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Parable of the Faithful Servant

An editor recently nominated for deletion the article Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation (see here). While I believe that topic is notable, I opined that that topic could be discussed sufficiently at 'Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs'.
Similarly, I believe this topic (in this article) could be sufficiently discussed at 'Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs' and/or 'Parable of the Faithful Servant'.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The Parable of the Faithful Servant is a brief, non-denominational discussion of the passage of scripture. Faithful and discreet slave refers solely to the Jehovah's Witness application of it, which has a complexity and history that warrants a standalone article. The article details:

(a) the claimed role of this "class" of people supposedly foreshadowed by the brief parable;

(b) the WTS explanations of how this group existed in an unbroken line from Jesus' day before emerging as the Watch Tower Society;

(c) the changes in belief of the identity of this servant, from "the church" to the long-held belief that it was Charles Taze Russell alone, and then back to the anointed remnant;

(d) the conflicting information from the WTS on when the "slave class" was given its commission; and

(e) a critical view of the doctrine by someone who was apparently part of that "class", pointing out a major logical inconsistency in the teaching and conjecture on the reason for its continued use by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Despite the recent puzzling efforts of a JW editor, much of that information is sourced to secondary sources, indicating its notability as a subject of its own. Before proceeding to an AfD, if that's the proposal, I'd like to see a suggestion of which parts of those five major elements should be deleted from an abbreviated, merged version. BlackCab (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems odd for the editor to refer to "a JW editor". I haven't seen any comments on this matter from anyone identifying himself as a JW. By contrast, of course, editor BlackCab aka LTSally has repeatedly identified himself as a former JW, and declared himself "sickened" by the "incestuous community" of JWs. By contrast, I am interested in the best interests of the Wikipedia community. I find it discouraging to see editors who openly insult and plainly campaign for or against a particular religious faith. Please drop the extraneous nonsense.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You continue your rather juvenile repetitions of past comments without addressing the point. BlackCab (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, how many times do you need to be reminded to stick to the point rather than attempting to discuss editors rather than content?? No edits made by LTSally are relevant to this discussion.

Having reviewed the general parable article, a section on the JW belief there would constitute undue weight, because no other denominational views are represented.

If each of the five points BlackCab has raised can be established from reliable secondary sources, than the separate article may be warranted. Otherwise, the article could be greatly condensed into a section at the beliefs article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The two commenting editors are beyond predictable; it seems jaw-droppingly disingenuous to pretend that User:LTSally is not another incarnation of User:BlackCab, and to ignore that this thread's juvenile first mention of editors was by the same.
I'm unpursuaded that this largely-superfluous article serves the Wikipedia community better than would in-context sections at 'Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs' and/or 'Parable of the Faithful Servant', but I never held a strong opinion regarding the deletion of this article (else I'd have actually submitted an AfD proposal). This thread would have been shorter and more useful if a certain editor did not continue his empty caterwauling that I (User:AuthorityTam) am motivated by supposed religiosity rather than by my interest in improving Wikipedia's encyclopedicality.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)