Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

Disfellowshipped for not preaching

The article states under Coercion,

those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism (currently around seventeen hours per month in the United States) soon lose the respect of their co-religionists and may even be disfellowshipped

I wonder where Holden got this information from. Can someone point to the JW publication that state that a person can get disfellowshipped for not preaching? If not it should be removed or explained correctly. A person can get disfellowshipped on the grounds of apostasy if he is vocally critical of the requirement to preach, but not simply by the act of halted preaching. (they are labeled inactive). An accurate statement would be, "those who stop evangelism and don't consider preaching to be Biblical requirement for Christians may even be disfellowshipped. -- ShaunRex (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read Holden's book but my understanding is that he interviewed people and attended JW meetings as part of his research. In any case, it's a suitable source. It is not necessary for points to be verifiable in a "JW publication", particularly where there may be a motivation to not clearly tell members something that may be unfavourable. The JW definition of 'brazen conduct' is also kind of a 'catch all' for someone who does anything the elders don't approve of, so if someone adamantly refuses to 'preach', even if they are not otherwise 'teaching contrary to JW teachings', it could result in disfellowshipping.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel bad for people getting disfellowshipped for not preaching. Enlightening. No problem in keeping it. --ShaunRex (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

“I haven't read Holden's book but my understanding is that he interviewed people and attended JW meetings as part of his research. In any case, it's a suitable source”

If one hasn’t read or is vaguely informed on a subject, keeping quiet or research are the better options. I have read Holdens book and it’s several hours (of indulgent long winded pontification) that I’ll never get back. It’s littered with incorrect statements about jw’s due to his acknowledged naivety in the intro of the book. In Holdens defense his book’s primary purpose is not to be a thoroughly researched, factual analysis of the beliefs, procedures and policies of jw. His chosen methodology invites a measure of factual errors as any reader of his book would know.

Jeffro you write ”The JW definition of 'brazen conduct' is also kind of a 'catch all' for someone who does anything the elders don't approve of, so if someone adamantly refuses to 'preach', even if they are not otherwise 'teaching contrary to JW teachings', it could result in disfellowshipping”

Total nonsense. I’m surprised ShaunRex conceded to an altogether shallow and uninformed response. Ignorance rarely results in enlightenment. What Jeffro describes above is at best defined as brazen “non-conduct” and substantially irrelevant to the falsity of the quote anyway.

Of greater relevance than the uninformed response to a legitimate objection re the inclusion of an untrue quote, both the objection and response miss the serious degree of the error of the quote.

The quote reads “those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism... and may even be disfellowshipped”

The quote mentions an “amount of time” (quite evidently not zero), but it’s unsatisfactory, and therefore the claim that an amount of time below 17 hours per month may result in disfellowshipping. The quote is bogus and should be removed. Jeffro, just because an academic writes a book it doesn’t mean an editor switches off his brain and accepts everything written therein as factual. Because sometimes even nonsense walks on stilts.

Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You are, of course, incorrect. JWs consider 'preaching' to be a 'scriptural obligation', so if someone "adamantly refuses" to preach (note that I did not just say 'doesn't preach'), openly contradicting the claim that 'preaching' is a 'requirement', it is no great stretch at all for elders, particularly but not exclusively if they have a dislike for someone, to say the person is "spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth" (Shepherd the Flock of God, 2019 revision, page 90), which is specifically listed as an 'offence' for forming a 'judicial committee', which may result in disfellowshipping. Holden does not simply assert that 'those who preach less than 17 hours may be disfellowshipped', which is your own selective misreading. Instead, 17 hours is simply given as the US average at a particular time, and Holden's main point in the sentence is that those who preach less than the average lose respect of the group (demonstrated by the use of pejorative jargon such as 'irregular' and 'inactive'); Holden then only adds afterwards that it "may even" result in disfellowshipping, indicating that to be an extreme case rather than typical. The JW biblical encyclopaedia, Insight on the Scriptures, associates refusal to preach with their pejorative use of the term 'apostate' (volume 1, page 127, "While still making profession of faith in God’s Word, apostates may forsake his service by treating lightly the preaching and teaching work that he assigned to followers of Jesus Christ"), so it is not just some novel conclusion I (or Holden) have made up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Holden, in fact, made no such claim. The original statement correctly attributed to Holden (although with a spelling error) was added in May 2017. The words "and may even be disfellowshipped" were added in August 2017 by a different editor. That editor also added the reference to "17 hours" being reported in the US, which seems quite high and in any case is irrelevant. I'll remove those words for which Holden is wrongly cited as a source. BlackCab (TALK) 11:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the extended quote introduced by PaleoNeonate does reflect the original source.[1]--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. You've provided a link to what seems to be the 2003 edition of the book. I have the 2005 edition, which does not include those words. It's quite possible Holden himself considered the statement inaccurate and removed it. BlackCab (TALK) 11:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The additional wording also appears in the 2012 revison.[2] On closer examination, it appears that Routledge republished the 2002 version in 2012. Please update the Holden citation at the bottom of the article with the correct ISBN for the 2005 version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear whether it is actually a "2012 revision" you're linking to or simply an e-book release of an outdated edition. Amazon offers a download to an edition dated 12 November, 2012, but if that's the same version we are looking at online at your link, the opening page of the book says "This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003." My physical copy of the book, which I bought around 2009, states that it was "first published 2002, reprinted 2002, 2004, 2005," which tells me it's a more recent version. It would have been nice if Holden had noted somewhere, either in the printed or e-book version, that it was updated. Either he added or removed those words. BlackCab (TALK) 12:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see previous comment. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It remains the case that a JW who outspokenly refuses to preach may indeed be 'disfellowshipped' for 'apostasy'. However, I have no problem citing a more recent version of Holden. It is entirely possible that Holden later considered the statement to be potentially misleading without elaboration.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It remains the case that you’ve replaced adamantly with outspokenly, brazen (non)conduct with apostasy. Even turning a blind eye to such slow of hand argumentation and it’s irrelevance to the Holden quote (now appropriately removed after some quick fire edit warring to keep it in), the stretch of dominos/hypothetical scenarios required to fall in causative succession are misaligned and at considerable distance from one another to land anywhere near such a preformulated conclusion. This author lives for needless elaboration. He writes: “Babies who persistently cry are taken out of meetings (usually by the mother, unless she is absent).” And elsewhere: “In fact, without these aids it would be impossible for the Society to hold its meetings in their current format.” That’s right, without the watchtower, the society couldn’t have a watchtower study.. Try the Occamian approach - Holden removed it because it was wrong. Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

“It is entirely possible that Holden later considered the statement to be potentially misleading without elaboration, further speculation about why it was removed is pointless” Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just ranting, which is not helpful. The statement has been removed as it does not appear in a later version of Holden's book. Your misleading juxtaposition of two separate statements of mine is plainly disruptive. As previously stated, Holden may have removed the statement because it may have been misleading without elaboration, but further speculation about why it was removed is pointless, and your dislike of Holden's editorial style is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This persistent need to be right is both embarrassing and entertaining to watch. Deleting, moving, revising content and order of comments on talk pages and whining on mine. Placing your two statements together accurately represents your written view, theres nothing linguistically mysterious going on. Your revised sentence (which was not "previously stated", another undesirable editorial style) above, if we’re all writing & reading English, says it too - any further speculation apart from your own is pointless.

You have my permission to move this comment wherever you like in the thread so that yours resounds finality. IC (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Quoting someone else's text without elaboration or response is unconstructive, and demonstrates that you either intended to prove some irrelevant point for your own amusement or simply goad another editor. In either case, this is inappropriate as Wikipedia is not a forum. Article Talk pages are for discussion of improvements to articles. If you have a disagreement with an editor, contact them at their user Talk page, or use Wikipedia's various avenues for dispute resolution where appropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Labeled as "Apostates" for unrepentantly accepting Blood transfusions

Again the article states under Coercion,

those who unrepentantly receive blood products are labeled "apostates"

I wonder where Marumoto got this information from. Can someone point to the JW publication that state the same. One can get disfellowshipped if they receive blood transfusion willfully. But they are not charged as apostates unless they vocally disagree with official teaching. An act of accepting blood transfusion does not categorize a person as apostate. Similarly an act of willful adultery is not apostasy, unless it is evident that the person considers adultery to be not a serious sin as taught by JWs. While a lot of people would like to extrapolate gray areas to portray things in the most negative light possible (as most ex-JW and yellow journalist articles do), most of the time its not full story. Wiki shouldn't need to follow that. An accurate statement would be, "those who accept blood transfusions and no longer believe in the rejection of blood transfusions" are labeled as "apostates" --ShaunRex (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, the benchmark for inclusion is not 'verifiable in JW publications'. 'Vocally disagreeing' is naturally an obvious conclusion that may result if a JW receives a blood transfusion and then is threatened with ostracisation or other 'discipline'. Also, the word "apostate" is just 'a person who leaves a group', and it is not necessary that Marumoto's use of the term meets the JW's more specific perjorative use of the term, which is jargon. The statement is unambiguously attributed as the view of Marumoto.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What is a 'yellow journalist'?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

People getting shunned for willfully accepting blood transfusions, good. For brevity, I am not penchant in using proper vocabulary for informal writing. I guess editors would have to just deal with it. ShaunRex (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"People getting shunned for willfully accepting blood transfusions, good"? That statement alone seriously calls into question your ability to conform to a neutral POV in your edits. Beyond that, be as informal as you'd like, can't stop you, but if you do not use "proper vocabulary" expect to be asked to clarify your meaning. Editors do most certainly NOT have to "deal with it". If you want your posts to be answered properly, write your posts properly. Vyselink (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

People 'wilfully' receiving medical treatment! Just shocking.</sarcasm> Did you have any relevant response regarding the article content you initially queried?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Why everybody upset. lol. Vyselink, I am sure any body who know English would've easily recognized what I meant by twisting the words yellow journalism . Jeffro77 didn't really needed to ask for a clarification. So I replied as such. If you are upset that I said 'good' people are getting disfellowshipped for accepting blood transfusion, remember editors have freedom to say what they think (like people who support or oppose abortion for example). Regarding your POV claims, no worries, I am not one of those editors who are desperate to defend or tear down JWs. While I have my own views on the religion like everybody else, I take things cool. This is because I believe everything happens for a reason, and don't put emotions in to the religion. ShaunRex (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ShaunRex: The term "yellow journalism" is over 100 years old, and not commonly used today, though you are correct that a lot of people would probably know what it is. While I can't speak on behalf of Jeffro77 on what he knows or what he meant by the question, your use of it when combined with the author of the work, Osamu Muramoto, who is of Asian ancestry, can appear to be racist. UNDERSTAND THAT I AM IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ACCUSING YOU OF USING IT AS SUCH. I am not saying you meant it to be that way. But because words matter, it matters what words you use. This is what I was getting at above, and was the primary purpose for my comment. As for your statement that you "don't put emotions in to the religion", your previous statement that I highlighted shows that not to be true. Vyselink (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of 'yellow journalism', which I have since learned is a term that is, unlike me, American. It is apparently what the rest of the English-speaking world calls tabloid journalism. The knee-jerk reaction to my query about the term was not remotely 'taking things cool'. Since Muramoto writes in medical journals rather than 'tabloid journalism', and adding the admission that ShaunRex was "twisting" the usual use of that term, it does certainly give the appearance of a racist slur.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

While we're being frank, referring to ostracisation of people for receiving medical treatment as good is deplorable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I already made it clear that I don't care anymore to change the sentence I disputed, after reading Jeffro77's intial response. I excuse myself out, and dont want to have further discussions on my alleged knee jerk reactions and emotions. I could also say its deplorable that people do abortions, go for war and practice homosexuality. The point is that its all about beliefs and perspectives. My Apologies if I hurt anyone. Good to see other editors. Let me focus on back on citations, which I am struggling to find time for. Thanks and regards. ShaunRex (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe there is much to say about this, because as Muramoto explains in his article, JWs can accept fractions of blood. So the statement of Muramoto saying that "those who unrepentantly receive blood products are labeled "apostates" ..." is incorrect. We may precise that it's only "those who unrepentantly receive prohibited blood products [who] are labeled "apostates" ...". In some cases, the JWs can accept up to a certain percentage of some components, but no more. Moreover, hemophiles can accept some types of blood transfusion. Well, the policy has became quite complex on blood ban, and I'm not sure any JW could follow if without the "help" of the leaders. ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, if a JW accepted a blood fraction prior to 1962 and didn't 'repent', they could be disfellowshipped and deemed an 'apostate' (per Muramoto's usage); that action would not automatically be reversed even after blood fractions were 'permitted'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add that it feels strange to "rebut" Muramoto with a court case, like the article does. Moreover, the court case doesn't say anything about the consequences of accepting prohibited blood transfusion. Shouldn't we better use sociologists to conlude about coercion? ChercheTrouve (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Biblical criticisms

We have here in the "Biblical criticisms" section almost the same content as the Jehovah's Witnesses#New World Translation section. Shouldn't we just keep the link to the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Critical review article here? Or should we copy and paste the content of Jehovah's Witnesses#New World Translation here? ChercheTrouve (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The handling of the NWT seems to be appropriate in the three articles—a brief summary in the main article, a review of common criticism of the translation here, and more detail about critiquing the NWT at the other article. The summary at the main article is only half as long as the content here, and of course the content there can be reviewed separately. It would be clumsy to only have a link to this article without any content at the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This implies that any development of the detailed article should be summarized two times: here and in the main article. Another point is that the importance given to BeDuhn in the "summaries" seems exagerated compared to other scholars. Why its point of view on the NWT is not put along with the others, like it's done for the ones who criticize the NWT? Is BeDuhn's point of view more important than the point of view of Metzger, Mantey, Hoekema, Countess or Howe? ChercheTrouve (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed to imply that. The main article's section about the NWT should be (and currently is) a briefer summary than what is at either article, and the purpose of the NWT section at this article is different, though obviously related, to the section at the NWT article. This article is about criticism while the section at the NWT article is about critique. It is not necessary or suitable for the main JW article to duplicate every point as the summary about the NWT at this article, just the most important points; what is deemed 'most important' is a subject for Talk page discussion, based on sources.

Upon considering what BeDuhn actually compared, I have removed the reference to his review from the main article, as it does seem like undue weight. (This is not an endorsement to remove his review from the other articles.) Whereas the other sources mentioned in the summary at the main article reviewed the translation more broadly, BeDuhn only compared a few 'controversial' passages in a few translations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Extremism charge

Some countries (Russia) accuse them of extremism. Irrespective of it being right, we need to mention the arguments and context. I guess some Russian JW materials have been challenged as arguing for "extremism". -》 What are these? Zezen (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Totalitarian charge

As per the extremism charge, above, the antidemocratic charge may be pertinent to explain the Russian Courts mindset.

Pacem BBC - Religions - Witnesses: History:

Rutherford thought deeply about a key passage in Romans 13, and concluded that the proper interpretation of the passage no longer required Witnesses to cooperate with secular law unless those laws were in accordance with God's laws.

The relationship between the Witnesses and the civil authorities deteriorated further as a result. 1920s: organisational changes Rutherford introduced what he called "Theocratic Government" to the organisation. This downgraded democratic elections as a way of choosing local elders, and brought in a highly centralised structure, obedience to which was considered obedience to God.

-》 Let us add it, using also other RS. Zezen (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Status as "Christian" Denomination

As this is the specific page pertaining to JWs and critisms, would it be appropriate to include a section explaining criticisms that it is classified as a Christian Denomination despite its development and holding of a substantial number of doctrines and beliefs that are at odds or so different from the rest of Christianity? Some of these even seem to blatantly differ with the definition and very criteria for being considered part of Christianity, such as the Divinity of Jesus. Another would be the organization's belief that Jesus was not physically, that is to say "bodily", resurrected. These two examples alone are fundamental to Christianity. If nothing else, perhaps an analysis of where and how they are at odds with "mainstream" Christianity? It's analogous to Christianity and Judaism. Christianity may have been part of Judaism and developed from there, but there just came a time when the differences in doctrine and basic belief between the two meant they were no longer part of the other. That's pretty much the point reached here. Jehovah Witnesses may have been part of Christianity and developed from there, but the differences now seem to indicate that the organization has developed into a unique group that is no longer part of Christianity. Thoughts? Thetruchairman (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Nontrinitarian Christians are Christians. This is even acknowledged in the Catholic Encyclopedia, though that acknowledgement is not a requirement under the definition that Christians are simply people who purport to follow Jesus as the Christ. JWs are a Christian denomination. As always, if you have reliable sources supporting your position, those may warrant further discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The bar for inclusion in this section on criticisms of Jehovah’s witnesses is already quite low, so your intuition leading you to this section is well tuned. Personal research, heavy preconceptions, generalisations, wild equivalence and a presumed benchmark for what constitutes a Christian however, provide adequate flexibility to limbo under it which is no small feat.

One assumes that transubstantiation, prayer to saints for intercession, infant baptism, papal authority, papal infallibility, purgatory, limbo, apostolic succession, the deuterocanonicals, sacred tradition, immaculate conception assumption and intercession of Mary, and the magisterium are also needed to be considered “mainstream”.

Save the pious elitism for discussions with them on your doorstep.-- IC (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The additional criteria you have listed for identification as 'mainstream' are primarily Catholic doctrines that do not predate the origin of Christianity. These criteria are not a requirement for identification as 'Christian', and that usage here would not be neutral.

It is not appropriate to use article Talk pages to tell editors how to engage with others outside of Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise that “Christian” doctrines do not predate the origin of Christianity. Your corridor monitor reminders of what’s helpful and appropriate are appreciated. IC (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)