Talk:Unfulfilled Watch Tower Society predictions

New article

I'm not entirely convinced at this stage that this article is necessary. If it is necessary, the lead needs to (briefly) explain what the Watch Tower Society is. It is odd that Jehovah's Witnesses or the Bible Student movement aren't mentioned (or linked) in the lead. Is this intentional??--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the predictions are not exclusive to either the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Bible Student movement. Though the identity of the religion changed, the publishing agent remained consistent, so this is the focus of the article. I've added links to the JWs and Bible Student Movement under the first subheading. The number of separate sources on the issue clearly establish the notability of the subject, so your opening sentence is quite puzzling. BlackCab (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't question the notability per se, but the matter is fairly well covered in other articles. And the lead requires more detail to let the uninformed reader know just what this 'Watch Tower Society' is.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no other article dealing specifically with failed WTS predictions. It's covered from a critical point of view in Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses and elsewhere; this article addresses the specific predictions as discussed by academics in the overall context of the religion's history of predictive failure, its method of dealing with it and the response of members. BlackCab (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that this information is more than satisfactorily covered in the criticism article. There is no need to be redundant here, this article should be submitted for deletion. Willietell (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait for comment from some impartial editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This article definitely adds to the information about failed predictions and critical response. If anything Failed predictions section in the Criticism article should be shorten and more information moved here. Jonpatterns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This article should remain distinct. It is a mistake to regard this simply as a subset of "criticism". Naturally, failed predictions cannot be a favorite subject of the Watchtower, but the topic of this article is HISTORICAL. We are not trying to make the Witnesses look as stupid as possible. Plainly Watchtower writers have become far more cautions/responsible than they once were; I contributed a section about the more fuzzy prediction that Armageddon would at least be due within the 20th century. This notion was dropped a full DECADE before 2000, with a peculiar case of in-house post-publication rewriting/self-censorship! So one could say that the Watchtower has matured, made wiser by past disappointments, just as well as "criticizing" them for the mistakes of yesteryear. Here, we should simply chart historical facts that are (frankly, not unnaturally) underreported in recent Watchtower literature. This is of great interest for their doctrinal development, quite irrespective of how "critics" may use the information. For instance, their fairly central doctrine that the "Second Coming" is actually an invisible "presence" originates from one past (semi-)disappointment, when nothing visible happened on a precalculated date. Fauskanger (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources

I have reinstated the primary sources tag on the newly-added section, "Armageddon to come within 20th century". The tag was deleted [1] by an IP user from Norway (who is presumably the same person from Norway who has created and expanded this section) with the comment: "Removed complaint about relying only on "primary/affiliated sources" (regarding Watchtower predictions, what other sources than Watchtower literature can be used?" The tag is not a complaint; it is a request for secondary sources, on which all Wikipedia articles should be based. Where possible, all previous statements in the article have been based on secondary sources. It's a contentious subject and open to allegations that it's opinion and original research; we should all be striving for statements in reliable published sources that are independent of the article's subject (in this case, the Watch Tower Society). The tag must remain until acceptable secondary sources are provided. BlackCab (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The anonymous contributor might also like to read Wikipedia:Why create an account?. He or she is welcome here, but there are benefits in creating an account and editing under one recognisable username. BlackCab (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough; I am Fauskanger.

I will however maintain that as regards Watchtower doctrine, past of present, the pretty inevitable source has to be Watchtower literature. There can be no other really authoritative source. Of course such literature is "affiliated" with its publishers, but who else than the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves can define their doctrine? This is a right we have to grant them, and we don't always have to see them through the eyes of some sociologist or religious researcher.

For instance, I think it is quite unnatural that the article refers to a certain Watchtower statement (about past statements being "regretted") and then adds a reference, NOT to the Watchtower issue in question, but to some relatively obscure Dutch sociological study that in turn quoted from this issue. (Or so I guess.)

Also, I cannot agree that this is (or has to be) "a contentious subject and open to allegations that it's opinion and original research". It cannot be contentious that the Watchtower has made predictions that failed to come true (unless it is somehow controversial that we are currently living in 2012). This article should simply describe the predictions that uncontroversially failed to come true.

We are not engaging in more or less subtle Witness-bashing here. As I have argued above, this article should not be seen as a subset of "criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses"; rather it is a sub-topic as regards the history of the movement. In fact, prophetic failures have been a driving force behind certain doctrinal developments. (If one really wanted to merge this article with another, it should probably be "Development of Watchtower doctrine".)

Actually the article may contain too many references to sources that will be perceived as overtly "hostile" by the Witnesses themselves, such as the "apostate" Raymond Franz. I think it should simply set out the facts of doctrinal history, with only a limited amount of further elaboration. I could find a number of "secondary sources" that comment on the quotes in the section I added ("Armageddon to occur within 20th century"), but since we are trying to develop a sober and neutral encyclopedia (right?), I find it problematic to list secondary sources that are clearly polemical and anti-Watchtower. This would detract from the impression of a neutral article about a historical topic, documented from the best sources imaginable: the literature where the believers set out and define their own beliefs.Fauskanger (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for creating a user account, Fauskanger, and welcome to Wikipedia. There is no disputing that the original Watch Tower Society literature is the best, and most reliable, source for the beliefs of the society. However in writing this article, I have endeavoured to ensure that it relies primarily on the statements and observations of independent scholars about the development of the society's eschatalogical doctrine. This creates clear proof of the notability of the subject to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. Zygmunt, Chryssides, Beckford, Garbe, Schmalz, Singelenberg, Weiser, Rogerson and Crompton meet that criteria of independent scholars.

The use of WTS statements for the new section on "Armageddon to come within 20th century" is acceptable, though my concern is that without the filter of academics, the article could be accused of cherrypicking statements that align with predetermined aims to, say, embarrass the WTS. I am not suggesting the material be removed because of the lack of secondary sources, but we should be on the lookout for acceptable secondary sources to strengthen the article, hence the tag. I will also remain vigilant about the insertion of statements that may be perceived to be agenda-pushing. Sorry if I seem to be hyper-sensitive.

I'd dispute your claim about the article using sources that could be perceived as being "hostile". Ray Franz appears only twice in the article, both times used to comment on the implications of WT articles. The Bottings, who could be accused of being hostile in view of their status as ex-JWs, (though that's highly debatable) appear only once, and that's to draw out their observation on further evidence in WTS publications pointing to 1975 as the date of Armageddon. There is certainly no value in adding "secondary sources that are clearly polemical and anti-Watchtower"; indeed they would be unlikely to be acceptable in a Wikipedia article as a relliable source.

I hope that better explains my position. I want the article to be clear and factual so that JWs, for example, or potential converts, could comfortably read it as an objective examination of their religion's doctrinal history without being scared away by a thought that it was the work of "apostates". BlackCab (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can at least assure any readers that I am not a Watchtower apostate. I rather enjoy talking to Jehovah's Witnesses and happily accept their magazines (they were on my door today, actually), since I have been studying religion on university level for a number of years. Personally I am an agnostic (at worst a skeptic).

You don't want to spell out the implication of the "week" analogy? There was a 1967 Watchtower book claiming that by that year, the world was so far into the end-times that it was like the last part of the last day of a week. This implies the expiration of the endtimes in the 1970s, of course, but ONLY if you are fully aware that the Witnesses count the beginning of the end-times from 1914. That may not be quite obvious to a more casual reader, who will only see a florid, but stock claim that "the hour is very late". Fauskanger (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia editors to spell out implications based on their own interpretation. WP:PRIMARY states: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The current wording is sufficient to show that the WTS believed at the time that the world was in the "last part" of the "last day of a week". BlackCab (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The January 2013 Watchtower, already available for download, devotes a section to the question "Have Jehovah's Witnesses Given Incorrect Dates for the End?" (They admit that they have sometimes been "ahead of God's timetable", but go on to claim that it is better to maintain high expectations than to be found "sleeping" by Jesus.) This is again a "primary source", of course, but perhaps it would deserve a reference here, to represent the Watchtower's perspective on our subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fauskanger (talk • contribs) 14:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't represent any new position, though it could possibly be used as an additional reference to the existing statement in the article. Such statements also should not be used as a 'disclaimer'. After Harold Camping's failed prediction about the 'end of the world', The Watchtower (1 February 2012, p. 25) referred to that as a failed "prophecy". But conveniently, the Watch Tower Society's own equally wrong predictions are merely 'high expectations'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfulfilled prediction of "this generation" of 1914

This is a good article, and there's another point I'd like to add. Based on the JW's beliefs of the great tribulation, this is when all religion will be under attack & destroyed. In Matthew 24:34 it states "Truly I say to YOU that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur". Until recently, this statement was applied to those of the anointed ones *born* in 1914. John Barr was the last one of the anointed born in 1914, and he passed away in 2010 (?). Before passing away, however, he stated that "this generation" also refers to those who were anointed at around the same time as those anointed in 1914, and that generations overlap. Furthermore, Jesus apparently was talking about those *anointed* in 1914, not born, and those anointed in 1914 would surely have passed away much earlier than Barr did. It is now clear that since generations overlap, the date of 1914 is ceasing to have as great of an importance as it once was, since generations can overlap for infinity.Azubarev2 (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Azubarev2

We can't add that without reliable sources. Otherwise it's original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just throwing an idea out there for those that have time and energy to look up the sources. Maybe I haven't expressed myself well enough, but the basic idea is that the JW's had to change their literal idea of Mat. 24:34 to a more liberal one. The brutal fact is that before they didn't think that the literal generation of the anointed ones born in 1914 would die out before armageddon, but they did. http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/generation.php Azubarev2 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Azubarev2

The JWFacts website has interesting information, but as it is a personal website, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. Unless you can express some sources we can use, we can't add your ideas to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've checked this ref. up and it says two generations overlapping, not infinite generations. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

1873

The article is incomplete without covering Russell's belief that the second coming of Jesus will occur in 1873. JW's still believe that 1873 was an important milestone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.198.207 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Russell's earliest predictions are covered in two Wikipedia articles, Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and History of Jehovah's Witnesses. In the late 1860s Jonas Wendell, who was a major influence on Russell, was predicting Christ's return in 1873. But Russell's first book, Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World, which was published in 1877, proposed that Christ had already left heaven in 1874 to return to earth. It was therefore not a prediction. BlackCab (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Awake! magazine's prediction

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to mention the fact that for years Awake! had the following statement in every issue "“Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away". The last issue that had this was the Oct 22, 1995 issue. I bring this up because we all know that 1914 was used for decades as being the key year, but this specific prediction, which I think it is safe to call a prediction because they are presenting it as a statement of fact, is rather blatant, even if they have moved away from 1914 from a practical standpoint, if not an official one. If you look at Dr. Zoe Knox's article "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" in Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011, she mentions this. Vyselink (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. However, it would be helpful if you could provide the relevant quote or a link to Knox's article here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the quote. I'll have to get a stable URL because I got it from my universities jstor account, so I'll do that soon.

The start of World War I was confirmation of the prophecy. Instead of marking the commencement of the final battle of Armageddon, however, it was those of the generation of 1914 (i.e. people alive at that time) who would see the battle, not the year 1914. The Society has since further amended the stance that the generation of 1914 would witness the second presence, most recently in the mid-1990s. Every edition of Awake! includes a brief statement under the heading “Why Awake! is Published.” Until 22 October 1995, this statement ended with: “Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away.” After this issue, the closing sentence was changed to read: “Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things.” The reference to the generation of 1914 witnessing the second presence — a frequent theme in the Society’s literature before 1995 — was removed as this generation was dying out.

Vyselink (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Armageddon to come within 20th century

Is anyone following this page? If so, does anyone have access to Chryssides, George D. (2010). "How Prophecy Succeeds: The Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Expectations". International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 1 (1): 27–48. doi:10.1558/ijsnr.v1i1.27. ISSN 2041-952X ? This looks--by its date--to be the only secondary source that might address the wiki section Armageddon to come within 20th century. With Chryssides input, perhaps the discouraging editing tag on this section could be removed.Bookman1968 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Overlapping generation

No specific date on this one, so when are we going to consider it unfulfilled? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The teaching in question does not stipulate any specific year, but does allow for a year well beyond the current year.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Jeffro is correct, the JW's don't specify a year, so it's in the future. My own research for my PhD suggests an end year of around 2071, but that is OR and requires a bit of "what-if"ism's regarding how long people live etc. Anyway, bottom line, as the end date was not set and is definitely in the future, it can't be said to be "unfulfilled" as of yet. Vyselink (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)