Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

NPOV

This tittle is Words to avoid obviously. 118.111.5.64 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Any response? I think the claim that the title of the page is unacceptable because it uses the word "controversies" is spurious. The style guideline at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal is clearly talking about its use in sentences that might read, "the society's second president, the controversial Joseph Rutherford ..." etc. The article clearly focuses on accusations against the doctrines and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses by opponents and academics and I don't see this as being aimed at discrediting the religion or belittling it. It's not a cheap shot, but a fair article and well sourced. Are we safe to delete the POV tag? Discussion please. LTSally (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is is safe. The article should not be renamed or deleted for the sake of whitewashing the subject material. --Sungmanitu (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No further discussion since March 27. Tag removed. LTSally (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

UN

Fathermore, this article is't reflected the current views of Jehovah's Witnesess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.244.100.232 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your NPOV tag pending a proper explanation of your concerns about what you perceive as a lack neutrality. LTSally (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly,"Biblical controversies" and "United Nations' Department of Public Information association" are biased to Critics Viewes. "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's registration as a non-governmental organization (NGO) with the UN Department of Public Information" is not political but for missionaries. 119.244.100.232 (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Two citations have already been provided to explain why the WTS maintained its UN affiliation. Neither supports your claim. If you have information from a reliable source that supports your explanation, please add it. At the moment that section of the article simply states the issue: (1) the WTS has historically expressed strong views against the UN, claiming it is an abominable anti-religious agent that God will annihilate at Armageddon (2) the WTS was accused of hypocrisy after its voluntary association with the UN was revealed in a newspaper and (3) it terminated its association and provided an explanation. Both sides of the controversy have been covered, meeting the requirements of WP:NPOV. LTSally (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think (1) is misunderstanding by critics' advertisement. Certainly, WTS publications express the UN as a wild beast of Revelation or "an abominable anti-religious agent", but this is only Jehovah and His Christ's view. They also explain that JW themselves shouldn't regard the UN as a wild beast, but a superior authority. JW believe that it is not wrong that they use a superior authority for their mission.

About (2), I don't see the newspaper the UN was revealed, because I live in Japan, but I guess that UN was revealed JW as political collaborators, and JW only denied it. 119.244.100.232 (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The assertion of User talk:119.244.100.232 is correct in that JWs do view and for decades have viewed the United Nations as among the "superior authorities" to which they owe relative subjection.

• "Subjection to “Superior Authorities”—Why?", The Watchtower, November 15, 1962, pages 688-689, "British-American dual world power, and the League of Nations and the United Nations. (Rev. 13:1 to 19:20) Jehovah God also foretold the destruction of these “superior authorities” in the “war of the great day of God the Almighty.”
• "A World Without War—When?", The Watchtower, October 1, 1995, page 7, "Watchtower magazine has identified the wild beasts of Revelation chapters 13 and 17 with today’s worldly governments. This includes the United Nations, which is depicted in Revelation chapter 17 as a scarlet-colored beast with seven heads and ten horns. However, this Scriptural position does not condone any form of disrespect toward governments or their officials. The Bible clearly states: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities [...]”—Romans 13:1, 2. Accordingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses [...] recognize that some form of government is necessary to maintain law and order in human society.—Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1. Jehovah’s Witnesses view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world. They acknowledge that the United Nations continues to exist by God’s permission. In harmony with the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses render due respect to all governments and obey them as long as such obedience does not require that they sin against God."

As User talk:119.244.100.232 implies, JW ideas about the UN's true origins and eventuality have never implied that JWs should avoid services provided by UN agencies as though they were especially worse than services provided by other governmental agencies. While it did not always do so, this article's current section on the matter does explain that; IMHO, it is not well explained in the "main article" at Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations. As User talk:119.244.100.232 implies, a typical JW who is familiar with his religion's own doctrines would likely be untroubled at the use of UN services by fellow worshippers, such as Witness missionaries in foreign assignments. The so-called "controversy" discussed in this article and in an entire single-purpose article (referred to above) was about a 2001 incident exhaustively discussed here (a website seemingly sympathetic to JWs).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Blood Parts

That may be so, but that's the Witnesses' religious structure. Every religion gets their doctrinal instructions from some source. But the reason's you've changed them doesn't reflect neutrality, it reflects, and suggests support of, another controversy surrounding them. Hardly NPOV —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear about the "point of view" or new controversy you say I'm injecting. I have changed the sentence that claimed Jehovah's Witnesses feel that accepting blood fractions is a conscience issue to the more accurate, verifiable statement that they are told by the Watch Tower Society it is a conscience issue. The Watch Tower Society, or more accurately the Governing Body, is the body that decides the issues over which members of the religion are allowed to exercise their conscience. This has changed over the years ... what is a matter of decree one year is a matter of conscience the next, and Witnesses are expected to obey that, regardless of what they "feel". I thought we'd addressed that issue, with some agreement, last December at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Jehovah's Witnesses believe ... LTSally (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought we did, too. The article should point to what the religion officially teaches. "They are told" is just more way to suggest "they are taught one thing, and they do another", which is part of another controversy. No more appropriate would it be to say "Catholics are told that abortion is a sin" or "Muslims are told they shouldn't eat pork". It just doesn't sound encyclopedic, but it does sound like it's pushing the criticisms about authoritarian control, whether that was the intention or not. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly pushing criticisms about authoritarian control, but I'm certainly acknowledging their authoritarian stance. If we can find some middle ground along the line of the position the Watchwower takes on the specific issue, I'm happy. I just hate any bald statement that Witnesses believe this or that. As I said months ago, it's much better to focus on the teaching than the assumed belief. LTSally (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that not all Witnesses agree with the Society's stance on blood transfusions would render any universal statement on how JW's "feel" false.--Sungmanitu (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed "they're told' to 'they believe'. I hope that makes every one happy.

         Maneatinglemon 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with your change, and I'm not sure you read or understood the discussion above. You have changed the wording back to almost what it was initially. I have changed it again, hopefully removing any wording that would provoke objection. I have also left a message on your talk page regarding your customized signature. LTSally (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And Jeffro77 changed it back. Are we edit warring here? This phrasing "Jehovah's Witnesses are told" just doesn't seem neutral. Again, what religious group isn't "told" what its followers are supposed to believe? This whole insinuation that they believe one thing and think another is fine for the criticism that addresses it. But it shouldn't shape the terminology and tone of the whole article, even if just in part. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And if I might add another point, I noticed that the rationale being used here is that since Jehovah's Witnesses change their teachings frequently, compared to other faiths, that "they believe" is inappropriate. Why does frequent change in doctrinal minutia disqualify the followers of such a religious group from "believing" in their faith anymore then any other religious group who might change more slowly over a longer period of time? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the more neutral line, given the above dispute, is what I last wrote, "For Jehovah's Witnesses, the acceptance of blood fractions from donated blood is a matter of conscience ... ". That's accurate and shouldn't cause offence. (Nor, Jeffro, is it JW-speak). Jedi Master, I think you're being overly sensitive in suggesting that I'm implying Witnesses "are taught one thing, and they do another". That wasn't my intention and I don't think most readers would gain that inference. I simply want the article to focus on the official teaching rather than the unverifiable generalization that all Witnesses believe this or that. And on a matter as hardline to the Watch Tower Society as blood transfusions, it was reasonable, I initially suggested, to say that Witnesses are told what practices within medical treatment are left to their conscience. But for the sake of peace, I'm happy to change it it to the sentence above.

Unlike in society at large, where anything may or may not upset a person's conscience, and that thing may or not be offensive to society in general, JWs are told what things are "conscience matters", as opposed to other things that might not sit well with a JWs actual personal conscience, but they just 'must' accept as 'truth'. 'Conscience matter' in such a context is indeed pure JW jargon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Two other points: Firstly, my knowledge of the Anglican, Catholic and Baptist churches, for example, may not be great, but I'm certainly not aware of members of those religions being told – at risk of being excommunicated – what they must believe. Birth control and abortion may be the one exception in the Catholic Church, but given the extent of Watch Tower Society rules, Jehovah's Witnesses are quite unusual in the degree to which they allow their Governing Body to become so involved in their everyday lives. Secondly, the fact that the Governing Body has made numerous changes to its stance on blood transfusions, and at a pace and subtlety that often leaves Witnesses confused about what is and isn't acceptable, makes it particularly inappropriate to say baldly what Witnesses "believe" on this issue. Without a Kingdom Ministry or Watchtower in front of them, a survey of 100 Witnesses chosen at random on whether they would accept or reject an infusion of certain blood components would produce a good range of opinions. What would you say then about what Witnesses "believe"? The fact is the WTS instructs that they are allowed to make a decision themselves on this specific issue, and in an encyclopedia nothing could be clearer than that. LTSally (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I never meant to suggest it was your intention to be non-neutral, LT, just the inference in your choice of words came across that way. I would argue that the changes in the stance on blood transfusions has been fundamentally the same for a very long time, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make here. What I want to push here is as much neutrality as possible, and some of the tone in these articles seems to want to suggest there's a incongruity between what they believe and what it taught. I don't feel that's our place to suppose, unless pointing it out as a common criticism. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

True LTSally, if you asked Witnesses whether they would accept certain blood fractions their answers would be varied. But that's why I said it was a 'matter of conscience'. The answers would be varied because the acceptance of those blood fractions was up to the individual. The Witnesses believe it's a matter of conscience whether or on to accept some treatments. I didn't mean to suggest all Witnesses believe a certain way about all fractions of blood. Sorry if it came accross that way.

As for 'they are told' being more appropriate then 'they believe', 'they're told' just seemed slightly biased, like they were being lied to. And, admittedly, 'they feel' seems slightly biased in the other direction. 'They believe' is true, (for if they didn't believe what the were being 'told' I don't think they would be a Witness) with out leaning either way.

Also, thanks for the heads up about my signature. I didn't realize part of the code wasn't working. I changed it back to the default, and I'll wait to change it when I have time to make sure the code is working properly. Thanks again.

                       Maneatinglemon 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

The external links section should include links to reliable sites that discuss current, notable controversial issues about JWs. The section shouldn't contain links to general JW forums or other sites that discuss JWs in a general way. It should not promote videos that have not been authorised by the copyright owner. As with the article itself, the links should not give undue weight to non-current controversies. Nor should it contain sites that are merely anti-JW that have no evidence of being accurate or reliable, such as personal web pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem

I was browsing Wikipedia, and I came across this article. I am a Jehovah's Witness myself, and I was ever so slightly offended when reading this.--94.192.95.176 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Witnesses accustomed to reading only the self-congralutory publications of the Watch Tower Society may be surprised to find the extent of criticism and controversy of their religion by external, reliable sources. Your "problem", however, seems to be that you were offended. The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to this article. Feel free to do so, otherwise you may wish to find another forum to discuss your feelings. LTSally (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And your bias LTSally, is clearly noted by your use of the word "self-congratulatory" and that Watch Tower Society publications are not "reliable" sources. Of course, you view all apostate sources as "reliable." Your user page bio clearly indicates that you are oppsed to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, as you were once one but left the religion. Your personal bias is thus noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.42 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias? Call it what you like. We all have our opinions about everything. My user page makes plain what my opinion is of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. A JW editor will approach this article with his/her own opinions as well, which will differ from mine. What matters isn't our opinions, but whether the information written in this article is factual, accurate and neutrally presented. I don't regard all "apostate" sources as reliable. Some books get it wrong. WTS publications do count on Wikipedia as reliable sources (which is why they form the bulk of cited sources in the article), but some of their claims, particularly about historic events, are not presented accurately, because they omit certain facts that are unfavorable. This is why the article also relies on books that are separate fron the WTS.

Because the Governing Body forbids Witnesses to read books written for former members (who are branded with the pejorative descriptor "apostate"), current members are prevented from reading any criticism, and indeed discussion, of their religion and its doctrines and history. I know from long experience that many Witnesses are very happy to not know those things, which is tragic, and indicative of a worrying tendency towards cult behavior and mind control. But that's their choice. An encyclopedia, however, is free and in fact obligated, to present the full facts. LTSally (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User LTSally's does not insert his personal opinions into the article. All referenced statements reflect the "bias," if any, of the authors of cited claims (including the white-washed assertions of the Watchtower Society). If one has a problem with sociological studies of a particular religion, perhaps one should not read encyclopedia articles. --Sungmanitu (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag 2009-09

I saw the POV tag and don't necessarily disagree. However, a POV tag needs to be explained here on Talk so that others can work to remove bonafide POV (otherwise, they will just remove the tag, and rightly so). --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the POV tag is continuously added without explanation. Some discussion appears above, but only discusses points (which are already addressed in the article itself). The tag should be removed now, and immediately again if it is added again, unless some explanation for it can be made by those adding it. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 15:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-title to "Criticisms regarding JW"?

I was recently editing Criticism of Mormonism, an old article. And a new editor suggested re-naming it to "Controversies about Mormonism". I replied and pointed out that most articles that criticize religions have titles that start with "Criticism of .." as in:

• Criticism of Religion
• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Hinduism
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticism of Judaism
• Criticism of Buddhism
• Criticism of Mormonism
• Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church

• Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses
• Controversies about Opus Dei
• Scientology controversy

But you notice that the latter three use "Controversy" in their title.

My question is: Would it help this encyclopedia if all these articles started with "Criticism of ...", specifically starting with _this_ article? (by the way, Im new to this article, so if re-titling has been discussed before, I apologize).

But conistency is not the only benefit: I would offer:

A controversy is a debate, usually public, that may be postive or negative.

A criticism is a negative statement by a notable individual or group.

Virtually all the topics in all the above religion articles are criticisms.

The words critic / criticise / criticism appear about 20 times in this article. Here are some examples of criticisms in this article that appear not to be controversies:

• Some of the wordings in the JW bible translation are not accurate
• Some of the founder's predictions did not come true
• There is a contradiction in policy because blood transufsions are prohibited but breast-feeding is not
• The religion puts pressure on all members to conform to its teachings

In summary, I propose changing the title of this article to "Criticisms of the Jehovah's Witnesses". For two reasons:

• 1) the word "criticism.." more accurately represents the contents

and

• 2) the title would be more consistent with other similar articles.

Any feedback is appreciated, especially if there any suggestions on whether I should put this request on Wikipedia:Requested moves to get more input.

PS: I posted a similar inquiry on the Scientology controversy Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. "Criticism" is a more accurate and focused description of the contents. It also helps reach consistency within Wikipedia articles. The word "controversy" is defined as a dispute, debate or contention, and not all the issues contained in the article are the subject of debate as such ... critics make the claim, but Witnesses often choose not to respond. LTSally (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Any more responses? If I don't hear any more in a day or two, I may just do the re-name without going through Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Noleander (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No complaints here. Proposed title is consistent with similarly themed articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I used "Move" to do the rename. Please let me know if anything went wrong. If the new title "Criticsim of JW" sounds like it is talking about criticisms of _individual_ church members, perhaps it could become "Criticism of JW faith" or "Criticism of JW religion" or "Criticism of JW organization". Let me know if you think we should pursue any of the latter, otherwise I'm leaving it alone. --Noleander (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Though there is some ambiguity caused by the group's name, I think it should be fine. In any case, the same implication (about individual JWs) could have been made about the previous title too. The new name is consistent with other similar articles, so I would prefer to keep it as it now is rather than add extra qualifiers unless it becomes obvious that there is broad confusion about the article's purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of the subheading in the article should be similarly addressed. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 15:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Domestic Abuse

Can someone add information about the Organization's handling of domestic abuse to this? I don't trust myself to be NPOV here.Dysperdis (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The article relies on reliable published sources. I've yet to read anything in books or newspapers that deals with this issue or indicates that it something that is widespread. LTSally (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The book "Wolves Among Sheep," which is listed in the article, deals with one such situation. In this article on the killer's parole hearing, he "told the parole board he pressured and manipulated Jehovah authority figures to convince his wife that she was "scripturally obligated" to take him back." [1] The victims in this case were my aunt and cousins, which is why I'm reluctant to write about this myself.

I've read more than a few other stories of abuse cases which were mishandled by elders-- this [2] is one such case. Unfortunately, I lost the links I had saved when my other laptop died.Dysperdis (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Isolated cases do not demonstrate a systemic problem that is notable enough for inclusion in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

External links

This section seems to have grown out of control. While a low-velocity edit war seems to have broken out over ELs on the Jehovah's Witness page, this one has escaped all notice. Many of these links may be relevant to the subject, but I don't see that links to books on Amazon, for example, or indeed any of these websites would qualify under WP:ELYES. Some of these websites contain good quality information on JW controversies, but I don't think that's the criterion in deciding whether they meet Wikipedia policies. LTSally (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cult2010

The term "cult" is overwhelmingly intended as a pejorative. WP:WORDS#Religion implies its use should be minimal.
Currently, the article says "authors including Anthony A. Hoekema,[185] Ron Rhodes[186] and Alan W. Gomes,[187] claim Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious cult." Excuse me, but all three are Trinity advocates who believe EVERY NONTRINITARIAN Christian faith is a cult.
It would be like an article on Criticism of Israel saying, 'world leaders including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claim Israel is "a cancerous tumor" and "a decaying and crumbling tree" and "filthy bacteria".'
Being a "world leader" (or "author") implies credibility, but ignoring the quoted person's gross prejudices does readers a profound disservice.
If the criticisms of Hoekema, Rhodes, and Gomes are truly essential to the article, their bias and extraordinarily broad definition of "cult" must be plainly stated. I'll do it eventually, but I hope another fairminded editor can do it sooner. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If those authors specifically state that all nontrinitarian Christians are "cults", then I agree that they should not be cited in a manner suggesting their view to be peculiar to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your use of emphatic caps and bold caps seems to indicate a lot of flapping of hands on your part, AuthorityTam. I haven't examined the basis on which Rhodes and Gomes claim the Witnesses are a cult, but you're quite wrong in the case of Hoekema. He is certainly a trinitarian, but the acceptance of the trinity seems to play a minor part in his definition. He devotes a chapter of his book to examining the distinctive traits of the cult (as opposed to a sect or orthodox Christian church) which include (a) an extra-scriptural source of authority (b) the denial of justification by grace alone (c) the devaluation of Christ (d) the group as the exclusive community of the saved and (e) the group's central role in eschatology. Those are the chief characteristics and he identifies others. He goes to great lengths to show why he classifies the Witnesses as a cult — and does so without using the words "filthy" or "cancerous". I'm happy to write a brief summary of his reasons into the article as well, if that's what you're seeking. LTSally (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoekema did believe that all nontrinitarian Christian religions are cults. Is anyone seriously arguing he didn't?
Most will stipulate that Hoekema was very critical of Jehovah's Witnesses, but it's silly to ignore...
Hoekema's primary argument against JWs, Mormons, and Seventh-day Adventists is (fundamentally) no more or less than that (in his opinion) their teachings aren't "orthodox" (by which Hoekema meant that their beliefs disagree with the beliefs of him and his co-religionists). It's also silly to ignore Hoekema's repeated fixation on nontrinitarianism as one of a handful of hallmarks of cults, and possibly the only non-subjective one he offers (the rest depending on questionable interpretation). There seems no reason to pretend that Hoekema's accusations of cultism were anything but personally theological; his use of the pejorative "cult" is almost entirely useless.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored everything I wrote about Hoekema above. On what basis do you claim his argument is primarily about orthodoxy? And on what basis do you claim "Hoekema did believe that all nontrinitarian Christian religions are cults."? LTSally (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? An editor is seriously suggesting that Hoekema does NOT view all nontrinitarian Christian religions as cults?
Wow, it will be interesting to learn the exception...
Please, anyone who recalls Hoekema's anti-JW, anti-Mormon, anti-SDA opus: Does Hoekema believe that all nontrinitarian Christian religions are cults? Yes or no? My recollection is yes.
If the matter is not overwhelmingly self-evident to a typical reader of Hoekema, then I'll get the book from the library and post his words. Eventually.
Looking above at the apparent Hoekema quotes, isn't "devaluation of Christ" just Hoekema's doublespeak for trinitarianism? And the other Hoekema cult-traits aren't entirely theologically subjective rather than objective? And Hoekema doesn't explicitly state that he defines "cult" theologically?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be shrieking in disbelief that others don't share your opinion. I'll simply state what he says and leave you to your own hysterical view. LTSally (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is related to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#NPOV needed in this Jehovah's Witnesses article.
Certain so-called "authorities" quoted in this article and elsewhere do not use the term "cult" in a neutral manner; in fact, many ostensible "scholars" believe and advocate that every nontrinitarian Christian religion is a cult. Their opinions may or may not be encyclopedic, but their POV must be labeled. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Which sources call all nontrinitarians cults. Please supply their actual statements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly identifies the basis on which Hoekema calls the Witnesses a cult. The issue of trinitarianism isn't among them. Of course he has a point of view and that's what the article expresses. The WTS has a contrary POV and that is presented as well. But if you're suggesting that because he believes in the trinity he has a predisposition to terming JWs a cult, despite all his other reasons, I'll be interested to see your source. LTSally (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

If the opening paragraph is to be so strongly worded, then there must be a strongly worded defending statement in the opening paragraph to maintain neutral point of view. Also the term hypocrisy is too strong, and is in the realm of slander. I don't see evidence for that claim in this article, without evidence from respected sources, the term cannot be used. If it were to be used anywhere, it needs to be used in context, with explanation and a equally weighty reply from JW or from sociologists or other respected authorities. Natural (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

This article is not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV Policy

As the article is currently worded, it is not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It is very clear that it was produced by those who are oppossed to Jehovah's Witnesses, and it appears to be strongly biased against JW. Even though both point of views may be presented, the weight of evidence presented here favors that against JW. I feel that it will take much to make this article one that is neutral in viewpoint, and in the meantime, I am planning to recommned flagging the article for NPOV. I am planning to put a post on the NPOV bulletin board, after considering the matter a little further and posting this post now on the Talk page. Natural (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

The article is about notable criticism of the religion, so it is inherently going to say negative things. However, that in itself isn't a breach of a neutral point of view, so long as the article does not include criticism that is either original research or not notable, and simply presents information about what criticisms have been made. It is not necessary for the article to say whether a particular criticism is valid or true, but just to report the notable controversies. I haven't taken a close look at the article just yet, and am not necessarily endorsing everything the article says.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As it is now, this Wikipedia "article" is more like a blog of open-house criticisms against Jehovah's Witnesses.

If Wikipedia does report criticism, it should be historical, giving all the facts behind the criticisms and who is making them, and it should report it in a neutral way, giving both sides of the issue. This article doesn't do that.

The opening paragraph is strongly worded and violates the Wikipedia's NPOV.

Jehovah's Witnesses have experienced controversy in their relationships with mainstream Christianity, governments and former members. The religion has been accused of doctrinal inconsistency and reversals, false predictions, mistranslation of the Bible, poor treatment of former members, mind control[1] and failure to report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. Jehovah's Witnesses dispute the claims.

It needs to be removed and reworked. The only place where mind control is explicitly mentioned is by Ray Franz. If the term is used in a Wikipedia article, then it must be explicitly referred back to Ray Franz, and not used in a general way. It isn't appropriate, without a rebuttal, in the opening paragraph.

The accusation of "hypocrisy" is not referenced, and unless an authoritative reference is source, should be removed.

It would seem that the main contributors to this page, BlackCab and Jeffro77, are the main promoters of crticisms and negative comments about Jehovah's Witnesses, on the main Wikipedia page Jehovahs Witnesses Natural (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

There is no defense or rebuttal to these comments, Much criticism of the NWT involves the rendering of certain texts considered to be biased towards specific Witness practices and doctrines.[2][7][8][9][10][11] These include the use of "torture stake" instead of "cross" throughout the New Testament;[2] the rendering of John 1:1, with the insertion of the indefinite article ("a") in its rendering to give "the Word was a god";[2][12] Romans 10:10, which uses the term "public declaration", which may reinforce the imperative to engage in public preaching;[2] John 17:3, which uses the term "taking in knowledge" rather than "know" to suggest that salvation is dependent on ongoing study,[2] and the placement of the comma in Luke 23:43, which affects the timing of the fulfillment of Jesus' promise to the thief at Calvary.[13]

If this is to be included, then the response from Jehovah's Witnesses or from other authoritative sources must be included. Until these corrections are made, this is an article that violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Natural (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

I really don't see your point, except perhaps the "mind control" issue isn't notable? This is an article on criticism, and we should stick close to what the article title says the reader should expect. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement which misrepresents what JW teach on 1974 article on love

Again, this is a biased statement which misrepresents Jehovah's Witnesses

Watch Tower publications have stated that Christians trust God and therefore "they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization".[31] Such statements have led to criticism that members of the religion are expected to place "unwavering trust" in Watch Tower predictions[32] and face expulsion if they do not accept its teachings, even though many of its predictions have subsequently been set aside.[33][34]

[31] is a 1974 reference, not current. The way this is worded would be worded differently today and it is taken out of context. It is in reference to tobacco, and has to do with not being gullible, but at the same time, not being overly suspicious. Wikipedia is taking one line out of an article, the context of which is love, and making it seem like it is a treatise for JW to be blindly obedient. Stark clearly shows that JW do not have that attitude.

13 Love “believes all things.” This is not to imply that Christians are gullible. The point is that Christians have implicit trust in their heavenly Father; they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization. Things work out well for those who in this trusting way go along with God’s way of doing things. For example, Jehovah through his organization has for years warned his people of the harmful effects of using tobacco, and those who heeded this advice were benefited both physically and spiritually. Perhaps some did not understand why they should not use tobacco. Yet it was to their benefit to ‘believe all things’ though not completely understanding the reason why, Scripturally or physically. Today we have the Scriptural basis as well as the fact that the medical world recognizes the sound practical basis for refraining from the use of tobacco.—2 Cor. 7:1.

Natural (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Articles rely on published sources, not the opinions of editors who arbitrarily decide a reference is outdated. BlackCab (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong language in Wikipedia does not accurately reflect full context of JW spokesperson's views

Since the earliest writings of Watch Tower Society founder, Charles Taze Russell, in the mid-1870s, the society's publications have asserted the reliability of their predictions, with emphatic language such as "established truth"[42] and "indisputable."[43]

One can pull out quotes of individual instances of such language. At the same time, if one researches, JW repeatedly, including Russell, state that their words were not the words of God, but in Russell's language, like an index finger pointing to the Bible. That the writings of Russell, Rutherford or any Jehovah's Witness since is not the inspired word of God, but rather, an imperfect attempt to explain the Bible. Wikipedia misrepresents Jehovah's Witnesses with strongly worded language clearly designed, not to report on criticisms, but to create a page of it's own criticisms, which does not represent both sides of the issue fairly.

Natural (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

The wording is accurate and in context. BlackCab (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ray Franz

Most of the strong criticisms are from Ray Franz. If Ray Franz is to be depended upon so fully in this article for its criticisms, then in each place in the article where these strong criticisms from Ray Franz are voiced, he should be clearly identified as the source of these criticisms in each instance. It is not critics in general who are making these criticisms, but Ray Franz. Natural (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Authoritarian control This is a totally one-sided paragraph. There are no counterarguments to this paragraph, not other countering opinions, which are available from other sociologists and from JW literature. This is a totally biased and one-sided paragraph of open criticism of JW.Natural (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Conformity - Unbalanced paragraph of criticism against Jehovah's Witnesses

This paragraph is does not present a Neutral Point of View, but it is a paragraph with a very strong point of view that does not give both sides of the issue.

while Watchtower literature strongly emphasises the importance of avoiding or fighting against the "dangers" and "infection" of "independent thinking", such as "questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization".[220][221]

Critics have claimed the Watch Tower Society places strong pressure on all members to conform to the teachings and personal behavior it sanctions.[188] Watchtower publications are studied at meetings with "catechistical" question-and-answer sessions in which both questions and answers are provided by the organization, placing pressure on Witnesses to repeat the thinking of the headquarters organization.[188] Another study noted: "The conforming multitudes are told what they should feel and think."[175] Witnesses who do voice viewpoints different from those expressed in publications and at meetings are said to be viewed with suspicion.[207] Former Governing Body member Raymond Franz has claimed most Witnesses would be fearful to voice criticism of the organization for fear of being accused of disloyalty.[208] The Society has stated: "The true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic",[222], but former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting cited one study[Need quotation to verify] of the Society's teaching methods which concluded: "Any suggestion that the society encourages genuine open debate, or even discussion, not contained by the strictures of a given answer to a given question must be rejected. Jehovah's Witnesses will brook no criticism from within, as many concerned members who have attempted to voice alternative opinions regarding the basic doctrine or application of social pressure have discovered to their chagrin."[175] Natural (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Conclusion of the preceding

There are so many instances in this article of claims which are exaggerated or not accurate, of having a strong bias, of violating the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia, that it is necessary to appeal to Wikipedia's NPOV board, until such time as these problems can be fixed on this page and a Neutral Point of View restored, and the public can be informed that "not all sides of the issues" are necessarily represented at the present time on this page. It will take many hours, perhaps months, at the rate things are going on the main Jehovah's Witness page, and the continued opposition of BlackCab and perhaps the other opposing editor Jeffro77, to any attempts to present accurate and unbiased information on Jehovah's Witnesses, both of these editors who are clearly opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses, their work and their policies.Natural (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

The article presents notable widespread views. The article does not state that criticisms made against the religion are true or false. 'Unbiased' does not mean not saying things that a particular person may not like, because Wikipedia is not censored. The information in the article is sourced and simply presents what has been stated. It is clear from my editing history that I have frequently protected the article from edits that are clearly untrue, both negative and positive about the religion. Implication that I do so simply as an 'opposer' is simply ad hominem in 'defense' of those edits that you do not like.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen you edit both ways, you're right.Natural (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

User:Naturalpsychology has repeatedly demonstrated his poor grasp of the requirements for material on articles to be sourced from reliable published sources. He confuses the presentation of sourced, editorially neutral and balanced critical material about his religion with bias. He continues to attempt to inject his own opinions without sourcing. He continues to take offence at any material written by former members of his religion on the ignorant basis that they are "apostates" (to use the term commonly employed by religious extremists such as himself), claiming that it is necessarily biased. He continues to attempt to remove all criticism of his religion from Wikipedia articles. He continues to make ad hominem attacks on other editors when he can find no sound basis for objection to material in articles. He continues to leave rambling, repetitive and often incoherent complaints on talk pages, recycling his petty complaints when they do not have the desired effect. He seems to have difficulty understanding that the real world cannot be controlled and sanitised in the same way the information flow within his religion is. BlackCab (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Name calling and bullying isn't part of the Wikipedia format. It seems like anyone that has a different view than yours, I've seen it with other editors BlackCab resorts to intimidating and accusing. The posts on this page aren't rambling or repetitive, and haven't been addressed. I'm going to post on the NPOV later today or tomorrow and request a tag on this page. This article's not balanced.Natural (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Rebuttals

Like all Wikipedia articles, this one is a work in progress. Instead of creating endless strings of threads claiming bias, editors might like to actually add rebuttals themselves where they see they are needed. Please remember that material must be fully sourced. BlackCab (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much to process

How about if Natural sandboxed the page, then got consensus to put a revised article back in? You're right BlackCab , this is too much to deal with all at once. Alternatively, Natural, could you take what you consider the worst issue, present it, and let editors solve that before they go on to the next? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The second option would be better. Given that (a) the existing article is a result of casual consensus, the product of many years of editing and (b) Naturalpsychology's very strong pro-JW bias and his equally strong opposition to seeing criticism of his religion on Wikipedia, I don't for a moment think he is capable of writing a revised article. He has previously argued for the removal of all criticism from the main JW article. It would better if he took a deep breath and addressed one issue and let's tackle that. If he can avoid referring to "apostates" when referring to ex-Witnesses that would also be beneficial. BlackCab (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If that was Natural who wrote "apostates" under an IP, it's quite revealing. Nevertheless we should be willing to listen to concerns. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation and request for warning flag on top of this article

I am going to post a request for mediation on this article to post a warning flag up top stating that the article is not unbiased, or does not necessarily reflect all viewpoints. As per what I was advised, I will start on these two pages to request mediation. The reason for the request is that smaller issues on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page involving the same editors haven't been fruitful, rather the bias has grown in the article rather than diminished with the points in question. I feel that rather than presenting the history of criticisms, this article as it stands today, is a sounding board for criticisms. It is not writing about criticisms, it is taking advantage of an opportunity to criticize Jehovah's Witnesses and present strong arguments to damage the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses. I will post on this page - WP:RFC, and the ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard at WP:ECCN. Natural (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Opening Paragraph needs to be Neutral

Even though this is an article which is suppossed to be documenting criticism against Jehovah's Witnesses, the opening paragraph needs to be neutral. There cannot be open accusations stated in the first paragraph, with references and no rebuttal. It would be better instead to state a brief history in this section rather than specifying particular accusations. The opening paragraph needs to maintain a NPOV. The mind control accusation is Ray Franz's comments, he is the only "reliable source" and it isn't appropriate for the opening paragaraph of this page, as it requires a series of rebeuttals to neutralize this accusation which unbiased sociologists such as Andrew Holden consider to be false and which has been legally and successfully challenged in world courts.Natural (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

It's not clear what you're taking objection to. Suggest an alternative introduction. See WP:LEADCITE on the need for citations. BlackCab (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you were to do an introduction that is more general and historical, it would lend itself better to an unbiased introduction, stating the facts rather than getting into details of specific controversial or opinionated interpretations of the facts.

This is one idea -

Jehovah’s Witnesses have been the subject of criticism throughout the years. Criticism against Charles T. Russell was mainly from clergymen, whose teachings and doctrines Russell argued against. After Russell died in 1916, J.F. Rutherford became the next president of, what was then referred to as the International Bible Students. Because of Rutherford’s brusque style and personality, and internal struggles for control, schisms arose and many left that group. Rutherford was criticized for his strong words against what he referred to as “false religion”. In the 1960s some dissenters criticized the organizational structure of Jehovah’s Witnesses and afterwards some former Jehovah’s Witnesses have written books criticizing Jehovah’s Witness eschatology and organizational structure. One former member of the Governing Body has also been outspokenly critical of details in Jehovah’s Witness doctrine and the organizational arrangements of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

That is it in a nutshell. More could be added, but that states the basic facts without delving into interpretations, what might be considered "fringe" ideas, or issues that need much more in the way of clarification to maintain [NPOV]]. Natural (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The current lead is a summary of what is in the body of the article. However, the ideas suggested above could probably be adapted and added to the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to use a lead with specific accusations, in this case serious accusations against Jehovah's Witnesses, then the introdtion itself has to come from a WP:NPOV. The first person coming forth with the argument is correct, then it takes the next to prove himself. Wikipedia is coming with a whole list of serious accusations against Jehovah's Witnesses, undefended in the opening paragraph. That is not acceptable. You need to maintain WP:NPOV throughout the article, especially the introduction. Natural (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The introduction itself does much to slander and damage the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Some might not read farther, some might quote just from the introduction. Therefore, the introduction needs to have rebuttal or to be neutral. It can't remain in the present state and has a strong anti-Jehovah's Witness POV.Natural (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

There is no slander. The introduction clearly states that accusations have been made, not that those accusation are necessarily true (though nor am I saying they are not). The accusations that are stated to have been made, have in fact been made, and it does not say the accusations are true. Also, you mean further, rather than farther. Farther is a comparative term relating to distance, whereas further can be used figuratively.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

By your reasoning then, In the Wikipedia article under "Criticisms of Jeffro," I am going write.

Personal attack removed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No more said, until the following paragraphs which present strong arguments defenfing that claim. That is not damaging your reputation or slandering you? Posting that in public? It certainly is even if the aricle is writing down what others have accussed you of, the charges are being repeated, consolidated, and reiterated in an authoritative manner, with references. So, it most definitely damages your reputation. Therefore, a NPOV needs to be kept in the introduction, as well as all parts of the article. Because people quote from selected portions of articles, and whether, in your POV, there is validity to the arguments or not, it still damages another's reputation, which is the basic definition and meaning behind slander.

Natural (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Natural User:Naturalpsychology|Natural]] (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Your intentionally offensive example is entirely different, and also entirely inappropriate. Unlike the accusations about JWs, which have quite definitely been made, as indicated in published sources, no such accusations have been made about me. Your chosen example will be reported to the admin noticeboard for their consideration.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral POV needed in Introduction

This article is biased and has a strong POV. It was written from 40 references to books from former Jehovah's Witnesses, and would more properly title, Ideas of Apostate Jehovah's Witnesses. It also has 7-10 books and links in its further reading from former (apostate) Jehovah's Witnesses. This is a page by apostates from references of apostates. It does not have a NPOV, but it has an extreme bias. When it uses Watchtower literature, it is generally using it to try to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses, and by repeating, consolidating, reiterating, and adding commentary and combined references to accusations against Jehovah's Witnesses, it is furthering itself a biased point of view and is in itself damaging the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is referred to in legal terms as slander, as it is now.

The opening paragraph, for starts, needs to be neutral in its presentation of the topic, which I tried to do, by referring to sociologists and journalists who provide a balanced view of Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than the apostates who make up the most of this article. However, it was taken out, and so, I ask, what better could be added in the introduction, that won't be deleted by opposing editors to achieve a NPOV in the introduction, to start? Thanks. Natural (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Your attempt at a neutral introduction was very poor indeed.

• The religion has been criticized by religious oppossers of doctrinal inconsistency, reversals of doctrine and false predictions is misspelt and makes an implied judgment of the critics that they are prejudiced.
• They have been accussed by some former members of autocratic leadership ... also contains some bad spelling and ignores the fact that some of those criticisms were made by people who have never been Jehovah's Witnesses.
• Jehovah's Witnesses dispute the claims or the intenet implied by these claims. Your addition of the words "or the intenet implied by these claims" makes no sense.
• Many sociologists such as Rodney Stark, Frank Mead, Andrew Holden and journalists such as Joel Engardio and Paul Shepherd, provide a more neutral and balanced view of Jehovah's Witnesses. That is your opinion, not a statement gained from third party sources, and therefore cannot be included in an encyclopedia. It would be as unacceptable as me adding the sentence "Watch Tower Society literature usually provides a distorted view of facts."

The introduction to the article must provide a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. It does. BlackCab (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this further and how the intro section can be improved.

(a) The term "controversy" in the lead section is a hangover from the previous title of the article, "Controversies involving Jehovah's Witnesses" and is probably inappropriate to the content.

(b) The intro refers to Witnesses experiencing controversy with governments, but there is no mention of governmental opposition or criticism in the article. That material is found, and appropriately located, at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses.

(c) It also fails to mention one of the most common criticisms of the religion, particularly in the media, which deals with their rejection of blood transfusions, even in life-threatening circumstances.

(d) Media criticism of the religion often focuses also on the accusation that Witnesses split up families. This, as Andrew Holden noted, is often sensationalist in nature, but it is usually related to the consequences of the JW practice of expelling and shunning members as part of its judicial process, which is quite distinctive to the Witnesses.

The intro might be better reworded to say this:

• Jehovah's Witnesses have attracted criticism from mainstream Christianity, some members of the medical community, former members and some commentators over their beliefs and practices. The religion has been accused of doctrinal inconsistency and reversals, false predictions, mistranslation of the Bible, harsh treatment of former members and autocratic and coerceive leadership. Criticism has also focused on their rejection of blood transfusions, particularly in life-threatening medical situations, and claims that they have failed to report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. Jehovah's Witnesses dispute the claims.

The "commentators" refers to authors of books on the Witnesses who have no previous connection with Witnesses, but have still been critical. I'm not crazy about the term; I'm open to comments and suggestions. Such an introduction would be editorially neutral and covers the basics of the article content. BlackCab (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted, then, this thought, Jehovah's Witnesses and a number of sociologists provide a different version. Don't know how to phrase.

Perhpas --

Jehovah's Witnesses provide evidence that differs from these claims. Some sociologists, jounralists, judges and courts have also disagreed on many of these points.

The article here does get into the fact that all of the above present a differing opinion than the critics, so that should be an appropriate sentence in the introduction, helping to summarize both sides of the issue in the article. Natural (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Maybe there is a better way to word that.Natural (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses do not dispute the claim that they have made false predictions. Rutherford openly acknowledged his error, and the Watchtower openly acknowledged their error in over-emphasizing 1975.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not dispute that they have reversed certain doctrines, such as interpretation of Rom 13 and governmental authorities.

also, the word accused, would probably be better rendered criticized, as the article is not accusing Jehovah's Witnesses but it is about criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Natural (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

In this case the word "accused" would be better. This clearly denotes that they are accusations, or claims, whereas saying they have been "criticized" for making false predictions, mistranslating the Bible, etc, implies that those things are true and that they have subsequently attracted criticism. I accept that it should be acknowledged in the intro that others, apart from the Witnesses, have disputed some claims. I can't see any rebuttals in the article from sociologists, so for the moment I'll include only courts and religious scholars among their defenders. I'll suggest this as an option:

• Jehovah's Witnesses have attracted criticism from mainstream Christianity, some members of the medical community, former members and some commentators over their beliefs and practices. The religion has been accused of doctrinal inconsistency and reversals, false predictions, mistranslation of the Bible, harsh treatment of former members and autocratic and coerceive leadership. Criticism has also focused on their rejection of blood transfusions, particularly in life-threatening medical situations, and claims that they have failed to report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. Many of the claims are denied by Jehovah's Witnesses and some have also been disputed by courts and religious scholars. BlackCab (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A more neutral point of view has been attained on the Critism of Jehovah's Witnesses page introduction.Natural (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Edmund Gruss Self Published book

The emphasis on Edmund Gruss' self-published book, would need to be removed. Self-published books aren't considered, from what I understand, reliable or authoritative references by Wikipedia. Additionally, Gruss' criticisms in 1967 were when there was a single president who was pretty much in charge. In having read a good portion of his book, it seems as if his criticism is leveled against the power structure of the president of the Watchtower Society. After 1975, with the organizational arrangements for diminished power of the president, and a Governing Body, rather than a single president, whom he likens to the pope, it was seem as if his main criticism was addressed, about 10 years later. His criticisms, then, in addition to being past tense, rather than present, the 2003 book is merely a reprint of the 1967 book, and is self-published. There are a few updated features, perhaps, in the book, the only one I could see was a paragarph mentioning Don Adams as the current president, who most Jehovah's Witnesses do not know by name or face.Natural (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

but polemicist Edmond Gruss has highlighted Watch Tower predictions he claimed did the same thing.[35] Again, not an authoritative reference.Natural (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Former Witness Edmond Gruss[195] and authors including Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes[196] and Alan W. Gomes,[197] claim Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious cult. The Watchtower has stated that some early Bible Students had established a "personality cult" around Russell[198] and Gruss claims that the "veneration" and "adulation" once given to the president has now been transferred to the "visible organization", indicating the cult mentality still persists. Gruss claims there is further support for the definition in the "mindless acceptance" of directions by members and the Watch Tower Society's insistence that faith in the organization is necessary for salvation.[199][200]

If it is self-published and not otherwise notable, it probably fails as a suitable reference. Your assessment of what new material appears in the 2003 edition may depend on how much is constituted by the "good portion" you have read. I haven't read any of it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed pretty much the whole book and directly read much of it. I took note of that point having read a review on Amazon.com about the book, checked it out/confirmed the point, in the library. (I didn't realize where Gruss was coming from with the book, thought it was from a Witness writing favorably. It only adds a paragraph or two to the 2003 edition, besides that it is exactly the same book. It's a reprint, not a new edition.Natural (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

There is no reference for this accusation of hypocrisy in this sentence,

Critics have also accused the Watch Tower organization of hypocrisy in its use of predictions. One Witness publication referred to others as "guilty of false prophesying" after having "predicted an 'end to the world', even announcing a specific date'".

Maybe Gruss is the one the Wiki article is talking about, because his is the first non-Witness reference after this statement. Or maybe the editor of Wikipedia himself is making that accusation in the article?? Natural (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Wording of James Beverly

As noted by one of the contributors on the main Jehovah's Witness talk page, it doesn't seem as if James Beverly uses the term "false prophet" but does talk about failed predictions.

This line, then, would need to be modified, James A. Beverley have accused the religion of being a false prophet for making those predictions. Natural (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

James Beverley, page 89: "In fact the near-intoxicating dose of false prophecies have come from the top. and it is only by incredible mental gymnastics that Witnesses can rationalize the sorry guesswork on their future." BlackCab (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did James Beverly say this, particularly because of assertions in some cases that the predictions were beyond doubt or had been approved by God or is that from Ray Franz or someone else? The way it is currently attributed makes it sound like it wsa Beverly who states that, but I had a feeling it was Ray Franz. Would need to rephrase it somehow to indicate different source of that statement, if it is included and its not Beverly. Thanks. Natural (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

False prophecies and false prophet are two different things. False prophet is more like a label. It is like the difference between having ADHD and being ADHD. False prophet is attaching a label, that Beverly doesn't do. It is taking it to the next level.Natural (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You are trying yet again to explain away what an independent commentator said by suggesting he was parroting someone else, namely Franz, who you hate. It was Beverley's own conclusion. And your hair-splitting on false prophet/false prophecies is just fatuous time-wasting that doesn't deserve a response. BlackCab (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't hate Ray Franz, I don't approve of what he did and his tactics, and I pity him. I've prayed for him in the past. Natural (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

He died in June. By all accounts, he was a happy, kind and caring person. BlackCab (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea he died.

Natural (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

It is indeed slanderous propaganda to assert that 'apostates' must be 'miserable'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My conclusion in my heart after reading some of these things, is that certain apostates must be very miserable, because some of them are very proud, and some are extremely negative and unbalanced. Even if a person doesn't agree with JW, there is still a lot of good there. People in general recognize that, but the apostates get unbalanced. What we said once, nothing is 100% good, and God isn't like that. The only one perfect, according to the Bible was Jesus. Everyone else you can easily find fault with. The Jehovah's Witness religion isn't perfect, but its not so bad either.Natural (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Take your response here, and replace "apostates" with "JWs" and replace "JWs" with "Catholics" (or any other group JWs see as 'false religion'). Your gross generalisation is so vague that it could be applied to just about any two opposed groups you want to promote/marginalise. JWs are (taught to be) extremely proud, believing they are right and every other single religion/individual with a different view to them on the planet is wrong. You are still misusing the word 'apostates', as the word—despite your continued deluded view that it has a more specific meaning—refers to any who reject a particular group of which they were formerly a member.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro, I don't want to debate the issue at all. Any time I use the term apostate, please note, it's referring to anyone who rejects their former religion. It's referring to those who actively write or act against JW, in this context, in a manner that is unethical, biased or hateful. This isn't saying that all apostates are hateful or unethical. And it doesn't mean that JW are above valid criticism. It's not referring to people who leave the religion for one reason or another or who leave and join another religion or become agnostic.Natural (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

There is really nothing to debate. Every time you use the term 'apostate' in the JW pejorative sense, you are using it in a slanderous, dogmatic fashion to promote JW propaganda. That's a plain and simple fact. Your second and third sentences contradict each other so your alleged position in the statement above is (intentionally?) ambiguous, though your third sentence strongly suggests that you prefer to maintain the pejorative sense.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is the secular meaning of the word apostate. It is the same way Jehovah's Witnesses use it,

This statement has come up often that the word apostate is Jehovah's Witness jargon.

These are the comments based on the work of Bryan Wilson of Oxford University -

Apostasy has been a common phenomenon in the history of the various denominations of the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. Apostasy may be considered no less to occur when a single erstwhile believer renounces his vows and his former religious allegiance. [all the more so] if that member then proceeds to ridicule or excoriate his former beliefs and to vilify those who were previously his close associates. [Jehovah's Witnesses use the term for those who match this [all the more so] description.]

In recent decades, given the emergence of so many new religious bodies which make strong demands on the loyalty of their members, instances of apostasy have become matters of considerable attention for the mass media. The apostate’s story, in which he is usually presented as a victim, is seen as good news-copy for the media, particularly if he offers to “reveal” aspects, and perhaps secrets, of the movement to which he formerly belonged.

Apostates and New Religious Movements

Professor Bryan Ronald Wilson is the reader Emeritus in Sociology at the University of Oxford. For more than 40 years, Professor Wilson has conducted studies of Scientology, Christianity and many other beliefs. He is one of the most well-known British scholars of religion and provides here a thought provoking study on the subject of apostates and apostasy. http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/credible-experts/apostates-and-new-religious-movements/

So, the word apostate and the way Jehovah's Witnesses use the term is consistent with scholarly secular use of the term.Natural (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You've just contradicted yourself. Basically you've said "All apples are green. Other sources say apples are red, green and other colours. So they agree that apples are green. So all apples are green."--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Belongs in a different section or deletion

Links two separate criticisms/arguments to create a stronger argument.

Watch Tower publications have stated that Christians trust God and therefore "they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization".[30] Such statements have led to criticism that members of the religion are expected to place "unwavering trust" in Watch Tower predictions[31] and face expulsion if they do not accept its teachings, even though many of its predictions have subsequently been set aside.[32][33] Natural (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Cult accusation by Hokema

This particular point prompts a common misconception of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses do empahsize works, but are pretty mainstream in their teaching that salvaation is not through works, but through undeserved kindness and the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. No matter how many works you might do, it doesn't result in salvation. So, if this line is to be used, then there should be a clarification of Jehovah's Witnesses position on grace and works.

the denial of justification by grace alone (he says Witnesses need to earn everlasting life by demonstrating obedience to God in the millennium),

Reasoning on the Scriptures p. 359 Salvation Is anything more than faith needed in order to gain salvation? Eph. 2:8, 9, RS: “By grace [“undeserved kindness,” NW] you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast.” (The entire provision for salvation is an expression of God’s undeserved kindness. There is no way that a descendant of Adam can gain salvation on his own, no matter how noble his works are. Salvation is a gift from God given to those who put faith in the sin-atoning value of the sacrifice of his Son.)

Then the article goes on to talk about, you would have works in harmony with your faith. Natural (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

JWs specifically disclaim the notion of 'once saved, always saved', and the point Hoekema makes is consistent with that. However, I'm not really convinced that it's much of a 'criticism', but more of a simple difference in belief. Does this 'criticism' even merit inclusion? (I am referring to the specific sentence quoted above, not the entire Hoekema reference.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cult section and HOEKEMA's comments

Would need to be able to offer refuting evidence against these specific accusations by Hoekema. For example, the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on salvation by grace. Hoekema gives a different view of it than what JW teach on this subject. They don't believe in earning salvation. They believe grace is obtained through undeserved kindness and the ransom of Jesus. So, either the line can be taken out, or an explanation of JW beliefs can be added. JW don't believe they earn everlasting life.

Also, a defense of the apostolic role of door-to-door witnessing and the Witnesses position from a 2nd party source would be of value, and/or from the Witnesses. The door-to-door ministry is biblical. I'd never heard of any criticism of door to door ministry being somehow identify of a cult.

Also, the Watchtower publications have buffering comments to this idea,

Watch Tower publications teach that Witnesses alone are God's people and only they will survive Armageddon so if that line were to remain, there would need to be references on that.

This would need clarification Hoekema highlights Watch Tower teachings that the Bible may be understood only as it is interpreted by the Governing Body

I'm not sure what Hoekem is saying here, but it would need some explanation of defense from JW.

Hoekema says Witness publications claim the group was called into existence by God to fill in a gap in the truth neglected by existing churches, marking the climax of sacred history.

This is the paragraph in full --

elevate peripheral teachings (such as door-to-door witnessing) to great prominence, extra-scriptural source of authority (Hoekema highlights Watch Tower teachings that the Bible may be understood only as it is interpreted by the Governing Body), the denial of justification by grace alone (he says Witnesses need to earn everlasting life by demonstrating obedience to God in the millennium), a view of the group as the exclusive community of the saved (Watch Tower publications teach that Witnesses alone are God's people and only they will survive Armageddon) and the group's central role in eschatology (Hoekema says Witness publications claim the group was called into existence by God to fill in a gap in the truth neglected by existing churches, marking the climax of sacred history. Natural (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

There is actually no biblical precedent for door-to-door preaching. The verses JWs interpret as referring to unsolicited door-to-door preaching actually refer to gatherings of early Christians in the homes of persons who were already believers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question on this sentence "Witnesses state that they are saved by the ransom sacrifice of God's Son and undeserved kindness, that there is no one that can earn salvation" should that say "there is no one that CAN'T earn salvation"? I have a feeling that they meant "can't" but in case I was wrong I didn't want to arbitrarily change it. Vyselink (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't mean "can't". The intended sense is that no one could ever do enough to earn (deserve) salvation. They consider 'salvation' to be undeserved, though they also believe that salvation cannot be attained without performing works that 'demonstrate their faith'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me (and thanks for letting me know, that's why I didn't change it because I wasn't sure) but that seems rather oxymoronic. You can't "attain" salvation without performing "works", and yet salvation is something you can't "earn".......then why do the works. I don't know. I was raised a Witness but only recently I did I get interested in studying them from an outside viewpoint, so I don't quite get it yet.--Vyselink (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is generally a mistake to assume that religious ideas have a rational premise. The closest the concept gets to rational is that if you have faith, you'll demonstrate that faith by doing the works even though the works themselves won't get you anywhere. Despite that, the faith of all the people of all the other religions who are just as sincere is apparently no good, because they aren't doing the 'right' works. Like I said, it's best not to try to make sense of it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Original Research - Governing Body declared as sole channel of communication with God and men

If the statement is noted from an outside source, it would be acceptable. As it is, this statement and the Watchtower references represent original research, and as noted by comments on the Jehovah's Witnesses main page, it is more coherent with Wikipedia policy to use outside credible resources rather than going directly back to JW literature to make the point the editor is trying to make.

The statement is that the Governing Body is the sole channel of communication between God and mankind, and the point being, the use of direct references to JW literature isn't appropriate in making such a statement, regardless if the point is valid or invalid. It is similar to the issue raised about Ray Franz's comments on the main JW page and the 1959 and 1972 references which were cited without reference to the source of the research and reasoning, who was R. Franz.

These references then, wouldn't be appropriate, and unless an outsite reference is noted, the statement cannot be used.

^ "Christian Channel of Communication", The Watchtower, May 15, 1955. ^ "Do You Appreciate Jehovah’s Organization?", The Watchtower, June 15, 1998. ^ "The Visible Part of God’s Organization", The Watchtower, May 1, 1981.

Additionally, the references themselves need to be examined to see if that is in fact what they say, of if the editor is making an interpretation of the statements that the Watchtower makes in these three articles. Natural (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

In examining these three references, these two references do not mention the word Governing Body, and only are general articles about appreciating God's earthly organziation. They do not support the Wikipedia statement.

^ "Do You Appreciate Jehovah’s Organization?", The Watchtower, June 15, 1998. ^ "The Visible Part of God’s Organization", The Watchtower, May 1, 1981.

The third reference is from 1955. It is an outdated resource on this subject. (as an example, Jehoavh's Witnesses once referred to those of the other sheep as Jehonadabs, that term is in Jehovah's Witness literature, but is outdated, it is no longer used.)

Additionally, the article uses the term Governing Body in several places, but does not state that they are the sole channel of communication between God and men. The context of the article is dealing with doctrinal issues rather than communicating with God, which is a right of all men through Jesus Christ, not through the Governing Body, and not even through the faithful and discreet slave class. Each individual can develop their own personal relationship with God, preferably an intimate one, according to the Bible, and according to Jehovah's Witness literature. Therefore, this statement is misleading and is not supported by Jehovah's Witnesess literature.

Watchtower - Train with Godly Devotion as Your Aim -

5 Good communication with God also involves heartfelt and specific prayers. These help toward building a personal friendship with Jehovah. 8/15/85 p. 17

11/15/85 pp. 14-15 Can You Prepare Now for Persecution?

Do You Pray?

22 This is an important question when we think of persecution. The Bible counsels: “Persevere in prayer.” (Romans 12:12) Prayer is direct communication with Jehovah God. Through it we can ask for the strength to endure difficulties and make right decisions, as well as build a personal relationship with Jehovah God. Even if opposers take away our literature, our Bibles, and our association with other Christians, they can never take away our privilege of prayer. In the strongest prison, a Christian can get in touch with God.

Natural (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I'll look for a secondary source that refers to that, but it is an uncontroversial and incontestable fact of WT doctrine that is far from "original research": The 1955 article states: "The evidences, therefore, are overwhelming that the anointed Christian remnant among Jehovah’s witnesses today comprise the collective channel of communication." This is restated in the Sep 1, 1991 WT that refers to the faithul slave -- which is represented by the GB -- being "God’s channel of communication". A 2009 WT (Nov 15) again restated the concept, when it wrote: "By word or action, may we never challenge the channel of communication that Jehovah is using today. On the contrary, we should cherish our privilege to cooperate with the slave class." Your argument that that the 1955 article is outdated is clearly wrong. BlackCab (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The correct term, then would be "faithful and discreet slave class" rather than targeting the Governing Body. Also, I didn't see where it said "sole" channel of communication. Additionally, this reference on theocracy, ^ "Theocratic Organization with Which to Move Forward Now", The Watchtower, December 15, 1971, page 754. creates a stronger Wikipedia argument against Jehovah's Witnesses and a synthesis of two attacks, together. One against the channel of communication thought, and the other against the statement of theocracy. As it is presented here, it is original research, although perhaps one of the other opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses has used that reasoning in their writings, in which case, it would be necessary to properly cite the material.

Natural (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The "functioning as a theocracy" article says nothing about channel of communication.Natural (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

All these articles that are referenced say nothing about the Governing Body, and are only vaguely connected with the point you are trying to make. None of the articles say that the Governing Body is the channel of communication. That is a word inserted by Wikipedia editor. If you post something, please make sure that it actually makes the point, and it isn't just vaguely connected. Natural (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

There is fairly clear agreement among the sources on the statement Naturalpsychology disputes.

• Franz (In Search of Christian Freedom, pg 19): "I can vouch for the fact that the Watch Tower organization views with the utmost seriousness its claimed position of being God's sole channel of communication on earth."
• Holden (Jehovah's Witnesses, p.32): "Witnesses everywhere continue to believe that God is using the Governing Body as his channel of communication."
• Penton (Apocalypse Delayed, pg 4): "If therefore one wants God's approval, one must stay in close association with those who truly know the significance of the divine plan -- God's 'channel' or 'organization' -- and by definition those who direct it."
• Hoekema (The Four Major Cults, pg 247): "Despite the claim of this movement to depend on the Bible alone, the real source of authority for Jehovah's Witnesses is the interpretation of the Bible handed down by the 'anointed class' at Watchtower headquarters. To use their own language, the Witnesses insist that the Watchtower Society is 'the instrument or channel being used by Jehovah to teach his people on earth'." (footnote to Qualidied to be Ministers, pg 318).
• Watchtower (Sep 1, 1991): "Jesus Christ has appointed 'the faithful and discreet slave,' made up of anointed Christians, to care for all his belongings on earth during this day of his presence. That faithful and discreet slave is represented today by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has as its publicity agent the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Most appropriately, that faithful and discreet slave has also been called God’s channel of communication."
• Watchtower, May 15, 1955: "God has provided his Christian servants from Pentecost, AD 33, forward with a reliable channel of guidance for the understanding of these amazing revelations of his will and purposes ... we observe that this God-provided channel for Christians is the collective congregation of anointed ones who serve as a prophetlike organization under the leadership of its communicating head, Christ Jesus ... The evidences, therefore, are overwhelming that the anointed Christian remnant among Jehovah’s witnesses today comprise the collective channel of communication."

It is easy to join the dots between those points -- the anointed are the channel, but the Governing Body is their representative. Obviously the 11,000-strong "slave class" does not communicate with Witnesses directly, and nor is there a method for them to do so; decisions on doctrines and activities are decided by the Governing Body, supposedly speaking on their behalf. Holden speaks directly of the Governing Body, Penton refers to thsoe who "direct" the organization (ie, the Governing Body) and the 1991 WT states that the GB represents the slave. WT literature refers only to the channel God uses, and so Franz correctly refers to it as the sole channel. I agree that some of the WTs cited are not directly related to the claim and I'll remove those. BlackCab (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing, it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to join the dots. The editor presents views already written but doesn't syntesize them or take them to the next level. Joining the dots is the same thing as synthesis.Natural (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, maybe, this is a pet peeve, in the same way that the word apostate is a pet peeve of Jeffro, but please don't use 1955 references to make the point. Much has changed in the thinking of JW since then. It's not nec. the same wording or thinking in 1955, unless it's in a historical context, not nec. with this point, but it's not nec. to go that far back. Thanks.Natural (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Shall we also remove the section about the crusades from Criticism of the Catholic Church? That was some time ago as well. My 'pet peeve' about the propagandistic JW misuse of the word 'apostate' is entirely different to citing statements in Watch Tower Society literature that are a source of criticism in the Criticism article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is making its own criticism here

Watch Tower publications have stated that Christians trust God and therefore "they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization".[30]

Is this the words or reasoning of Ray Franz? If so he needs to be cited as the source of criticism.

This citing - ^ "The Godly Qualities of Love and Hate", The Watchtower: 441, 15 July 1974.

Natural (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

In the same paragraph,

and face expulsion if they do not accept its teachings,

Does Botting make this criticism? Please provide reference.

Does Ray Franz make this criticism? Please provide reference.

Properly cite and attribute the Wikipedia statement please.

Natural (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

There are a number of references pertaining to Witnesses' fear of questioning the Governing Body and their unquestioning acceptance of prophecies and skewed Watch Tower versions of history.

• Bottings, pg. 66: "Despite the society's insistence that Jehovah's Witnesses follow its dictates upon pain of disfellowshipping, it does not claim infallibility. Thus, the membership is at the mercy of the society in terms of doctrinal shift. The membership must believe in the oracle, no matter how wrong he may be -- and indeed Frederick Franz is considered by members of the Governing Body to have been 'our oracle for the last 67 years'. Franz himself admitted, under cross-examination in the Walsh hearing that from time to time 'there was a need for a review of our beliefs respecting how the prophecies would be fulfilled'."
• Franz (Crisis of Conscience, pg 174): "The organization ... treats those mistakes as mere evidence of human imperfection ... it is one thing for a man to make an 'ass' of himself becausde of wanting to see something happen. It is quite another for him to urge others to share his views, to criticize them if they do not, even to question their faith or impugn their motives if they do not see the matter as he sees it ... No less serious is it when a group of men have divided views on predictions related to a certain date and yet present their adherents an outward appearance of united confidence, encouraging those adherents to place unwavering trust in those predictions."
• Franz (In Search of Christian Freedom, pg 19, as part of an 11-page discussion of that specific subject, including lengthy sections of transcript from the Walsh case hearing): "According to this testimony, anyone wishing to remain as one of Jehovah's Witnesses has no alternative, no option but to accept the published statements of the Watch Tower Society. for whom Fred Franz spoke as a representative. Acceptance is 'obligatory'."
• Beverley (Crisis of Allegiance, pg 100): "The central myth, the dominating idea in the worldwide Society, is that organizational loyalty is equal to divine loyalty. Obedience to God can be measured by submission to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and to dissent from the 'faithful and discreet slave' is to reject God's counsel ... the fear of disobedience to the Governing Body keeps Jehovah's Witnesses from carefully checking into biblical doctrine or allegations concerning false prophecy, faulty scholarship and injustice."
• Rogerson (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, pg. 81): "It is possible for the Society to teach these misleading historical generalisations because the Witnesses accept without question what is taught by the Society; in any case the Society discourages independent investigation of the historical facts. Most Witnesses would accept the Society dogmas even in the face of contradictory documentary evidence -- they simply think up some 'explanation' for the 'apparent discrepancy' ... This attitude is typical of the Witnesses; somewhere in the back of their minds is the certainty that the Society is right -- whatever doctrinal contradictions or unfulfilled prophecies or inconvenient facts, the Witnesses remain certain that the Society is right and they are proud of this unshakable faith!"

Other authors also comment on the strong discouragement of Witnesses questioning doctrines (another distinctive characteristic of this religion), but they are not directly related to the sentence you are questioning here. --BlackCab (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Channel of Communication

There is nowhere in JW literature that states that the Governing Body is the sole channel of communication between God and man. Jehovah's Witness literature refers to the faithful and discreet slave class as the channel of communication. For an editor to input the words, the Governing Body, is taking it to the next level, one that Jehovah's Witnesses do not take it to. That would be true regardless whether few of the other members of the faithful and discreet slave class make decisions or have input on doctrine. It is speaking of communication in this sentence, not formulating doctrine, which are two different things.

Additionally, the wording here in wikipedia implies that no one else can communicate with God or have a personal relationship with God, and that isn't true either, according to Jehoavah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witness literature states that each individual can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ and the ransom sacrifice, not through the Governing Body. So, the phrasing about the faithful and discreet slave class and channel of communication has to be taken in context of the overall teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the level of understanding that the average reader will have.

Each individual has a personal relationship with God through Jesus, and hot through the Governing Body. Prayer is communicating with God, and God answers individudal's prayers, not through any human agent. I'll pull up references on this. But this would also need to be clarified.

Channel of Communication is in the Context of Doctrinal Matters and Application of Bible Principles

The "channel of communication" comments the Watchtower makes is in the context of formalating deeper doctrinal matters, rather than the personal communication that is open to all men.

w93 2/1 p. 16 par. 7 What Godly Subjection Requires of Us

the anointed faithful followers of Jesus Christ were to serve as a “faithful and discreet slave” in communicating to Jehovah’s people how to apply Bible principles in their lives. Natural (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The Bible is God's Means for Communicating with Mankind

w94 10/1 p. 3 The Bible—What Is Its Real Value?

The Bible is the Creator’s prime means of communicating his will and purpose to the human family,

Each Individual Can Communicate with God Personally Through Prayer

w00 10/15 p. 13 par. 13 God’s Kingdom—Earth’s New Rulership

Even now, millions of his servants pray to him daily. Those prayers reach God instantly. So communicating with all perfect humans would have presented no problem for him.

w00 8/1 p. 30 Why Be Reasonable in Our Expectations?

“Let your petitions be made known to God; and the peace of God that excels all thought will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4:6, 7) Yes, communicating with Jehovah really works to help us cultivate reasonable expectations of ourselves and of others. Natural (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

w99 2/15 p. 22 par. 18 The Way of Love Never Fails

Are you reading and meditating on God’s Word and communicating with your heavenly Father through prayer?

The statement is based on the cited sources. BlackCab (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you start a new thread to repeat the same point you made on a thread you opened just eight days earlier? BlackCab (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Video from Google?

Some random editor (User:79.209.115.203) posted a google video in the "external links: critical" section that I'm not too keen on. BlackCab and Jeffro did not comment on it, and neither did Natural or LogicalThinker, so maybe you guys already did and I just missed it. It seems to me to be A) too old, and B) too biased to just be put in by a user who has a total of THREE edits without at least some discussion, so I thought I would bring it up. If it already has been discussed, or if I'm just wrong about it, please let me know. Vyselink (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't watch the video. Don't really have time for propaganda pieces. If there's a transcript I'll review it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(Clarification: I did watch the first ten seconds. The video begins with irritating audio incorporating discordant low tones with a continuous high pitch tone in the background. This kind of technique is typical of propaganda films 'preparing the viewer' to be irritated. On that basis alone, I would not object to removing the link.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I watched the first few seconds as well. Without it being properly labeled, it's difficult to know what it is, so I have no problem with it being removed. If it's a notable documentary it can be reinstated, but only with adequate description. BlackCab (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

Perhaps a 'neutral' section would be beneficial? AFAIK, the Memorial Museum is neither praising nor critisizing but re-iterating facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.189.35 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of Social Criticisms

I have given the Social Criticisms section a thorough cleanup, removing several areas of duplication and repetition. I have left the other sections untouched, though I did reorder the section, moving the Blood section below the discussions of authoritarianism and coercion. I'd propose moving the Social Criticism section to the top of the article, above Biblical Criticisms and Doctrinal Criticisms; those latter sections are arguably of less interest to casual readers, and of more use for those wishing to delve into the specific arguments over JW doctrine. Since the Witnesses are commonly accused over their control of Witnesses' lives, it makes more sense to have that information appearing higher in the article than, say the discussion of the rather historical issue of their involvement in the UN. However I'll leave the article to settle for a while before moving else around. BlackCab (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not altogether convinced that 'denial of free speech' is quite correct. Maybe more like 'impingement on free speech'. However, 'denial of free thought' is definitely not an appropriate description, as 'thoughts' cannot be verified independently from speech or actions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Holden (p.33) certain refers to the Witnesses as people "who are denied freedom of speech ... freedom of conscience" and the Bottings say they are "told what they should feel and think". Beckford also says the Witness leadership demands "uniformity of belief". Those statements support the heading "Denial of free speech and thought". If the JW leadership says you must think this way and believe these things or you will suffer the consequences, that is a denial of free thought and conscience. BlackCab (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusion is flawed. Those statements do not support 'denial of free ... thought'. Those statements suggest control and possibly denial of speech or actions, as well as a degree of control of thought, however, applying denial to free thought independent of speech or actions is not supported by the source material, and is not accurate or even plausible.--Jeffro77 (talk)

Cleanup of Doctrinal Criticisms

Some work has started on cleaning up the "Unfilfilled predictions" section, but there's much more to do. There is a fair bit of overlap between "Claims of false prophecy" and "Unfulfilled predictions" and they can probably be merged. A fair bit of untangling needs to be done and poorly sourced statements removed. I'm happy to do some work on it to try to clean it up. BlackCab (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seized some spare time to clean up the section. I'll make those changes to the article now. I have removed the false prophecy subhead and merged the criticism into one smaller section. It avoids going into the detail of the events leading up to 1975 and, hopefully, makes clear that the predictions themselves are based on WTS interpretations of Bible chronology; it is the chronology that has been described as indisputable, and the predictions have subsequently been based on those. If there are significant objections, I'd propose moving the section to the talk page to be workshopped until consensus is reached, but hopefully it is reasonably acceptable. BlackCab (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Already looks a lot better!!!! Johanneum (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Without question

The article previously stated that JWs "are required to accept such teachings without question". If asking questions disqualifies a person from being a JW, then it seems likely the point would be plainly stated in some usable reference. In actuality, JWs can and do ask questions, and asking questions does not disqualify one from being a JW. The statement has been changed to:

• Witnesses are told that Christians "do not question what [God] tells them through his written Word and organization".

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Cannot agree v act against

The article previously stated that JWs shun "members who cannot conscientiously agree with all the religion's teachings". That's an unwikipedian interpretation of the actual JW practice; JW shunning doesn't result merely from thought crimes! Unless a JW actually acts, he is not considered to have committed what JWs believe to be "serious sins" (or "disassociation").

• The Watchtower, March 15, 1986 page 15
• The Watchtower, October 15, 1986 page 31
• The Watchtower, October 1, 1989 page 19
• Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock, pages 94-95
• The Watchtower, May 1, 2000 page 12
• The Watchtower, September 1, 2000 p. 13
• The Watchtower, April 1, 1986 pages 30-31

I've changed the article to read "members considered to have acted or advocated against the religion's teachings". --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there would need to be some expression of thought, though a single discussion about such thoughts may constitute such 'action'. The new wording is sufficiently vague to cover most situations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Further reading 2011

The section Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses#Further reading (see Dec 2009 version) was seriously off from the direction at WP:Further reading. I've hidden it for now; it should be eliminated or seriously pruned. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for the external links. Some of these are personal websites, of which I have removed the most obvious.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fractions and components

This Section makes the statement “An example of this can be seen in blood plasma, which consists of 90-96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately.” This is false. Watchtower doctrine leaving Witnesses to accept transfusion of “fractions” is not premised on taking those constituents separately. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The intended meaning is that they aren't permitted to have all of them together as whole plasma. Re-word as necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

NWT

I have removed an ambiguous claim and a misleading claim about the NWT translators, both added by User:Cuddlyable3.[3]

The first claim was that "NWT's translation committee claims to have been privileged by a single heavenly Author in their work". This ambiguous statement adds nothing beneficial to the article; additionally, the source provided says god is the author of the scriptures, but does not claim god to be the author of their translation.

The second problem was the misuse of a statement in the NWT's foreword that no translations were "inspired", where Cuddlyable3 uses the word "previous" to falsely suggest that the NWT was intended as an exception to the 'other' translations. The Watch Tower Society has never claimed that the NWT translation was "inspired". A similar statement to that misused by Cuddlyable3 appears in the JW publication Insight on the Scriptures (volume 1, page 1213). It says: "The most remarkable example of translation from one language to another is the rendering of the Bible into many, many tongues, a monumental task that has consumed centuries of time. Today this Book, the whole or in part, appears in well over 1,800 languages. However, none of such translations or their translators were inspired." It was written nearly 3 decades after the NWT was translated (and the later source shows an updated number of languages), and therefore includes the NWT as a translation that was not "inspired".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro77 is correct to bring his/her two objections here. They concern citations from sources so I show below source texts followed by the article texts that are questioned.

In releasing it for publication we do so with a deep sense of gratitude to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, who has thus privileged us and in whose spirit we have trusted to co-operate with us in this worthy work.

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Foreword p.6

The above is the source for this article text:

NWT's translation committee claims to have been privileged by a single heavenly Author in their work

Today this Book appears in whole or in part in well over 1,300 languages. However, none of such translations or their translators were inspired

Aid to Bible Understanding, p.838

The renderings of numerous other Bible translations have also been considered and cited in connection with the subjects discussed. To save space, the following abbreviations have been used for the translations most frequently cited. (a list of 42 Bible translations follows).

Aid to Bible Understanding, p.7

The above is the source for this article text:

Jehovah's Witnesses claim that none of previous translations, with over 42 considered and over 1300 mentioned, or translators were so inspired.

Some will see ambiguity in what is meant by "inspired" which could mean intellectually motivated or divinely informed. Jehovah's Witnesses know which meaning they intend but the article must not push a POV on which meaning is actually the case. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The JW source does not support the (poorly worded) claim, "a single heavenly Author in their work". Specifically, the JW source does not say that the 'heavenly Author' is the author of their translation, but only claims that god is the author of the original scriptures, in whom they apparently place their trust (in the sense of 'hope').

The JW literature says that no translation is "inspired", including the NWT. It is misleading to say that the "previous" ones are not inspired, and superfluous to say none of them are.

In both instances, the sources do not support the claims made.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the name of the article is criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, this point could be possibly made. No doubt I have heard it before. There is also no doubt that this criticism cannot be proven through literature produced by JWs, though. JW talks, literature, and counsel has always declared the opposite. If CB3 feels this criticism adds to the compendium of human knowledge, though, then a less ambiguous source (there are many) is wholly necessary. Schyler (one language) 19:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand Jeffro77's first objection. Nowhere do I see a claim in the text that anyone other than the committee are the authors of their translation. The committee do announce explicitly that a privilege was granted to them. They are not thanking men for this. We have to adopt a scrupulously NPOV in quoting the donor of that privilege. It is a notable item of Jehovah's belief that all the books of the Bible have a single author in contrast to mainstream Christianity that acknowledges a number of authors at different times. But I choose to say "a heavenly Author, not the heavenly Author, to avoid getting into loaded and POV consideration of that Author being unique or not. Capitalising the "A" in Author is, I think, a reasonable concession to the same convention of capital "G" for God, and "Author" is true to the source. In case you still disagree, let's invite more voice(s) to help.

To Jeffro77's second objection, it is clear that Jeffro77 takes "inspired" to mean "divinely informed" and that Jeffro77 deduces from known dates of publication, that Jehovah's Witnesses include their own translation NWT among the 1 300 or 1 800 uninspired ones. I have no argument against that logic. However it may be too near WP:SYN because the Jehovah's Witnesses may not intend or even be aware of that argument's logic. Unless someone provides an source that says explicitly that the NWT is among the uninspired translations, we may not generate our own criticism this way. However the categorical claim by Jehovah's Witnesses about a remarkably large number of translations on which various faiths rely is notable in our survey of criticism of the NWT. Can this be said better? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Schyler, yes, this is the Criticism article—but it is for criticism found in reliable sources, not the dubious interpretation of JW sources by a Wikipedia editor. If the criticisms made by Cuddlyable3 have appeared in reliable sources, those sources should be provided. Otherwise, the edits should not be retained.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That is what I was trying to say. Maybe I came across too diplomatic. To say what I think CB3 is trying to say is simply an untruth in that it is a widespread criticism. Then again, maybe I am misunderstanding CB3's criticism, in that it is an actual criticism. If he wants to, CB3 could do the research and refine his criticism.

As far as CB3's most recent post, please see the second sentence of the foreword written by the said committee. See also: 2Timothy 3:16; The Watchtower, Who Wrote The Bible. February 1, 1988. Schyler (one language) 02:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The article you cite says nothing at all about the NWT or any other translation. It simply makes the claim that the original Bible writers were 'inspired' by god.

Cuddlyable3's most recent response regarding the second point is speculative at best. The "categorical claim" by JWs about translations not being inspired relates to all such translations, including the NWT. However, if a reliable source makes a similar criticism, that could be included; (note that any source citing the same JW statement for such a criticism would also be misusing the JW source). The JW source material simply does not support any implication of a claim by the authors that the NWT is uniquely 'inspired'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3's edit has no merit at all. It is definitely an act of synthesis to assume that NWT translation committee's statement that "the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures ... has thus privileged us ... in this worthy work" is a claim that their translation is an inspired work, and therefore differs from other translations which are not inspired. The reference to "privilege", although using an uncommon term, is fairly standard religious posturing, no different to the way JWs and other Christians speak of being blessed by God in some activity. It is an act of self-aggrandizement, an affirmation of self-righteousness and probably reflects an utter conviction that what they are doing is approved by God. But the statement itself is pretty meaningless. It is certainly not explicitly claiming divine inspiration. Without that explicit claim, such a statement in an encyclopedia article reflects the assumption of an editor rather than a clear, incontrovertible source. The edit was based entirely on that word, and given the lack of clear sourcing should therefore not be included. BlackCab (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I was using all the sources in tandem. NWBTC comment -> 2 Tim. 3:16 -> WT. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 02:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Shunning after long periods

The following text was recently removed:

However, elders are instructed that baptized persons who have had no contact or association with the congregation for some time are not subject to congregational sanctions such as shunning.

The removal of that text was entirely appropriate, as the statement was misleading. The sources that were provided discuss whether a judicial committee would be formed if a person who has not associated with JWs for many years (i.e. simply ceases attending JW religious services but does not formally resign) is considered to have recently committed a 'serious sin'. The sources indicate that in such an instance, a committee might not be formed if the person has very little contact with congregation members (the source also states that in such cases, the person's family members would still "curtail family association severely"). The sources do not say that shunning ceases after some arbitrary period of not associating with the congregation (i.e. for those for were 'disfellowshipped' or formally resigned).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that my statement was misleading, I didn't notice that it could be interpreted that way.

Nevertheless, SOME statement is needed, as the current article gives the false impression that there is no way to stop activity in Jehovah's Witnesses without shunning. Therefore I propose the following sentence:

"However, elders are instructed that baptized persons who have ceased activity and have had no contact or association with the congregation for some time need not be disfellowshipped or considered disassociated." StandFirm (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement that DFing and shunning "need not" happen is not a rebuttal of the criticism and nor is it relevant to the criticism. The criticisms section contains criticism of the fact that it does happen. BlackCab (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be redundant to say that those who have ceased contact with the congregation (without formally resigning) are not shunned. Additionally, the source indicates that in such cases, the elders would "hold the matter in abeyance" rather than take no action at all. In the event that such a person later attempts to associate with congregation members, such judicial action would then be resumed, with subsequent shunning if not deemed up to standard.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Current Watchtower policy does not direct that Witnesses who have ceased contact “need not be disfellowshipped or considered disassociated” by virtue of non-contact or the term of non-contact. Rather, Watchtower policy leaves this wholly at the discretion of its local appointed elders. The policy directs that under this circumstance elders “elders may determine to hold the matter in abeyance.”—(Pay Attention, published by Watchtower, 2010, p. 73) The policy does not direct that elders should or would hold the matter in abeyance.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But doesn't anyone agree that the present wording gives the false impression that there is no way to stop activity in Jehovah's Witnesses without shunning? I am open to putting my or a similar sentence in a different part of the article. StandFirm (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The sentence now says: "Criticism has also been directed at the 1981 change of policy that directed that persons who voluntarily left the religion were to be treated as though they were disfellowshipped." I hate to use JW lingo, but I take your point. It would therefore be more accurate to say "Criticism has also been directed at the 1981 change of policy that directed that persons who disassociate from (formally leave) the religion were to be treated as though they were disfellowshipped." The elders' manual states that an announcement is made concerning those who state before two witnesses, or put in writing, that they no longer wish to be associated with the religion. That action is a formal disassociation or defection and an orgazationally mandated shunning then ensues; my guess is that they would be in a minority. BlackCab (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No major problem with the suggested change. However, whilst disassociation does include those who formally resign, the elders can also decide, without an individual's express direction, that a person has 'disassociated themself', such as by celebrating Christmas or accepting a blood transfusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the impression that "there is no way to stop activity in Jehovah's Witnesses without shunning" (though I don't think the article strongly gives that impression) is fairly close to the mark. Once a person is officially considered a JW (i.e. baptised), any time thereafter, the organization considers the person to either be officially considered a JW, or they are shunned. There is in fact no provision at all for a person to no longer be a considered a JW without being shunned. This includes the organization's opinion that an 'inactive' individual is perpetually subject to the religion's rules (even if the person has ceased contact, which might mean a matter is 'held in abeyance'), meaning that the organisation imagines it has a right to impose sanctions, at its discretion, on any 'inactive' individuals if they are considered to have done anything the organisation considers to be a 'serious sin'. Moreover, even once an individual leaves (i.e. is being shunned), the organization imagines that the person is still subject to its arrangements for shunning, reinstatement and judicial procedures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

External links

I see there have been continued attempts to include external links to personal websites, even after an uninvolved party clearly indicated that thirdwitness.com fails the criteria.[4] If an editor believes that other external links also fail the criteria, discuss whether those sites should be included rather than attempting to use those sites as a basis for others that fail the criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Racism in the Watchtower

Look at http://www.watchman.org/jw/aparthid.htm

I think this is noteworthy and a section with this name should be added!--217.230.252.137 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out in my editsummary, if you can find reliable sources that cover rassism and Jehovah's witnesses we may add it to the article.TMCk (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Claims of 'racism' among JWs come up every now and then here, but they are based on anecdotes and speculation. No reliable source has ever been presented to suggested any systemic or intrinsic issue of racism. The frequency of racism among JWs seems to be the same as among any other area of society. Racist attitudes expressed in very early Bible Students and JW literature are certainly unacceptable, but they reflect the general views in 'white' society at the time and are not a notable demonstration of racism specific to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at http://insidethewatchtower.com/history/a-brief-history-of-racism-in-watchtower-publications/ --87.163.235.159 (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The linked article/blog does not prove that WT are racists. Given over 37 % of Witnesses in United States are African Americans, gathering together with whites, a GB member is a Black, there is no point that say that JWs are racists. If a person is spiritually qualified then he will get privileges irrespective of genderrace--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This supposed issue of 'racism' among JWs has been discussed previously; there is no notable dispute about racism among JWs.

It is certainly not the case that congregation responsibilities are assigned "irrespective of gender". However, gender has nothing to do with race.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Planet positions

I have reverted Willietell's recent POV edits. In particular, the claims made about the planets' positions were misleading. Specifically, it is only the Watch Tower Society's claim that the planetary positions do not match 568. Additionally, The Watchtower article dishonestly cites David Brown's Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology. Whilst Brown does state that there are various ambiguous names by which planets were named by the Babylonians, the Society's article omits that Brown states (on pages 55-56) that the Babylonians also had unambiguous names for those planets, and that those are the names that appear in VAT4956. I have also restored quoted material that Willietell modified.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I should also have added that Willietell's wording dishonestly implied that Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis were the 'researchers' who support the Society's claims about VAT4956 being consistent with 588BCE, though that source only says there was also an eclipse in 588BCE; the 'researchers' that the Society claims support their view about positions of stars in 588BCE are not named in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Scholars supporting 607

Willietell claims that it is appropriate to say "not all scholars support 607", however this is misleading. It falsely implies that some scholars do support 607. No source has been presented of any scholar in support of 607. The only sources supporting 607 are JW sources. If Willietell wants to say something other than "Non-Witness scholars do not support 607", Willietell is to provide sources indicating other sources in support of 607.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The subheading itself points to Rolf Furuli, who does support the date. The statement that "not all Scholars" is therefore appropriate and not misleading, the use the phrase "Non-Witness scholars" is clearly POV, as their particular religious views are irrelevant. Willietell (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Furuli is a JW. That fact that no non-Witness scholars support the date remains directly pertinent. If you disagree, supply a source identifying a non-JW scholar in support of 607.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement is as misleading as claiming that not all Australian prime ministers have been women or that not all US presidents have been black. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead readers. BlackCab (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you two guys explain your rationale for the edit war over BC or BCE? Both are acceptable according to WP:ERA. It seems pointless to keep reverting this. BlackCab (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The only quoted instance uses BC, not BCE. Per WP:ERA, it is preferable to consistently use the same form throughout an article. Willietell also modified the quoted instances. My personal preference is actually for BCE, however for consistency, and to avoid having to manually fix the other instances, it is simpler to revert the change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So you both prefer BCE. Nice. I'm puzzled by Willietell's continued removal of the opening sentence that states that 607 is critical to the JWs' selection of October 1914 for the arrival of Christ in kingly power—2520 years after October 607 BC. He has recently claimed [5] it is synthesis and original research. I'd call it blindingly obvious in a section that discusses criticism of that date. It's also supported by Gruss, cited there, who says (p.42): "The Witnesses require a 607 BC date for the fall fo Jerusalem from their 1914 chronology to be substantiated." BlackCab (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As both of us prefer to use the BCE dating, I'm assuming due to its more widely accepted scientific use, I can only assume that the reverting is simply a veiled attempt to remove the additional content removed by the revert. In other words, the point in Jeffro77's revert was not truly to erase the BCE dating but to remove the following material:

"The relative positions of the moon, stars and planets indicated in the astronomical diary VAT 4956 are used by secular historians to establish 568 BCE as the twentieth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, however, not all of these astronomical positions are consistent with a 568 BCE dating. The Watch Tower Society states that researchers have confirmed that the positions of the moon and stars on the tablet are instead consistent with astronomical calculations for 588 BCE, citing "Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC", by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004, page 186. The Society claims that "though the cuneiform sign for the moon is clear and unambiguous, some of the signs for the names of the planets and their positions are unclear", citing "Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology", by David Brown, published 2000, pages 53-57. Brown indicates that the Babylonians also had unique names for the known planets. Jonsson confirms that the unique names are those used in VAT 4956. According to the Watch Tower Society, astronomical calculations based on ancient writings are often unreliable and are prone to error.

This is again, properly sourced material which was also "reverted" without discussion. My assumption is that this must be material that Jeffro77 simply "doesn't like" and therefore he reverted it and used the BC vs. BCE dating as the excuse. I have tried to AGF, but the reverting of BCE back to BC did not require reverting the other material, thus there has to be an additional motive in the revert. Also the "quote" to which Jeffro77 refers, is not even properly sourced, as it does not appear in the cited material, but in fact appears in the proceeding article in the same magazine. As for my removal of the synthesis and OR, Gruss is not the cited source for the statement and 607 BCE is not critical for 1914, but in fact the 1914 date is arrived at because of the 607 BCE date. If the facts pointed to a different date other than 607 BCE, lets say hypothetically 610 BCE, then the CE date would have been adjusted accordingly. The statement is also therefore misleading, as it attempts to show that 607 BCE is "picked" because it is 2520 years before 1914 CE, when exactly the opposite is the case, that 1914 CE was arrived at because of the 607 BCE date. Remember, Jehovah's Witnesses have not held back from making major doctrinal changes when scriptural light has dictated such an adjustment and would handle 1914 the same if it became clear the date were incorrect according to the scriptures, however scriptural evidence points to 607 BCE and Jehovah's Witnesses place their complete confidence in the accuracy of God's word over mans supposition. Willietell (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In an attempt to AGF I have replaced the deleted, properly sourced material, while maintaining Jeffro77's preferred BC dating format. Willietell (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be a little confused about your role as an editor here, Willietell. You don't remove comments by a source just because you disagree with them. In an article about criticism of the JWs, the criticism should remain regardless of your conviction the claim is wrong. BlackCab (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't removed any comments made by a source, I have removed only "unsourced" synthesis. If you have a source for the material, give the source. As it currently sits, unsourced OR is what is present in the article. Willietell (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You are being deliberately obtuse. You have twice removed the statement by Gruss, which is sourced.[6][7] BlackCab (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

YouYes, it appears someone is being intentionally obtuse, as the statement and source is as follows:

"This date is critical to their selection of October 1914 for the arrival of Christ in kingly power—2520 years after October 607 BC"." Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy! chap. 6 par. 25-29 "

The last time I checked, " Pay attention to Daniels Prophecy " is a publication, not by Gruss, but by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, which means that the statement is NOT sourced from the cited material. Willietell (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. It's fairly plain from what BlackCab has told you that the Gruss reference encompasses both those sentences. However, because you're being difficult, I'll duplicate the ref so that it is clearly marked for both the sentences.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Willietell, use of BC was a consistent application of Wikipedia guideline, based on the quoted sources (which you also modified) using BC; it is not my preference.

Secondly, the other quotes about Brown's references to planetary observations were not inadvertently reverted, as was already explicitly explained in the section above.

I'm not aware of which quote Willietell says "does not appear in the cited material"; if there is a minor error in a citation referring to the wrong page, just fix it.

It is indeed the case that if a year other than 607 were selected, "then the CE date would have been adjusted accordingly". BlackCab has already explicitly indicate that Gruss specifically indicates that the reason for the dogmatic selection of 607 is to arrive at 1914. Significantly, when the JW leadership realised there was no year 0 (it took them until the 1940s to work out), they didn't 'adjust the CE date (1914) accordingly'; instead they shifted 606 to 607, and 536 to 537. The 'scriptural evidence' doesn't support the "seventy years" ending after the judgement of Babylon's king in 539 (per the sequence of events explicitly stated at Jeremiah 25:12), so your claim about the 'scriptural evidence points to 607 BCE' is erroneous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Willietell to justify claims

Willietell persists in claiming that 607 is not 'generally' supported by non-JW sources. This is not the case, as no non-JW sources support it. If Willietell disagrees, he is to provide non-JW sources that support 607. It is dishonest to attempt to imply that some secular sources support 607, and the claim requires a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you mark another one of my edits as vandalism, you will be reported for such WP:uncivil action. I am not the one who needs to justify the improper use of NON-Witness Scholars, use of that as an identification clearly violates WP:NPOV, instead you need to justify its inclusion. "Generally" is a generic term that is neutral, feel free to look it up. Your continued edit warring will get you reported to ANI as well as will your incivility. Continued "tag team editing" in conjunction with another editor to circumvent the 3 revert rule will also get you both reported from this date forward, I am giving you fair warning as a courtesy. I think an apology is in order for accusing me unjustly of vandalism. Willietell (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation of tag-team editing is false and is part of your own pattern of seeing conspiracies when editors disagree with you. I made this change and clearly explained that your wording of "not all editors" was quite misleading; you reverted it three hours later with the nonsensical allegation of synthesis and original research. I reinstated the original wording here. Your suggestion that referring to non-Witness scholars is a point of view is just wrong. But feel free to report me for anything you like. You have a long record of tendentious editing and refusing to accept consensus. I can't see that I've ever previously reverted edits of yours on this page, so your use of "continued" is a bit of a puzzle. BlackCab (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Willietell, the edit was not intentionally marked as vandalism. I went to click Undo in the revision diff page, but the Twinkle gadget was still loading, so the mouse click inadvertently went to its "Rollback (Vandal)" link instead (I did attempt to abort the process and wasn't sure if I was successful; evidently I was too late, but I didn't think it would matter among reasonable editors). Apologies for any confusion. However, the fact remains that your edit is misleading, because no non-JW sources have been presented in support of your preferred view that other scholars only 'generally' assign dates other than 607.

As regards the paltry claim of 'tag teaming', get a life.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

'Refinements'

I have reverted the attempt to claim that changes to JW doctrine are 'refinations' (apparently an attempt at the word refinements). Aside from it being redundant, it is entirely subjective to claim that changes in doctrine are necessarily 'refinements', which implies that they are improvements. (This is especially the case where doctrines have been changed to earlier doctrinal positions.) To do so asserts a value judgement that is not neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources in Evolution section

It seems to me that most of the Evolution section is built around sources that are unacceptable here. Neither Alan Feuerbacher's blogs nor the jwfacts.com website qualify as reliable published sources. New sources need to be found or the section deleted. This article should not be a clearing house for opinion pieces hosted by blogs and private websites that criticise JW teachings. BlackCab (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Remember that the guidelines say that even self-published articles are acceptable when they are themselves the "news" referred to. "Criticisms" are by definition highly subjective, and the sources are not used as sources for what (if anything) is wrong with the Watchtower Society. They are used as sources for the simple fact that a certain criticism has been made.

The 1985 "Evolution" book in particular has met with very similar criticisms from numerous independent writers, which should make these criticisms notable enough to be included in an article like this (though Wikipedia cannot have any opinion on whether these criticisms are VALID). Very true, these criticisms typically appear in electronic articles, but if dead-wood publications saying the same thing cannot readily be located, this would simply reflect the fact that commercial publishers consider the subject too marginal to warrant a commercial book on the topic. (How many people are going to pay good money to read about what may be wrong with the science of a non-political movement often considered a quite irrelevant sect?)

Talk-Origins material is extensively used as sources in the general "Objections to Evolution" article, and must be acceptable here as well.

In general, highly detailed, fully annotated and referenced articles (some even with extensive bibliographies) should hardly be allowed to fall completely under Wikipedia's radar when the subject matter ("Criticism") is subjective to begin with -- though the articles have only appeared in electronic form. Once again: this article is not about "What Is Wrong With the Jehovah's Witnesses", it just describes what kind of cricisism the movement has met with.

Nobody wants to read an article listing every random slur that has ever appeared anywhere (if Joe Shmoe writes in some web forum that "JWs are stupid idiots", we don't have to devote a subsection to the not-so-interesting fact that "Joe Shmoe criticizes the Jehovah's Witnesses for being stupid idiots"), but numerous, detailed, non-fanatical articles by clearly scientifically competent writers should not be summariliy dismissed just because the topic is too narrow to interest commercial publishers.Fauskanger (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not that the articles 'have only appeared in electronic form'. Nor is it even necessarily that the self-published sources aren't of a high written standard. The issue is that the sources have not been established as reliable or notable per Wikipedia's standards. If you consider a particular site to constitute a reliable source, you can start a discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Alternatively, you may discuss the broader issue at the Reliable Sources policy Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider this one in particular: http://www.jwfacts.com/pdf/weighed-wanting-watchtower-origin-of-life.pdf It is extremely thorough, non-fanatical, well-referenced and comes with a bibliography. Is not this a good enough source for the naked fact that criticism has been made of certain Watchtower anti-evolution material? In that respect, the source is itself the information.Fauskanger (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Refer to previous response.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As for Life - How Did It Get Here? calling Hitching a scientist: I only have the Norwegian version of the book available, so before adding the reference to the article I hope somebody can confirm that the page numbers are the same in the English original. On page 71 Hitching is quoted as saying (back-translated by me from Norwegian): "The strange thing is that we can see a definite consistent trait in the missing fossil material: the fossils are missing in all the most important places." On page 73 the same Hitching quote appears once more (as a marginal insertion), now with the introduction: "A scientist said..." Thus the book does present Hitching as a scientist (which he is not). Are the page numbers the same in the English version, and do the exact words "a scientist said" appear on page 73? Fauskanger (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the book does refer to Hitching as "a scientist" in the English version as well, and the page numbers are the same. However, for this point to be made in the article, the claim that this has been criticised still requires a suitable secondary source, otherwise it is original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a substantial article about the Life - How Did It Get Here? from the official website of the Norwegian Skeptics Association: http://skepsis.no/?p=493 It is written by my compatriot Jan Haugland, but I don't believe he is directly associated with the site as such, so there is an editorial function involved. (Unfortunately for our purposes, the article is in Norwegian, but one can at least get a rough idea about its contents using automatic translation.) Haugland criticises, among other things, the dependency on Hitching and the misrepresentation of him as a scientific authority in the Watchtower book. Is this not a good enough source for the naked fact that a certain criticism has been made? Fauskanger (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it depends what you mean by "compatriot". If you just mean he's a friend of yours, the source probably doesn't qualify. If, however, you mean he is a well known reliable source from your homeland, than the author might qualify (though an English source would be preferred here). But the web page seems to be a blog, so I'm still not confident that the site qualifies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Compatriot" as in "coming from the same country", that's all. I dimly recall exchanging a few e-mails with Haugland about ten years ago, and that's all the contact we've ever had. And I think the Norwegian Skeptics' Association would be rather unhappy to have their collection of articles dismissed as a "blog". Their webforum is elsewhere. Fauskanger (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't dismissed them. I just don't know. You might like to ask at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that Haugland has produced a more or less equivalent English-language article, though hosted elsewhere:

www.home.no/carloc/sd.doc

What does "reliable source" mean in this case? We only have to establish that a certain criticism has been made, don't we? For that purpose, the article could only be "unreliable" in the sense that someone is falsely writing in Haugland's name and ascribing to him opinions he doesn't have. I don't think there is any reason to suspect that here. If the idea of sources having to be "notable" or "reliable" is pushed TOO far in an article that often has to do with subjective impressions anyway, the article can be accused of inherent bias: Instead of simply listing various criticisms that have been made (of course excluding trivial slurs), the article might start to look like a "resource page" for anti-Witness polemics, where the writers have carefully selected the "best" and most "well-argued/well-sourced" and so, implicitly, "well-founded" criticisms detractors can level against the Watchtower. For the most part, the article can have no opnion on whether a certain criticism is "fair" or not; it should simply dispassionately describe the criticism and list the arguments used by the various sides, for and against. (If any non-trivial source DEFENDING the scientific accuracy of Watchtower anti-evolution material can be located,it should also be referenced.) Fauskanger (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Refer to previous comment. I don't know whether or not he would be considered a reliable source. I haven't seen anything to definitively say that he is, though he may be. I've never heard of him. Who is Haugland? Is he a respected notable author in his field? Does he have any credentials? Or is he just some guy who gives his own opinions for articles on a web site?

It is indeed true that the benchmark for inclusion of a criticism is that it should be from a reliable source. Whether the criticism is 'fair' is subjective, and is not the determining factor. But nor can we add criticisms made by just anyone.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is Jan Haugland? I believe he left the Jehovah's Witnesses in the early 1990s. He emerged, together with Kent Storhaug and Norman Hovland, as a Watchtower critics of some note -- not exclusively in a Scandinavian context. These people were the first to publish the "top-secret" elders' manual Pay Attention to Yourself and All Your Flock on the internet, which caused the Watchtower Society to take legal action against them. Whether that makes Haugland et al. heroic whistleblowers or embittered copyright-violators will of course depend on who you ask. At least they were "notable" enough to come to the attention of Brooklyn.

They were also writing articles about how Rutherford supposedly tried to charm Hitler before the war, and interestingly, a 1998 "Awake" (July 8, pp. 10-14) attempted to rebut claims made by "some former associates of Jehovah's Witnesses" in this regard. (Of course, no critics are actually named, in what Penton calls the "typical Watchtower fashion": Compare Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich, 2004, p. 44.) As for academic credentials, Haugland in 2000 wrote a master thesis in religious studies: "The Successor Problem: A focused biography of Joseph Rutherford". This English-language text is also available from the website of the Norwegian Skeptics, though it is scholarly rather than overtly criticial or polemical in nature. Using Rutherford as a case study, Haugland discusses the critical transition moment in young religious movements that must occur when the original founder (and undisputed leader) dies: http://skepsis.no/?p=542

The Norwegian Skeptic Society has also published a book (yes, an actual dead-wood publication!) about apocalyptic expectations (Dommedag! = Judgement Day!), where Jan Haugland provides a chapter surveying Watchtower predictions of the "end" (most prominently in 1925 and 1975). This chapter is more openly polemical in nature.

So while nobody says that Jan Haugland is a Penton or a Ray Franz, he IS a Watchtower critic of some standing, and at one point in the 1990s he and his fellows made even themselves enough of an annoyance to merit Brooklyn's attention. He DOES have some academic credentials, having produced a master thesis about Rutherford, and he is a published author on the subject of Watchtower endtime expectations. Can we agree that he is not just anyone as regards Watchtower criticism? (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2013

I don't know that this establishes him as a reliable source about JWs in general, or about evolution in particular (nor do I have any special authority to make a final decision). If Haugland published a book about Rutherford, it might make him a reliable source for information about Rutherford and maybe about 1975 (whether these were self-published may also have some bearing). Beyond that, I still think it might be a bit tenuous for the source in question here about criticism of the Watch Tower Society's rebuttals of evolution. You can either wait and see what other editors have to say here, or raise a query at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

These were not self-published works. The book Judgement Day!, where Haugland contributes, is edited by a professor (dr. philos Asbjørn Dyrendal) and a prominent Norwegian folklorist (Arnfinn Petersen). As for Haugland articles that appear on the Skeptics website, a "Writer's Instruction" (Forfatterinstruks) at the top of the page makes it clear that any articles submitted will undergo editorial scrutiny before publication, by external consultants if necessary.

Concerning Francis Hitching's real background, it is covered in one of the TalkOrigins faqs (which are used as sources in other Wikipedia articles); the FAQ also quotes Richard Dawkins about Hitching's work, though without explicitly mentioning the extensive use of it in the Watchtower book. Those particular dots are connected in Haugland's material, and I think it must be granted that he is a Watchtower critic of some note, with certain academic credentials, and with several non-self-published works. No, he isn't an evolutonary scientist, but the issue before us is not of a highly technical nature; we just need a citation from a non-trivial critic who has criticized the Watchtower book for its dependence on Hitching (and for misrepresenting him as a "scientist"). A reference to a non-self-published article by a general-purpose Watchtower critic with certain definite credentials and scholarly achievements seems to me sufficient to establish that such a criticism has been made.

From the viewpoint of the general culture, the entire subject is relatively obscure, and it is not to be expected that super-high-profile sources like Penton or Raymond Franz can always be relied upon for references when we come to the more specialized topics.Fauskanger (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've been saying. I don't know whether he's a reliable source, and it's not really up to me anyway. Since no one else is commenting here, and you don't seem to want to take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, how about you just be bold and add the citation to the article and see what the response is? See also WP:BRD.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's allow the matter to rest for a few days and see if there are any comments. In the meantime I may send a mail to Haugland and ask him about his credentials, so we know how to refer to him. Since he produced a master thesis, I guess he walked away with an academic degree. Fauskanger (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It should not usually be necessary to personally contact the author of a source in order to determine if they are a reliable source. This should be evident from the source. Contacting the author seems a bit like original research. But it's up to you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(Moving this up from new thread) The Francis Hitching "criticism" [8] is clearly WP:OR. If there is no reliable source making that criticism, then the article can't just present the objections of an editor who has discovered logical or factual errors in WTS publications.

Fauskanger is making a very valiant bid to include adverse comment about the WTS's statements on evolution, but so far there is just nothing to indicate that such criticism exists. Wikipedia's requirement for notability (as demonstrated by the level of attention from reliable independent sources) does relate only to whether the topic should have its own article, and does not determine the content of articles; therefore material that appears on websites such as JWFacts and the Norwegian Skeptic Society probably can be included. But the three paragraphs that make up the "Evolution" section contribute almost nothing to the article. They state:

(a) that "critics" have identified dishonest argumentation employed by the WTS in its dismissal of evolutionary science. (Who are the critics?)

(b) that WTS literature is fixated with Hitching. (No critic is identified here, leading the reader to assume it's a Wikipedia editor who has observed this); and

(c) that the JWs say they are not creationists yet use creationists' sources for their anti-evolution arguments. (The paragraph says this fact — a pretty trifling one in my view — has "drawn criticism", but from whom? Is this just another observation by a Wikipedia editor?)

The point of the article is to note significant criticisms that have been made of the religion and rebuttals, if available. So far nothing in this section warrants inclusion. BlackCab (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue about whether those sites can be used relates to Wikipedia's guidelines about reliable sources rather than notability. Regardless of quality, JWFacts is a personal website. Unless it has been cited by other reliable sources, it shouldn't really be used as a source—it can probably be used for very uncontroversial points, but then such information is probably available elsewhere anyway. See my previous comments regarding my uncertainty about whether or not the Norwegian Sceptic Society may be considered a reliable source per WP guidelines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As a "Compatriot" of Fauskanger, I am familiar with some of the suggestions given in the foras, retold here. I've not seen the claims from other sources, though it ain't a guarantee at all it doesn't exists. The book Dommedag! is published by a to some extend known publisher (owned by another notable publisher, and coowned by Norwegian Humanist Association), but on the other hand I've never seen the book as a reference by study cases or independent research about JW. Haugland is, as far as I know, not regarded as an authority in any field regarding JW (I've though seen claims that he's written a Master Study or so, published through the website of "the sceptics"), and being a minor contributer to a book do not change that. Kent Storhaug is to some extend known because of the claims of copyright violation and following case (I don't think he was ever convicted), but not known as an authority in studies about JW. Asbjørn Dyrendal is a notable as professor and expert within fields related to religion and history, and Satanism, so the book itself is likely a RS as a source for criticism of JW, if the book itself does have any information related to this article. If using Norwegian books for sourcing this article at all, there are other more known books and authors, both about JW in common, and books written as criticism or exposure of JW (Hege Ringnes list several Norwegian- and English-speaking authors and books related to criticism of JW, in Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie).

Nobody here claimed this article for being near FA-standard, but I think this article would be more informative if focusing on writing about criticism (and critics) as a subject, rather than seeking to retell what critics suggest/claims about JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerns regarding "Failed Predictions" subsection

Hi, I am voicing some concerns regarding this subsection, mainly the list of "failed dates." After having read Raymond Franz's "Crises of Conscience" I do believe that the use of 1984 in the list is somewhat of a stretch. According to Franz, it could be seen more as a "delaying" tactic by the Watchtower. Not an actual prediction. I don't see why it should be listed as such, especially when the sources are merely sourced to the Watchtower itself. My concern is that it is original research. Wouldn't using Paragraph from for the content sourced to secondary sources be better? At first when I read this list in the article I thought that it meant that the bolded dates were the years that the world was supposed to end as per Watchtower teachings. Thus, I feel that it is also misleading. I propose removing that list and if it does serve an encyclopedic purpose, reproduce whatever essential information in paragraph form. Fordx12 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "prediction" is incorrect when referring to the statement made in 1984, and, indeed in some other years. The list of dates is better preceded by a line explaining that it is a list of statements by the WTS about its expectations for the end. The list is no more original research than any other list on Wikipedia, however. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists for a discussion about the inclusion of lists.

Regarding your proposal to delete the list: it does serve a purpose, in providing a chronological list of statements asserting, with varying degrees of certainty, its expectations and predictions. The list shows the consistency of the WTS in its sense of urgency and expectation that the end is just around the corner. For a detailed discussion of specific dates, see Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions. BlackCab (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added a line the explains the list a bit more. Perhaps that should suffice then. Thanks for the link. Fordx12 (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to use a wordy phrase about what 'JWs anticipated' instead of simply saying 'predictions'. The Watch Tower Society (not simply JW members) made statements about what they expected to happen in the future. These are predictions. The use of a wordy expression to get around that word conveys an apologetic tone. Whilst not all the things listed in the section are necessarily 'predictions' based on their interpretations of specific scriptures or other supernatural means (though most are), they are all predictions in the more general sense. If I say, I'll run out of milk by Monday, it wouldn't be necessary to refer to comments that discuss the anticipation about when I might need to buy milk, nor would it be inappropriate to suggest that it was a prediction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(As predicted, I've run out of milk. Oooohhh.... Spooky.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the other concern about years statements were made rather than years the world might end, it quite clearly states that it is by date of publication. Each list item clearly indicates that in a particular year, they said something about the future, so it would be difficult to conclude that the bold years were when the world would end.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Further reading restored

In a highly unusual move, someone hid the Bibliography and Further reading sections, stating (here) that it "was seriously off from the direction at WP:Further reading". Such an approach is not likely to lead to improvement of the section. Instead, anyone who doesn't like this section should state their concerns more specifically - or just fix it. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes of Doctrine

The comments by George D. Chryssides are of note on this subject, explain it from an unbiased angle. It refers to a webpage already referred to in this Criticism page of Jehoavh's Witnesses.

"The counter-cult movement often seizes on apparent inconsistencies in Watch Tower teachings, when in actual fact – like most forms of religion – the truth of the matter is that its teachings are evolving."

http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/chryssides.htm Natural (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

Wording misleading concerning those who "leave" Jehovah's Witnesses

This statement in this page, "The Watchtower's description of those who leave as being "mentally diseased" " needs to be clarified. It presents the view of the Watchtower inaccurately. The statement does not refer to all those who leave Jehovah's Witnesses. It refers to apostates. 2). The Watchtower does not make up that term, but rather, it quotes from the Bible at 1 Tim 6:4, "but being mentally+ diseased over questionings and debates about words." and is understood in that context by Jehovah's Witnesses, most of whom are familiar with the Scripture.

Also, the paragraph in the Watchtower is not referring to just anyone who leaves out of disbelief or disagreement w/doctrine, but refers specifally to "False Teachers," those who try to "teach" others within the congregation their own views, contrary to Scripture, to cause divisions. Natural (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

Incorrect. A letter to all JW elders back in the 1980s quite clearly stated that a person need not 'teach others' to be considered 'apostate' (employing the JW pejorative sense of the term). Further, the phrase "mentally diseased" at 1 Timothy 6:4 is unique to the JW's New World Translation.

The point being that other 5 to 10 other translations, not only NWT, use similar terminology in the Bible.

Additionally, the JW application of that verse is fairly one-sided, because JWs themselves have a complex jargon of their own, with many of their own 'debates about words'. Therefore, your POV won't be included in the article.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Anymore than a pro-JW POV can't be included, neither would Jeffro's POV or BlackCab's. No one has ownership of these webpages. Jeffro has a certain perspective perhaps based on his personal experiences w/JWs. However, there are other valid POV also. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for personal complaints or validating one's personal POV, as is the case with the Synthesis created by Wikipedia, connecting the valid Biblical term, "mentally diseased" with something JW invented in their literature, and further connecting it with "anyone who leaves JW". That is a huge Synthesis. Natural (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

It doesn't seem as if translations other than the NWT are much different in their rendering of that verse. 1 Tim 6:4 reads in other translations - “but sick about questions and disputes of words,” Darby Translation. “but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions,” Douay-Rheims (Catholic. “morbid craving” Revised Standard Version

“among men of warped minds” Philips. “a sick interest in disputes and arguments over words. From these come envy, quarreling, slander, evil suspicions,” Holman. “ignorant windbags who infect the air with germs of envy, controversy, bad-mouthing, suspicious rumors. Eventually there’s an epidemic of backstabbing,” MSG. “a sickly craving” Mounce. “but is sick…” NCV. “obsessed” New King James Version.

The main difference is the NWT adds the word "mentally" sick, indicating that it is not a physical sickness. Your personal POV is strongly anti-Jehovah's Witness. This article has a strong anti-JW POV. The Watchtower article speaks specifically of "False Teachers" not of people who "leave" JW in general. You can easily read that yourself. So, it is very appropriate to include the context with which this statement is made in the Wa., and not take it out of context to make it seem like something which it isn't. The way Wikipedia implies it, it is anyone who leaves JW is mentally diseased, and that is absolutely not what the Wa. is saying or the Bible. Wikipedia, or anyone else complaining along these lines, is twisting the words of the Wa. to say something it is not saying, and it should be clarified. Read the entire subheading of the article. I'll post it here if this isn't enough to convince the editors. Natural (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

You've cherry-picked a few translations suitable to your purpose, whereas various translations have much milder wording more relevant to the context. Moreover, other denominations don't generally go around touting 1 Timothy 6:4 to pejoratively label former members who no longer agree with their doctrines (plus the fact that JWs will quite happily 'argue about words', just as you yourself are here arguing about semantics). Your opinion of my POV is irrelevant; it is inherent that an article about criticism of JWs presents criticism of the religion. The criticisms provided in the article cite reliable sources, and are not merely the opinions of editors.

The letter that was sent to all JW elders says, "Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. ... if a baptized Christian [by which they mean a JW] abandons the teachings of Jehovah [a euphemism for 'JW doctrines'], as presented by the faithful and discreet slave [the JW leadership], and persists in believing other doctrine despite Scriptural reproof, then he is apostatizing. Extended, kindly efforts should be put forth to readjust his thinking. However, if, after such extended efforts have been put forth to readjust his thinking, he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what he has been provided through the 'slave class' then appropriate judicial action should be taken." [9] (formatting added). So you are wrong that it only applies to so-called 'false teachers'. (In fact, a JW can be expelled for 'apostasy' for believing something not yet officially taught, and receive no apology and no automatic reinstatement even if the belief later becomes an official teaching of the religion.)

Further, those who leave the JW religion is not the same as what JWs call 'inactive'. 'Active' JWs are considered by the religion to be 'ministers' (except when it is convenient to say that they are not in any position of authority). If a 'minister' of any other religion ceases being a minister, it doesn't mean they've 'left' their church. A JW who simply isn't actively involved in JW religious services is not the same as someone who leaves the religion. Despite their own internal jargon to describe various 'levels' of both insiders and outsiders, there is no reason for Wikipedia to employ special definitions just for JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Jeffro are forming a synthesis of ideas of their own perspective, concerning the general view JW supposedly take towards apostates. The Watchtower article referred to in the wording "mentally diseased" refers specifically to "False teachers". Anything beyond that is a synthesis derived from the editor, that may be based on personal bias, or POV.

This is the article, and we can clearly see, that the topic is "false teachers" rather than anyone who leaves JW. That's the basic point. Jeffro, the Wikipedia article, and others who may be emotionally involved with this topic, are creating bridges that are not in this article which refers to the term in question, "mentally diseased".

Do Not Follow “False Teachers”

3 Picture yourself on a journey in an arid land. You spot a well in the distance and head for it, hoping to get some water to quench your thirst. Upon arriving, however, you see that the well is dry. How disappointed you are! False teachers are like dried-up wells. Anyone coming to them for waters of truth will be bitterly disappointed. Jehovah through the apostles Paul and Peter warns us about false teachers. (Read Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Peter 2:1-3.) Who are such teachers? The inspired words of these two apostles help us to identify where false teachers come from and how they operate.

4 To elders of the Ephesus congregation, Paul said: “From among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things.” Addressing fellow Christians, Peter wrote: “There will also be false teachers among you.” So from where do false teachers come? They may arise from within the congregation. Such ones are apostates.* What do they want? They are not content just to leave the organization that they perhaps once loved. Their aim, Paul explained, is “to draw away the disciples after themselves.” Note the definite article in the expression “the disciples.” Rather than going out and making their own disciples, apostates seek to take Christ’s disciples with them. Like “ravenous wolves,” false teachers are out to devour trusting members of the congregation, destroying their faith and leading them away from the truth.—Matt. 7:15; 2 Tim. 2:18.

5 How do false teachers operate? Their methods reveal a cunning spirit. Apostates “quietly bring in” corruptive ideas. Like smugglers, they operate in a clandestine manner, subtly introducing apostate views. And just as a clever forger tries to pass phony documents, so apostates use “counterfeit words,” or false arguments, trying to pass their fabricated views as if they were true. They spread “deceptive teachings,” “twisting . . . the Scriptures” to fit their own ideas. (2 Pet. 2:1, 3, 13; 3:16) Clearly, apostates do not have our best interests at heart. Following them would only divert us from the road that leads to eternal life.

6 How can we protect ourselves against false teachers? The Bible’s counsel regarding how to deal with them is clear. (Read Romans 16:17; 2 John 9-11.) “Avoid them,” says God’s Word. Other translations render that phrase “turn away from them,” “keep away from them,” and “stay away from them!” There is nothing ambiguous about that inspired counsel. Suppose that a doctor told you to avoid contact with someone who is infected with a contagious, deadly disease. You would know what the doctor means, and you would strictly heed his warning. Well, apostates are “mentally diseased,” and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings. (1 Tim. 6:3, 4)

The article is clearly referring to "False Teachers" not to anyone who leaves JW. Synthesis is not permitted, however much an editor might be passionate about his beliefs, or however much an editor might believe he is right, on Wikipedia pages. Natural (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

See the discussion on this point at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 56#Mentally_diseased. It was pointed out there: "The Watchtower, in the July 15, 2011 edition, says defectors are apostates (pg 15) and that apostates are mentally diseased (pg 16)." The wording you take issue with here refers to the criticism that was reported in major newspapers following that Watchtower article. Your arguments about the meaning of words in specific translations of the Bible doesn't alter the fact that the newspapers aired that criticism, which is rightly included here. BlackCab (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The response from the JW in the Herald article referred to then, would be appropriate and necessary to include, "ostracisation was "a personal matter for each individual to decide for himself". "Any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is free to express their feelings and to ask questions," he said. "If a person changes their mind about Bible-based teachings they once held dear, we recognise their right to leave."" There are two sides to the issue, so both sides should be presented. Natural (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

It's a bit meaningless to say, "we recognise their right to leave," while quietly leaving out the bit that the person is then shunned by their family and friends. It's just double-speak. However, the quote from the Herald does further illustrate the distinction in meaning regarding those who "leave" as opposed to those who are simply 'inactive' members of the church.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Citing Sources of Criticism in this Article in the Main Text

The point that can be presented here, is that sources of criticism need to be identified in the body of this article, rather than just a footnote. Jeffro makes this good point, "It is unsurprising that criticism of JWs comes from critics'."

Additionally however, the reader needs to be informed who these critics are. If there are 100 criticisms here from Ray Franz, or 20, or 10, identifying them in the body makes a difference. Ray Franz is the source of the specific criticism, and this is an important omission. If the criticism is the U.S. Supreme Court, or the Russian Orthodox Church, or a group of former Witnesses, identifying the source of the criticism is an important part of the neutral viewpoint of the article and its integrity. All critics are not the same. Some critics are more neutral than others, and the reader shouldn't have to through all the footnotes, to see the source of each criticism. Some of the criticisms may be valid, some are disputable. Source of criticism is important. Natural (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

The source of almost all criticisms are noted in the article text. "Raymond Franz, a critic and former Witness, has cited publications that claimed ..."; "Critics including James A. Beverley have accused ..."; "Carl O. Jonsson, a former Witness, presents eighteen lines of evidence .."; "Sociologist Andrew Holden said that ..."; "Heather and Gary Botting argue that ..." "Authors Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes and Alan W. Gomes, claim ...". The evolution section needs a critic identified, and the Biblical Criticisms section could also more clearly identify the critics. BlackCab (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In other words, certain specific, strong criticism do not include the type of identifying information as BlackCab mentions above, and should include it, otherwise, it implies that the criticism is coming from Wikipedia as fact, whereas the critic obviously might have their own bias, as in the case of Penton and Franz, their own reasons for criticizing the Watchtower, which the reader should at least be aware of. The suggestion can be applied here, where it appears the Watchtower references cited are Franz's research.

Some of those early predictions were described as "established truth",[2] and "beyond a doubt".[3] Witnesses are told to accept such teachings without question[4][5][6] The references 4, 5, 6, should be deleted, in favor of quoting from the source of this reasoning. Wikpedia higher editors have instructed the editors of the JW articles in the past that about this.

(If there is an argument about deleting these direct quotes from the Wa in the Wikipedia article in an effort to discredit JW, then I would appeal again to the appropriate Wikipedia higher editors or administrators, who had already given their direction or opinion on that a year or two ago.)

In any case, this paragraph should identify R. Franz as the source of the reasoning (it should delete refs 4,5,6, which is a separate issue). It should be noted that Franz and Bottings were collaborators, Franz sent his manuscript of Crisis of Conscience to the Bottings before it was completed, so it is no wonder they voice the same criticisms. see Ray Franz page. Natural (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

Predictions (by date of publication) include: and Changes of doctrine - should be deleted

These two sections offer a detailed list of the predictions and changes of doctrine of JW. The detailed lists basically provide "proof" from Wikipedia itself with what is apparently original research. This is against Wikpedia policy. The theme of this article is Criticism of JW, and unless these lists are directly from a primary source, they would be inappropriate. Additionally, copyright laws might negate use of such a large amount of material as a direct quote. Usually the limit is in the area of 100 to 150 words. Comments?

In other words, this article is not a chatroom for open air accusations against JW, or a place to accuse JW, or prove them room. Rather it is on Wikipedia to document specific criticisms from reputable sources.

Both of these lists aren't appropriate for this page, and should be removed. Natural (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

The list does not consist of criticisms per se. It is a list of WTS predictions that indisputably failed. Such a list is perfectly within Wikipedia's policies. See WP:LIST and WP:FACTS. BlackCab (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)