Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Blood transfusions "prohibited"

There seems to be some desire to mince words about the JW position on prohibiting blood transfusions, with some preference of watering this down to say something to the effect of 'discouraged from accepting blood transfusions'.

[JW interpretation of] God’s Word teaches that ... blood transfusions ... are prohibited by Jehovah’s law.

— The Watchtower, 15 February 2007, page 10, "Spiritual Building at the “House of Stone"

Occasionally you may hear someone question whether the Scriptural prohibition against eating blood really applies to transfusions.

— The Watchtower, 15 March 1986, page 18, "Allow No Place for the Devil!"

The official JW position is quite clear that blood transfusions are "prohibited".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Plausibility

(Transferring this discussion from my talk page)

Use of the word 'plausibility' in the context of its specific current usage in the JW beliefs article is POV. The other user removed it from the article for the opposite reason that I did previously, which clearly demonstrates the implication that it can be construed in different ways, neither of which are neutral. (Specifically, I removed it because suggesting that the beliefs are reinforced as more plausible implies that they are plausible at all, whereas the anonymous IP editor believes that the inclusion of 'plausibility' suggests that without reinforcement, their beliefs are implausible.) Leaving out the word does not diminish the significance of the statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with either of you! The sentence as I wrote it didn't use the phrase "more plausible" and nor did it imply that. Holden, in his discussion on meetings, noted their importance in three distinct areas: (1) helping to create an atmosphere of uniformity among Witnesses, (2) intensifying their sense of belonging to a religious community and (3) reinforcing the plausibility of the organization's belief structure. This latter point would include fostering and bolstering the belief that the world really is in its dying days and can't continue much longer; that God and Jesus really are personally directing the activities of the Watch Tower Society, that the United Nations really is manoeuvering to eliminate all religions and then turn on Jehovah's Witnesses, that celebrating a five-year-old's birthday really does make God furious ... and so on. As I noted on my summary, such beliefs lack independent evidence and are thus entirely reliant on faith. They depend on people believing them. When members of the congregation speak at meetings about such things as an everyday, accepted fact, they reinforce the plausibility of those doctrines. As the Macquarie Dictionary says, that means those doctrines gain or maintain "an appearance of truth or reason ... are worthy of approval or acceptance." Where in that phrase, then, is the point of view you say I am injecting? LTSally (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether those beliefs gain "an appearance of truth" by attending JW meetings is not a neutral point of view, though it may be the intention. There is no inherent plausibility to beliefs such as god actually directing the WTS. At best, it can be said that the meetings are intended to reinforce plausibility.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately "intended to" doesn't reflect the statement in the source material. Holden doesn't say those are the intentions of the meetings, but the result. LTSally (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If the source material says something that cannot be presented neutrally, the original source statement should be quoted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't see a problem. I don't see any point of view being expressed that robs that statement of neutrality. I'll just restate here the original phrase I wrote: Meetings help to create an atmosphere of uniformity for Witnesses, intensify their sense of belonging to a religious community and reinforce the plausibility of the organization's belief structure.(Holden's book cited here as the source). I have nothing more to add to what I've explained above, but I'm interested in the opinion of anyone else. LTSally (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement: "Meetings help to ... reinforce the plausibility of the organization's belief structure" is merely a claim. Whether meetings actually help to do this in all instances, and whether the organization's beliefs are actually plausible are both opinions, not encyclopedic facts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've attributed the statement to the author of the study. LTSally (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Exclusivity at Armageddon

This is in regards to AuthorityTam... there are many WT articles that directly teach exclusive salvation at Armageddon, you have no basis to reject this. I really doubt you sincerely believe that non-Witnesses will survive through Armageddon... and as such you're being disingenuous, and attempting to bias this article by removing any less flattering facts, even those you know are true. Jadon (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The two cited references show this without any shadow of doubt. AuthorityTam's attempt to twist the WT reference from Sep 1, 1989 to be speaking of three groups -- (1) Jehovah's Witnesses, (2) the anointed remnant and (3) the great crowd (presumably others with whom God will find favour) -- is ludicrous and untenable. The transcripts of the Walsh case in Scotland in 1954 also show Fred Franz believed this: "Q: ...That means the continued existence of this planet, and I take it with an entirely new and purified human society, is that right? A: Yes. Those survivors must be Jehovah's Witnesses who have dedicated their lives to him and engaged in the ministerial work of preacing the good news of the kingdom." (transcript, page 58). "Q: Then the population of this new earth, will that consist of Jehovah's Witnesses alone? A: Initially it will consist of Jehovah's Witnesses alone." (Transcript, page 59). I cannot find any other explicit reference in WT literature to God saving non-Witnesses. If there are, these are a contradiction of Fred Franz's theology. I've reverted the sentence to say that God will destroy human governments and non-Witnesses, but there is probably a better way of expressing this. The reference to non-Witnesses sounds awkward and clumsy. LTSally (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

*** w99 6/15 p. 6 Vandalism Can Be Eliminated ***

Jehovah and his Son, Jesus Christ, truly want all kinds of people to have the opportunity to learn Bible truth. God’s Word can do more than help individuals to stop being vandals right now. It can motivate them to make further progress in applying divine principles. As a result, they become members of an international brotherhood known for cleanness and good manners, the worldwide congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In harmony with Ephesians 4:24, these sincere Christians have “put on the new personality which was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.” Soon the world will be filled with such people because these will be the only ones who will survive and live forever.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:AuthorityTam is continuing to revert edits to impose on the article his/her opinion which is clearly contrary to Watch Tower teachings, as demonstrated by multiple references. This appears to be the start of an edit war. Please seek consensus on the talk page before reverting corrections to your work and deleting other material you appear to simply not like. LTSally (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC) writes...

It seems that certain critics ignore the distinction between the article Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and the article Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The former gives a ready home to interpretations portraying JWs in the most controversial light possible, while the latter article should be both more objective and more willing to include what JWs themselves have written about their beliefs.

Regarding the matter of salvation, the fact remains that officially, JWs certainly DO believe that non-Witnesses will be saved (see quote below, from their official website). Far from "many WT articles" or "multiple references", there are NO references which contradict this view, and certainly none newer than their current website.

Incidentally, the 'sincere beliefs' of User:AuthorityTam may or may not agree or disagree with anything or everything JWs believe, but that has absolutely no bearing on the proper application of scholarly standards of objectivity and verifiable fact as they apply to Wikipedia. My edits have tended to include elucidatory information rather than hide it (by contrast, it is clear that certain others have actively worked to hide information, including actual quotations, that merely balances anti-JW criticism). "Light is the best antiseptic.", no?

Regarding who survives, Franz's spoken words certainly did not capitalize the term "witnesses" (despite what a stenographer might have chosen to do later); it is easily demonstrable that the religion has used the uncapitalized term distinctly from the capitalized term (admittedly, the capitalized term refers to current adherents of the religion). In any event, Franz's opinions from 55 years ago are Franz's opinions from 55 years ago; a user should feel free to write something like "Franz said 'this' and 'that' in 1954", and let that fact stand on its own without pretending that everything a person said more than a half century ago is the current belief of seven million fellow adherents today.

Furthermore, 'weasel words' such as "disingenuous" are far less useful than logical reasoning and verifiable unambiguous quotes. The FACTS and VERIFIABLE REFERENCES plainly contradict the unfounded notion that it is "ludicrous and untenable" (per LTSally) to assert that the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the great crowd includes "presumably others with whom God will find favour" (to use the exact phrasing of LTSally). Skeptics should note the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses, arguably the MOST CURRENT position of the faith:

As Retrieved 2009-04-14

"Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved? No. ... Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before God's time of judgment, and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. Humans look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. God has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours."

In conclusion... I do not believe JWs contend the following, but even IF Jehovah's Witnesses in the future happened to contend that there is "no evidence" that non-Witnesses will survive Armageddon, that is a different matter than asserting that non-Witnesses CANNOT survive Armageddon or WILL NOT survive Armageddon. Insisting otherwise seems incompatible with the standards of Wikipedia. Please, avoid nonneutral assertions, avoid unwarranted over-interpretations, and avoid hiding elucidatory quotes from the official publications of Jehovah's Witnesses in an article entitled "Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses". If critics choose to assert controversy regarding some matter of belief, they should do so at Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote from jw-media.org doesn't seem to make the case that, when God destroys the wicked and saves the righteous at Armageddon, any persons who are not at that time Witnesses will be saved. It is only a justification for their continued proselytism ("Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before God's time of judgment, and they will gain salvation"). --Sungmanitu (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Authority Tam, a religion teaching exclusivity isn’t necessarily controversial, in fact this is quite common among hierarchical groups. Also, in an article devoted to the region’s beliefs, the teaching of exclusivity is fundamentally important to understanding their basic theology… such a mention is extremely fitting in this article, helping readers to understand just why evangelism is so important to the group (i.e. they believe they’re saving lives).

Also, examine the context of my edit that you deleted, the edit in question... it's clearly talking about those who will survive Armageddon. This defines a salvation event that's very specific, making it easier to identify the WT’s position. In this context Jehovah's Witnesses are clear, through hundreds of references that salvation from death at Armageddon is only possible through the WT organization. As a defense you quoted "Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved? No. ... Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before God's time of judgment, and they will gain salvation." Sadly you ingore or missinterpret the three references I cited, and the absolute proof Jeffro referenced with this, which doesn't prove your point at all. This is clearly teaching that salvation from “judgment” at Armageddon is only possible if those now living make “a stand for truth and righteousness” and this of course means that they must convert to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The WT is painfully clear that there is no real righteousness in the world outside of their organization. As a Witness you know this, we're taught this repeatedly, all the time... so why are you trying to deceive others by hiding this fact away? Jadon (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC) writes...

Please refrain from pretending familiarity with my religious affiliation (or lack thereof).

It seems best and most objective for the article Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses to simply quote the direct answer to the direct question found currently at the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses (the website wording seems far more succinct and far less ambiguous than quotes presented in supposed contradiction of it: As Retrieved 2009-04-14" Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved? No. "). The best place to discuss controversies is still Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. If an exhaustive discussion on the subject of salvation is of interest, a better place might be the article Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, you don't seem to be able to comprehend that your quoted jw-media site DOES NOT teach interfaith tolerance. It absolutely does not teach that non-witnesses, people outside the WT organization, will be saved at Armageddon. In fact all it’s doing is using loaded speech to soften the issue for people with poor reading comprehension. Why don’t you respond to the reference that Jeffro listed… that quote settles it beyond any doubt, instead you’re playing word games and arguing through illogical semantics. The only retort you’ve suggested is that JW-media quote is more recent, but that doesn’t change anything, particularly when you misinterpret what you read. If you really disagree ask any JW elder if non-witnesses will live through Armageddon… you’ll get a resounding “no”... such is a well known fact. AuthorityTam, answer me this, from your research on JW beliefs, do you honestly believe that they teach non-Witness "worldly" people will survive destruction at Armageddon, say that other Christians of different faiths will survive death and destruction? Of course not... Jadon (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the WTS website reference is quite clear, that those who yet align themselves with that organization will be saved. The WTS is an organization that makes constant "adjustments" to its doctrines, but there is no sign that it has altered its stance on this issue since Fred Franz, who at that time shared responsibility for establishing doctrines, gave clear and unequivocal sworn evidence in court in 1954.

Please understand that there is no distinction between the neutrality and verifiability of information at Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. It's not as if Beliefs & Practices is a promotional vehicle for the religion and Controversies is where the critics hang out to throw mud. The inclusion of critical material on a belief or practice, particularly when coming from an academic source, is perfecly valid in an encyclopedic discussion. Therefore the matter of pressure being placed on Witnesses by the organization to preach relentlessly is appropriate, in its present brief form, in the "evangelism" section of Beliefs & Practices. Your reference in your edit summaries to "a supposed study from 31 years ago", possibly suggesting that was ancient history, is amusing, given that the bulk of Witness beliefs and practices date back to the 1880s or, more commonly, the 1920s and '30s, once Rutherford had seized the reins. Franz, as a former Governing Body member, is ideally placed to present information on high-level activities within the organization at the time; it is fully documented and, like the other extensive documenation contained in his books, has never been challenged by the society as inaccurate or fictitious. LTSally (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, well said... look, AuthorityTam your claim to delete my inclusion of exclusivity at Armageddon is not supported. Have you noticed that every other user who has posted on this subject has completely disagreed with your reasoning? Myself, LTSally, Sungmanitu, Jeffro77… you’re twisting your own meaning out of your references and ignoring our proofs. I suspect you’re trying to justify your reasoning with the JW teaching of “the resurrection of unrighteous” as a means of denying that JW’s teach exclusivity… yet that’s not the context of this discussion or even of my edit that you deleted, which was clearly in reference to those who will survive through Armageddon, and in this context the WT society is clear, only Jehovah’s Witnesses will be saved, there's no doubt as to their stance on this. However, even following the prior logic, on the grand scheme of things, all those "unrighteous" non-witnesses who are resurrected will still have to convert. It's only a temporary reprieve for them… because if they don't convert they will also be destroyed at the end of the 1,000 year reign. Basically, it's taught that the paradise earth will eventually have nothing but Jehovah’s Witnesses in it, as by the end of this millennial reign all those who resist conversion will be destroyed. Jadon (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The stock JW answer, "No. ... Many now living may yet take a stand for truth" is merely spin, and it is not only unsurprising, but entirely expected that such a response would appear on the religions PR site. However, even that response refers to people who might not be JW's "yet", but 'had better do so' before the 'end' comes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC) writes:

Nothing like a 'straw man' argument...

Regarding this section's title issue, the current phrasing (as of this writing) seems far less controversial and far more supportable than that formerly insisted-upon (namely, that JWs believe 'all non-Witnesses will be destroyed'). The article currently reads (as retrieved 2009-04-15):

"The Witnesses teach that the present "age" of human existence is about to be terminated with the direct intervention of God, who will use Jesus Christ to fully establish his heavenly government over Earth, destroying existing human governments and non-Witnesses, and creating a cleansed society of true worshipers."

While this particular issue seems resolved (for now), I'll note my surprise at the mindset that allows the Witnesses' one word sentence "No." to be interpreted as an example of "spin".

Incidentally, it's obvious that every Wikipedia article should have information that is neutral and verifiable. But the information itself need not be, and in most cases should not be, entirely the same as that in an existing sister article. If an article specifically discusses the 'Beliefs of the Hatfields', should it repeatedly intersperse every contention of the McCoys? (See Hatfield-McCoy feud.) Due largely to certain editors' irrational insistence on attaching their every contentious nugget of information here rather than in sister articles, Wikipedia already recognizes the "Beliefs..." article as longish per Wikipedia:Article size. If anyone wants to continue to bloviate about their resistance to sister articles, please move that philosophical discussion out from under this heading, and perhaps to the Talk area of a sister article.

FYI, I've promoted the matter of Ray Franz's supposed 1978 study to its own heading here on Talk. AuthorityTam certainly does not quash honest criticism, but seeks the scholarly standard: that it be identified as such and channeled to the correct article (and subheading).--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, AuthorityTam your reasoning prowess is such that I think I need to carefully review all your future edits with grave suspicion. I previously put the inclusion of "all" before governments and not before "non-witnesses" as you’ve misquoted… but regardless “all” is already implied by sentence syntax and it’s addition is merely redundant, it doesn’t really change the meaning or somehow make it more “controversial” as you’ve misconstrued. Secondly, it’s possible for anyone to spin a “no” out of a “yes” or to straight-up contradict themselves… politians do this all the time. For example I could ask you if you go by the name AuthorityTam… and you could spin it by saying, “No. That’s my Wiki user, but not my real name.” Which of course is logically a 'yes' to the question, only spun with a one word sentence “No.” Only and idiot would stop reading there and ignore the rest of the context… which is essentially how you’ve been interpreting WT references. Lastly, as for your original rebuttal of my first referenced WT quoted… where you insisted that it was actually talking about three groups '(1) Jehovah's Witnesses, (2) the anointed remnant and (3) the great crowd' is another example of how you interpret what you read… in this reference there’s only one group listed with two classes or subgroups, not three distinctly separate groups. It’s (1) Jehovah’s Witnesses, (1a) the anointed remnant of JW’s, and (1b) the great crowd of JW’s. You also said see Revelation… but have you actually read those verses? It directly states that the “great crowd” have “ washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” and they serve day and night in the Naos temple - Rev 7:14 which obviously isn’t speaking about unrighteous unbelievers, supposedly people who never had the chance to even know about Jesus can’t possibly be washed white in his blood. Jadon (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC) writes...

Before accusing another of "misquoting", it makes sense to become familiar with the actual rules for punctuating quotations. I wish I had the time and verbosity of others, but a reference such as Single_quotes#Quotations_and_speech would plainly be of benefit to Jadon. It states there:

"However, another convention when quoting text in the body of a paragraph or sentence, for example in philosophical essays, is to recognize double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, and single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation"

Regarding the diatribe... Initially, I'd be surprised to see any Bible where Revelation 7:14 mentions a temple. Secondarily, that sounds like a theological rather than encyclopedic argument, and I'm just not interested in arguing theology. I am interested in accurate, high quality Wikipedia articles.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great retort! Shifting the topic away to my informal use of punctuation really makes you look intelligent, as well as pointing out that it’s not Rev. 17:14 that talks about the temple, but actually Rev. 17:15 (the very next verse)… good job dismissing my points by ignoring them! Jadon (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC) writes...

Does this thread still have an unresolved point of contention pertaining to the article?

Otherwise, Wikipedia:Talk_page#Important_notes reads, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as a platform for their personal views, nor for casual conversation. Article talk pages are only to be used for discussing improvements to their associated pages."--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ray Franz's supposed 1978 study

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) writes...

In the middle of the article's section on Evangelism, this sentence appears (Retrieved 2009-04-15):

According to former Governing Body member Raymond Franz, a 1978 Watch Tower Society survey of elders revealed widespread resentment over reporting requirements and feelings of guilt over the inability of individuals to meet organizational expectations.

Did Franz poll all Witnesses, or just all elders? Did Franz poll all elders around the globe, or all elders across the United States? Did Franz poll all elders across the United States or just some elders across the United States? Or, just perhaps, did Franz and his colleagues poll some elders they happened to know? In light of just that first question, can Franz's poll really be said to represent Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Furthermore, there are now three times as many JWs now as there were in 1978. Even if not a single 1978 adherent died or left the faith during the past thirty-one years, at least two-thirds of current JWs are entirely unrepresented in Franz's poll. Can Franz's poll really be said to represent current Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses?

At every edit now, Wikipedia already notes the length of the existing article and already suggests sister articles. Isn't something like the above, which is not a current 'belief and practice' and which is verified by a single anti-JW source, a perfect candidate for movement to an article other than Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses?--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The poll was not by Franz or by Franz and his colleagues, as you claim. Franz, on page 196 of his "Search" book, says the Service Department Committee of the Brooklyn Bethel "sent out letters to a number of respected elders in different parts of the United States. They were asked to comment on certain questions, including the effect of existing field service arrangements". Over the next few pages, as he quotes and discusses their responses, he notes that some were former circuit and district overseers and members of the headquarters staff. One response was from the secretary of that committee. Once responses had been gained, a follow-up survey was carried out by the Writing Committee of the Governing Body, which also elicited adverse comments about the system of "reporting hours" and the sense that many Witnesses were serving in order to deliver a service report rather than out of love for people. (see page 199). The findings of that first survey, pertaining to the effects of Jehovah's Witnesses' requirement to preach door to door, are highly relevant in a discussion on the practice -- unique to this religion -- of that preaching. It rates one sentence, so your suggestion that it makes the article too long is a bit foolish. Part of the reason for the length of the article is the swathes of extended and unncessary quotes from WT literature contained in the references, particularly from citation #211. Your argument that the 1978 survey is outdated might have some validity were it not for the fact that Holden (2002) and Penton (2007) also make reference to the very same issues of the pressure to preach and the odious requirement to report monthly. LTSally (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC) writes...

Just to clarify, Franz concedes that the "study" did not actually poll all Witnesses in 1978; it didn't even attempt to contact a statistically significant cross section, it would seem. In fact, of the FIVE possibilities I mentioned in my post of 15:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC), Franz would concede that the "study" actually used the LEAST representative group I was able to imagine, that is, "some elders they happened to know". Furthermore, a fairminded person must ask if Franz has published the entire "study", or merely the fraction of it which he chooses to publish (?). It would be interesting to learn a polling statistician's opinion on the validity of Franz's 1978 "study" as far as authoritatively representing the actual Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1978, with more than two million adherents at the time. Even then, it would only describe 1978!

Despite its age, Franz's "study" might conceivably be cited for some purpose (especially if the purpose were to portray Witnesses poorly) or by some other Wikipedia article. But for THIS Wikipedia article, it just seems to lack scholarship to pretend that a questionable partial document thirty plus years old has genuine relevance to describing the current Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The sentence isn't too long to be included in Wikipedia, but it seems like a non sequitur where it is right now.

Incidentally, on what possible basis can it be argued that "the Service Department Committee of the Brooklyn Bethel" cannot be described as "colleagues" of Franz? And...are you sure that Franz alleges "a follow-up survey was carried out by the Writing Committee"? If none of these surveyors was a colleague of Franz, where did he get his photocopies?--AuthorityTam (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are a very argumentitive person and I'm beginning to suspect you are trying to provoke other editors. You "clarify" nothing; you seek only to confuse and distort simple facts. Here are the facts, AuthorityTam. Franz "concedes" nothing. There is no suggestion the survey was a "study". There is no claim to anyone making a statistical survey. There is no suggestion Franz had any involvement in the survey. I don't know if Franz was at that time on the committee, because he doesn't say. As is obvious from the excerpt above, the Service Department Committee simply sought the views of overseers and high-level Brooklyn staff whose opinions they evidently valued who would give a candid view on whatever issues they raised. They may well do the same thing today, so your contempt for such surveys can probably be directed at the modern day leadership as well. As I have said, the inclusion of the responses to survey by the top-level Brooklyn Bethel committee to questions regarding Witnesses' views on witnessing and reporting are relevant to an encyclopedic examination of the practices of members of the religion. This has been noted by academics cited above and considered sufficiently significant to include in their "studies". The purpose of its inclusion is to provide comprehensive information on the subject, not to "portray Witnesses poorly". And another thing, would you mind ceasing this annoying habit of prefacing your comments with "AuthorityTam writes ..."? You're just another editor, and your signature can go at the end of your comments, just like everyone else does. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Fate" vs. clumsier phrases

"The fate of small children" is much more readable than "finding answers to questions about how God will resolve issues concerning small children." Even Witnesses use the word fate to describe their lot in life. This is not the same as capital "F" Fate, i.e., the agency (often portrayed as a woman) that predetermines the course of events. To quote from the December 15, 1993 Watchtower, "Max Liebster, a natural Jew who by a seeming miracle survived the Holocaust, described his journey to a Nazi extermination camp in these words: 'We were locked in carriages that were transformed into many tiny cells for two persons. Kicked into one of them, I faced a prisoner whose eyes reflected serenity. He was there because of his respect for God’s law, choosing prison and possible death rather than shed the blood of other people. He was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. His children had been taken away from him, and his wife had been executed. He was expecting to share her fate. The 14-day journey brought an answer to my prayers, for it was during this very journey to death that I found the hope of everlasting life.'” --Sungmanitu (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not just use a double negative? Ottre 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to avoid using the word 'fate' in a typical sense of 'eventuality'. Such usage appears in JW literature relatively frequently. Without going back any further than 2006, and not counting instances that are from quotations: Awake! 9/07 p. 16, Kingdom News 37 p. 3, Awake! 8/06 p. 29, The Watchtower 2006 8/15 p. 17, Awake! 6/06 p. 3, Awake! 5/06 p. 18.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that the term "eventuality" is less theologically loaded than "fate", but merely substituting that one term for the other ignores the fact that the issue is not primarily about the word "fate". The issue is just exactly what it is about which JWs are told not to worry. Can they worry about the eventuality of babies and the mentally ill? Sure. Should they worry about the specific matter of God's judgment? The latter question is the point actually addressed in the cited reference:

The cited reference (WT 8/15/98, p20) reads: "We can be confident that Christ will be righteous in judging who is worthy of survival. Jehovah has given him the wisdom, insight, and other necessary qualities “to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness.” ... With complete confidence in Jehovah’s righteousness, we need not worry about finding answers to questions like: ‘How will babies and small children be judged?" [bold added]

Earlier today, before I'd realized this had become a "Talk" thread, I went ahead and edited the article to read thusly:

"Witnesses are told not to be concerned about the judging of small children or the mentally ill, which will be determined by a righteous and merciful God."

IMHO, that wording above is a more faithful representation both of the actual Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and of the cited reference. The former wording (which had been: "Witnesses are told not to be concerned about the fate of individuals such as small children or the mentally ill, which will be determined by God.") created needless ambiguity, arguably implying 'God determines the fate of individuals' rather than 'God determines the judging of individuals'. Worse then merely misrepresenting the point of the cited reference, the earlier paraphrase seems plainly in conflict with references regarding JW beliefs, such as this from The Watchtower of Sept 1. 1996, page 3, "However, it was Christendom’s theologians who came up with the idea that God himself determines a person’s fate!". --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Soon after my edit above, someone again edited the sentence from the article to leave the following wording:

"Witnesses are told that it is not clear how small children or the mentally ill might be judged, but that God's judgment will be righteous and merciful."

Personally, I'm not going to edit that again, but it kinda seems more oneupsmanship than scholarship. In any event, it seems there is consensus to abandon "fate". Have a great weekend!--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

1) It has been clearly demonstrated that JW publications freely use the word 'fate' in a typical sense of eventuality. 2) The change to the current wording was purely to improve the article, to remove the awkward phrase of the aorist verb, 'judging', that had replaced the noun, 'fate'; to accurately indicate the JW position; and to end a tedious argument. If you want to take this as some personal 'one-upmanship', please yourself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The publications of Jehovah's Witnesses pointedly avoid wording which might imply that 'God determines each person's "fate"'. The wording which others were previously advocating (per this thread's subject) did make that implication. The word "fate" commonly synonymizes "predestination", and so "fate" should be avoided if interpreting it that way changes the meaning of what is written. It seems the use of "fate" IN THIS INSTANCE has been avoided by consensus. Is that incorrect; is someone pining to return "fate" to this sentence?

I've already noted that I'm not going to edit this again. IMHO edits happen too often for reasons of personal preference rather than for scholarship. The example I mentioned in this thread above was that my earlier wording more accurately reflects what JWs and the cited reference teach.

"Witnesses are told not to be concerned about the judging of small children or the mentally ill, which will be determined by a righteous and merciful God."; contrasted with,

"Witnesses are told that it is not clear how small children or the mentally ill might be judged, but that God's judgment will be righteous and merciful."

It could reasonably be argued that the second statement (current as of now) actually contradicts itself, in that it certainly is not unclear how they will be judged, but rather, it is clear that they will be judged righteously and mercifully. I'm not going to edit it again, because this current language is not so egregiously misrepresentative of the Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses as the earlier insisted-upon language had been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorityTam (talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's probably not the best way to express the thought. The best way is probably one of the first renderings, Witnesses are told not to worry about the fate of individuals such as small children or the mentally ill, which will be determined by God. All it took was for one editor to have an irrational kneejerk reaction to use of the word "fate", even though it has been demonstrated that explicit usage is quite acceptable to the Watch Tower Society. LTSally (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains: JWs do not believe that God determines the fate of individuals.

The Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses contradict that assertion repeatedly and explicitly. I'd be happy to leave it to third party to opine whether it's rational or irrational to insist that "the best way is probably" to include the word "fate" in a discussion of this matter.

Furthermore, the fact remains that JWs can and do worry about the eventuality of individuals. They don't worry about God's judgment, because they believe it's righteous and merciful.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, usage appearing in JW publications is entirely consistent with the usage that appeared in this article. If they don't worry, they wouldn't need to be told not to worry. Also, please stop including unnecessary quotations from sources. These quotations are not needed unless the exact wording is especially important. Usually only the source is required. You don't need to prove that the source you've quoted actually suppports it unless it is especially difficult to verify.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach that God determines the fates of individuals (their publications actually teach quite the opposite). Otherwise, please feel free to provide some JW reference, ideally from the most recent fifty years.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You are defining fate too narrowly. No one is suggesting Witnesses believe in some some sort of preordaining by God. The usage in the article only meant "final outcome" (see definition of "fate" [1]). It is evident JWs do not believe God predetermines' the final outcome (i.e. "fate") of individuals before' they are judged at Armageddon or after the millennial rule of Christ, but at the moment that he judges individuals, he does indeed determine their final outcome, condition, end, fate, etc. Incidentally, from the 5/1 Watchtower of 1989: Soon God will execute his judgments against all false religions. Those who cling to them will suffer their fate.--Sungmanitu (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "fate" is not in itself objectionable or inaccurate. What is objectionable and inaccurate is the suggestion that JWs believe 'God determines the fates of individuals'. That suggestion is inherent in the sentence:

"Witnesses are told not to worry about the fate of individuals such as small children or the mentally ill, which will be determined by God."

The objectionable sentence is no longer in the article. Is there some movement toward reinstating it? Otherwise, it would seem there are no remaining points of contention that necessitate continued additions to this thread.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The newly inserted statement that "Watch Tower publications teach that God's judgment of small children and the mentally ill will be righteous and merciful" doesn't really help. They doubtlessly also teach that his judgment of everyone will be righteous and merciful. The issue here is how he will deal with the mentally ill and children who have never had the opportunity to make a decision on obeying the directions of the Governing Body. (Obedience to GB = obedience to God = salvation at Armageddon). The statement that was just removed, that WT publications make no claim about what will happen to them, should probably be reinstated but with the adjustment that they make no specific claim. This would be a good spot to also add a sentence about WT doctrines on the fate of all those billions in China, India, Indonesia, Afghanistan etc who are still to receive a visit by JWs. LTSally (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a new article should be created entitled "Demographic groups about which WT publications make no claim".

Actually, preferred might be "Demographic groups about which WT publications make no SPECIFIC claim".

Unless that sounds like shouting.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that AuthorityTam's suggestions here were intended as a joke. But as to LTSally's comments, I'd be happy with the suggestion about no specific claim. However, the previous wording about making no claim about the fate of children and the mentally ill is indeed incorrect, as the rest of the statement about righteous and merciful judgment is such a claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Former does not equal Apostate

Actually, JWs don't teach that all former JWs are apostates. Even if someone believed they did at one time, the article Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses concerns their current beliefs, and shouldn't seek to hide their current beliefs. For example, this supplemental material (not even in the body of the paragraph) was deleted from the subheading Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Defection:

Consider "Imitate God’s Mercy Today", The Watchtower, April 15, 1991, page 22, "It would not be fitting even for elders to take the initiative toward certain expelled ones, such as apostates, who ‘speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.’ ...[However] there may be disfellowshipped or disassociated ones who would respond to a merciful approach made by the shepherds. But how might the elders handle this matter? Once a year at most, the body of elders should consider whether there are such persons living in their territory. The elders would focus on those who have been expelled for over a year. According to the circumstances, if it is appropriate, they would assign two elders (hopefully ones familiar with the situation) to visit such an individual. No visit would be made on any who evidence a critical, dangerous attitude or who have made it known that they want no help."

The implication of references such as that above is clear: some who disassociate themselves are unapproachable apostates, but others who disassociate themselves are not. In practice, any JW who submits a simple letter of resignation is considered to have disassociated himself, even if he has resigned simply to avoid the committee who would disfellowship him. A JW may even resign with every intention of requesting reinstatement soon. Despite the awkward phrasing of certain articles, it's plain that the JW religion doesn't view this person as an apostate the same as a former JW who campaigns against the faith. I won't change the wording of the section at this time, but I did want the reference shown to those who may have only seen one side of this matter.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments refer to the statement under the "Defection" section that "Any who do choose to depart and announce their decision to terminate their membership are regarded as abandoning God's organization and protection and voluntarily entering the world of Satan, becoming part of the antichrist." Your contention that "some who disassociate themselves are unapproachable apostates, but others who disassociate themselves are not" is your personal interpretation of Watch Tower doctrine only, but is a clear contradiction of what the Watchtower has written. (1) See WT Sep 15, 1981, page 23, which states that those who declare they are no longer a JW must henceforth be treated as a disfellowshipped person and shunned. (2) See Questions from readers, WT July 15, 1985, which states that those who voluntarily leave, including those declaring their resignation in a letter, are apostate, are to be shunned, are "more reprehensible than those in the world" and become "part of the anti-Christ". Both articles are clear, unequivocal statements that make no differentiation between any who disassociate: all are evidently guilty of "wicked works" and to be thus treated.

The 1991 WT does not contain "implications". It was either vaguely or confusingly worded, or written by someone unaware of the existing doctrine. It certainly does not alter the doctrine established in 1981 and reinforced in 1985. This Wiki article must be based on facts, not private interpretation of Watch Tower doctrine by people who simply don't like what they read. LTSally (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My 4/21/09 comment above actually includes the Wiki link to Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Defection, but now I see the confusion. This Talk section was intended to address one particular point from the Wikipedia article, which still currently states:

"Any who do choose to depart and announce their decision to terminate their membership are regarded as [...] becoming part of the antichrist."[emphasis added]

My earlier comment should have explicitly conceded that JWs do believe "the antichrist" class to include apostates. However, JWs do not currently believe that "Any who do choose to depart and announce their decision to terminate their membership" are "apostates" in the relevant sense of the term (that is, "apostate" as unapproachable and constituent of "the antichrist"). The obvious inference is: if at least some disassociated folks are NOT apostate, than at least some disassociated folks are NOT part of the antichrist. Asserting the opposite is illogical.

Furthermore, arguing that JWs taught 'something' in 1981 and 'something more' in 1985 is no reason to argue that they could not have changed their teaching by 1991. JW publications do reflect their changing beliefs over time; it's silly to pretend otherwise. Admittedly, JWs believe that 'certain disassociated persons are apostates', but that obviously wouldn't be 'all disassociated persons'. Certain editors are insisting upon language possible only if JWs still consider all disassociated ones as apostates. Despite such insistence, the 4/15/1991 article explicitly says:

"It would not be fitting even for elders to take the initiative toward certain expelled ones, such as apostates...[However] there may be disfellowshipped or disassociated ones who would respond to a merciful approach made by the shepherds."

That excerpt hardly seems vague or confusingly worded! While that excerpt may not explicitly say 'at least some disassociated persons are not apostates' it certainly does say that implicitly. An implied statement (that is, one made implicitly) is an implication. The excerpt is not a minor comment or one that is being represented as more significant than it was (at the time). It was significant! The 1991 article initiated a new approach to former JWs, an approach which continues to be the current policy of the religion.

Those who advocate the idea that 'the 1991 article didn't change anything' should have no difficulties finding post-1991 references from JW publications unambiguously stating that 'all disassociated persons are apostates' or (even more germanely 'all disassociated persons are part of the antichrist'.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry pal, but I simply wrote what the doctrines are as set out in the Watchtower. Those who disassociate are clearly labelled as apostates and part of the antichrist. Your private interpretation of subsequent comments doesn't change Watch Tower Society doctrine, which is what the article is about. Perhaps there's scope for a separate article called Beliefs and Practices of AuthorityTam. LTSally (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The "doctrine" conclusions of LTSally were drawn from 1980s JW publications rather than from the current beliefs of JWs. Citing references is good, but (especially in a non-historical article) true scholarship involves citing current references. Do the current publications of Jehovah's Witnesses teach that all disassociated former JWs are apostates or antichrists or entirely unapproachable? No. No more-recent reference contradicts the "doctrine" they published in 1991:

"Imitate God’s Mercy Today", The Watchtower, April 15, 1991, page 22, "It would not be fitting even for elders to take the initiative toward certain expelled ones, such as apostates...[However] there may be disfellowshipped or disassociated ones who would respond to a merciful approach made by the shepherds." [italics added]

--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all who are 'disfellowshipped' or 'disassociated' are necessarily considered 'apostates' (in the JW pejorative sense, conveniently ignoring their own specific efforts to make people of other religions 'apostates' to become JWs.) They consider 'apostasy' to be just one of many 'offenses' for which a person may be 'disfellowshipped' (or by extension, one of many reasons for which they might 'disassociate'). Based on the cited 1985 Watchtower, all who 'disassociate' are considered part of the 'antichrist', but there is nothing in any of the cited material to indicate that all 'antichrists' are 'apostates', particularly since they regard various individuals and organizations of 'the world' (that have never been JWs) to also be 'antichrists', whereas they regard an 'apostate' to be a former JW who tries to dissuade other JWs from their beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But back to square one: I didn't actually use the word "apostate" in the section about defecting anyway, and nor does it appear now. The word "apostate" is used in one of the WT references I cited there (I'm at work right now, so I don't have the reference handy), referring to a person "falling away" from the religion, so they do regard a person who disassociates as an apostate. No question. My wording states accurately that a person who resigns voluntarily is regarded as part of the anti-Christ and is regarded as more reprehensible than a non-Witness. LTSally (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of the confusion arises due to ambiguity of the JW material. In particular, the 1985 article says that any who disassociate are apostates, based on a semantic consideration of the etymology of apostate. However the paragraph before that makes a distinction about "active apostates", which is the context that JW literature usually refers to when they discuss 'apostates' as opposed to others who leave. It is those 'active apostates' for whom they consider it inappropriate for "even an elder" to approach, though 'all' (JW pejorative) 'apostates' (active or otherwise) are considered 'reprehensible antichrist'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC) writes:

The definition of "apostate" does include anyone who simply abandons a cause, and it's true that JWs are among those who use that definition at times. However, it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that JWs (and others) make no distinction between a person who is "technically" apostate and a person who is "actively" apostate.

That couldn't be put more accurately! JWs most certainly make a distinction between the 'evil unworthy disgusting apostates' who leave their own ranks, while actively trying to make people become apostates of other religions - some of them having apostatised from those other religions themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Across more than a century and tens of thousands of published pages, JW publications have usually explained the matter well. Admittedly, however, the 7/15/85 The Watchtower failed to make that distinction starkly. For those who may not have access to it, here is the continuous relevant passage from a citation which to some "proves" they believe every JW who resigns is part of the antichrist. I'd submit that the publications of JWs have repeatedly mitigated that interpretation during the ensuing twenty four years since 1985. -From "Questions From Readers", The Watchtower, July 15, 1985, pages 30-31,

[quote]"Someone may have come out openly in opposition to God’s people, declaring that he no longer wanted to be in the congregation. He may even have renounced his former faith formally, such as by a letter. Of course, the congregation would have accepted his decision to disassociate himself. But how would they then have treated him? [...] While Christians in the first century would know that they should not associate with an expelled wrongdoer or with an active apostate, did they act similarly toward someone who was not expelled but who willfully renounced the Christian way? Aid to Bible Understanding shows that the word “apostasy” comes from a Greek word that literally means “‘a standing away from’ but has the sense of ‘desertion, abandonment or rebellion.’” The Aid book adds:

“Among the varied causes of apostasy set forth in apostolic warnings were: lack of faith (Heb. 3:12), lack of endurance in the face of persecution (Heb. 10:32-39), abandonment of right moral standards (2 Pet. 2:15-22), the heeding of the ‘counterfeit words’ of false teachers and ‘misleading inspired utterances’ ( . . . 1 Tim. 4:1-3) . . .[continuous quotation; ellipses quoted from cited ref] Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the ‘antichrist.’ (1 John 2:18, 19)”

A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description. By deliberately repudiating God’s congregation and by renouncing the Christian way, he would have made himself an apostate. A loyal Christian would not have wanted to fellowship with an apostate. Even if they had been friends, when someone repudiated the congregation, apostatizing, he rejected the basis for closeness to the brothers. John made it clear that he himself would not have in his home someone who ‘did not have God’ and who was “not of our sort.” Scripturally, a person who repudiated God’s congregation became more reprehensible than those in the world." [end quote; italics added]

Significantly, the above quote from 1985 itself simply quoted an excerpt from 1971's "Aid to Bible Understanding" article on "apostasy". Interestingly, 1988's "Insight on the Scriptures" (which replaced "Aid...") left that paragraph on apostasy intact because it's simply a series of Scriptural excerpts:

"Apostasy", Insight vol 1, page 127, "Among the varied causes of apostasy set forth in apostolic warnings were: lack of faith (Heb 3:12), lack of endurance in the face of persecution (Heb 10:32-39), abandonment of right moral standards (2Pe 2:15-22), the heeding of the “counterfeit words” of false teachers and “misleading inspired utterances” (2Pe 2:1-3; 1Ti 4:1-3; 2Ti 2:16-19; compare Pr 11:9), and trying “to be declared righteous by means of law” (Ga 5:2-4). While still making profession of faith in God’s Word, apostates may forsake his service by treating lightly the preaching and teaching work that he assigned to followers of Jesus Christ. (Lu 6:46; Mt 24:14; 28:19, 20) They may also claim to serve God but reject his representatives, his visible organization, and then turn to ‘beating’ their former associates to hinder their work. (Jude 8, 11; Nu 16:19-21; Mt 24:45-51) Apostates often seek to make others their followers. (Ac 20:30; 2Pe 2:1, 3) Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the “antichrist.” (1Jo 2:18, 19)"

So, after it quoted "Aid...", the 1985 article basically repeated that disassociated persons were apostates without qualifying whether they were "technically" apostates or "actively" apostates. Since JWs shun both kinds of apostates, it's typically unimportant that a particular instance of the term explicitly enunciate the differences. Really, the only material difference is membership in the antichrist class, and thus whether congregation elders would consider the "apostate" approachable. If in 1991 JWs began a program to annually approach all disassociated persons except active apostates, then obviously it cannot be said that they view every disassociated person as an unapproachable active apostate, or in other words, as a member of the antichrist class.

Here are a couple of references showing that JWs don't consider every former JW to be an active apostate.

"Question Box", Our Kingdom Ministry, July 2007, page 3, "An individual [merely] claiming to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses may actually be an unbeliever, a disfellowshipped person, or even an active apostate."

The Watchtower, October 1, 1993, page 19, "Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah’s organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True Christians share Jehovah’s feelings toward such apostates"

Here is a reference regarding what JWs really teach about the antichrist.

"The Antichrist Exposed", The Watchtower, December 1, 2006, page 5 here, "The word “antichrist” applies to all who deny what the Bible says about Jesus Christ, all who oppose his Kingdom, and all who mistreat his followers. It also includes individuals, organizations, and nations that falsely claim to represent Christ or that improperly ascribe to themselves the role of Messiah by presumptuously promising to achieve that which only Christ can do—bring about true peace and security.

It's plain (at least since 1991) that JWs don't really believe that everyone who simply resigns is a part of the antichrist, or is an active apostate. On their forums, anti-JWs can and do propagandize as they wish. By contrast, the issue that applies in an encyclopedic article is whether its editors should prioritize including (1) useful accurate current information, or (2) information which portrays JWs poorly but is technically arguable. It seems fair to let each editor's documented decisions frame how future readers and editors will understand that editor's motives and relative objectivity.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The problem is that the Watch Tower Society arbritrarily determines who are apostates and antichrist, and on what basis. In 1985 they determined that those who voluntarily resigned were apostate and antichrist. The subsequent articles you cite refer to apostates without touching on the specific issue of disassociation. Part of the WTS ideology is to demonise any who dare do oppose them, disagree with them, or part from them as apostate (possibly a consequence of the sincere belief that they do really represent God), thereby compelling all existing, active members to shun them. The 1991, 1993 and 2007 WT references you quote above also refer to apostates, but in other contexts: none of these references claim to embrace all WTS doctrines on who are apostate and antichrist. Therefore the absence of a specific reference to disassociation in those articles fails to prove that they have rescinded the very clear and unequivocal 1985 statement that (without touching on those who simply fade away) any who choose to resign are apostate and antichrist and therefore are to be shunned. Without such a clear repudiation of their 1985 doctrinal statement, the sentence in "Defection" is still accurate. LTSally (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

JWs would likely argue that their ideas about apostasy and the antichrist aren't arbitrary; frankly, this Talk page isn't the forum to criticize the Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Their 1985 reference didn't explicitly say that all who resign are part of the antichrist, although that inference from that reference is admittedly arguable.

The 1985 reference itself quoted an Aid... book article about "apostasy" which had said "Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the “antichrist.”" In fairness, what did Aid... mean by "such ones"? Typically, the expression "such ones" refers to ones that have just been discussed immediately prior; in this case the 1985 reference used an ellipses when quoting from the Aid... article, and the ellipsis replaced (regrettably) the relevant two sentences immediately prior to "such ones". In context (see earlier comment), it becomes clear that Aid... (and later Insight...) had specified that "such ones" are those who "turn to ‘beating’ their former associates to hinder their work" and "seek to make others their followers". Those two phrases match tightly with the definition of "antichrist" used for decades by Jehovah's Witnesses (also see above). Even if the 1985 reference intended to imply what some inferred, more-recent JW publications during the ensuing twenty-four years have clarified that "disassociated" is not synonymous with 'active apostate' or "antichrist".

According to the Greek connotation of "apostate", JWs do consider all disassociated former JWs to be technically apostate. Socially and spiritually, JWs do "shun" them (although they don't typically use that term).

Among those who are technically apostate, a fraction are or become active apostates. JW elders do not routinely approach active apostates, but (other than that fraction) JW elders are instructed to approach all disassociated persons annually.

JWs consider active apostates to be part of the antichrist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorityTam (talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC) --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My comments above contrast JW understanding of technical apostates (includes the voluntarily dissassociated) with JW understanding of active apostates (includes former JWs who actively oppose JWs).

The current wording of the sentence in question is:

"Any who do choose to depart and announce their decision to terminate their membership are regarded as abandoning God's organization and protection and voluntarily entering the world of Satan,[151][152] becoming part of the antichrist.[153]"

Seeking to retain as much outrageousness as the facts allow, I plan to edit as follows:

"Any who do choose to depart and announce their decision to terminate their membership are regarded as abandoning God's organization and protection and voluntarily entering the world of Satan,[151][152] becoming apostate and a potential part of the antichrist.[153]"

Any real objections?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

'Becoming a ... potential part of the antichrist' isn't very helpful wording. The reference indicates that such people are part of the antichrist, not that they merely improve their potential of being such. Also, this wording seems to endorse the pejorative JWs of the word 'apostate' rather than its general meaning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Any "real" objections? Your proposed edit makes no sense and I can't even see the point you're trying to make. I have no idea what outrageousness you're talking about. LTSally (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Apostate is a pejorative but antichrist isn't?

And just to clarify your objections...

You both really believe that reference says that anyone and everyone who resigns is part of the antichrist (rather than a possible part of the antichrist)? Frankly, JWs do not teach that resigning in itself 'improves their potential of being such [part of the antichrist]'. The suggested wording was an attempt to keep the term in play.

Neither of you is interested in the fact that your interpretation contradicts JWs' definition of "antichrist"?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is going over ground we've already discussed above. You are displaying the same tiresome behavior you did when discussing the issue of whether non-Witnesses would survive Armageddon: taking simple statements published in WT literature, then stretching, pulling and twisting them until you think they say what you believe. The notion of becoming a "potential part of the antichrist" or a "technical apostate" is not stated anywhere in WT literature. This article contains a statement based on clear, unambiguous statements in the WT, and supported it with a reference. If you don't like it, then take it up with the Governing Body. I hear they're always receptive to new ideas. LTSally (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear what is supposedly 'contradicting' the JW definition of "antichrist", which they certainly identify extremely broadly. The Watchtower 15 June 1955 p. 360 defines antichrist as:

• "all who deny this claim of Christ Jesus [to be the Son of God], be they devotees of Oriental religions, atheists, deists or agnostics"
• "all those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh"
• "all who claim that Jesus was incarnated, merely clothed with flesh"
• "Others ... [who deny] Jesus’ office as Ransomer"
• "[all who] deny that the blood of Christ has any saving power"
• "all professed Christians who have apostatized, who exalt themselves, who manifest the spirit of rebellion or who show hatred to their Christian brothers"
• "Communism"
• "the United Nations"
• "Babylonish religion"

This specifically indicates all (JW pejorative) 'apostates' as part of the 'antichrist'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Of Jeffro77's entire list, the only one which could be read as if applying to those who merely resign voluntarily is "all professed Christians who have apostatized", a phrase from a 1955 article; that entire preceding paragraph there was about actively apostate ministers of Christendom rather than about disassociated merely-technical "apostates" (using the connotation of the Greek root). Yes, JWs have noted that the original Bible term "apostate" applies to anyone who resigns (literally "abandons") any cause; thus any person who resigns anything is, technically, an "apostate". JWs don't really teach that 'anyone who resigns' is an active apostate in the most relevant sense of the term, and JWs only believe active apostates are a constituent of the antichrist. Still, their own publications from the 1950's didn't explain that well.

It's unfortunate that readers of Wikipedia will be left with the wrong idea about the actual Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses, because of that sentence fifty-four years ago.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

From the Insight book under the heading "Apostasy": It is evident that there is a distinction between a ‘falling’ due to weakness and the ‘falling away’ that constitutes apostasy. The latter implies a definite and willful withdrawal from the path of righteousness. (1Jo 3:4-8; 5:16, 17) Whatever its apparent basis, whether intellectual, moral, or spiritual, it constitutes a rebellion against God and a rejection of his Word of truth.—2Th 2:3, 4; This sounds like anyone who quits being a Witness because of disagreeing with the Society is an apostate. --Sungmanitu (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, it is not at all the case that "JWs only believe active apostates are a constituent of the antichrist". Most people they consider members of the antichrist have never been JWs, and of those former JWs who they consider 'antichrist', they include "all professed Christians who have apostatized", who either "exalt themselves" or "manifest the spirit of rebellion" (which does not necessitate being an 'active apostate' in their even more pejorative sense) or "'show hatred' to their Christian brothers".--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Sungmanitu's comment:

Yes, "willful withdrawal" (voluntary resignation) meets the technical definition of "apostate". That might have been mentioned once or several times above. I've referred to such "apostates" as merely "technical apostates" because JW elders are actually instructed to try and meet with them annually; by contrast, "active apostates" (again, my term and not a term used consistently by Watchtower) are not visited by elders at all. It is demonstrably illogical to pretend that JWs view a person who has merely resigned in the same way JWs view someone who campaigns against their faith.

Regarding Jeffro77's comment:

The word "constituent" quite plainly indicates that there are other parts to the total.

JWs believe: Among apostates, only those who've committed active apostasy are a constituent of the antichrist. IMHO, it seems significant that the 1955 WT used the verb form (those "who have apostatized") which implies action rather than condition. An action verb implies acts by an acting active. Thus, IMHO, even the 1955 WT implies that AMONG "APOSTATES" (to be painfully explicit), JWs only believe active apostates are a constituent of the antichrist.

Because the 1955 quote (fifty-four years and counting) leaves it arguable, and because WT has not explicitly (but has implicitly) contradicted the idea, I can't unilaterally delete the Wikipedia article's current cherished phrase. Here it is:

"Any who do choose to depart and announce their decision to terminate their membership are regarded as abandoning God's organization and protection and voluntarily entering the world of Satan, becoming part of the antichrist."

Of course, the sentence is still wrong and unhelpful. JWs do not actually believe that 'any who choose to depart are part of the antichrist'.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the cited Watchtower literature in this discussion contradicts the statement that "any who choose to depart" 'become members of the antichrist', or states that only 'active apostates' are members of that alleged group. Earlier, you commented on the Aid book's wording: "Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the “antichrist.”", where you focused on further defining 'such ones'. However, irrespective of the identity of 'such ones', the reference explicitly indicates that it is by their "willfully abandoning the [Jehovah's Witness religion]" by which they "become part of the "antichrist". Since any who disassociate are viewed as 'willfully abandoning' the religion, they are therefore included in that definition. If you disagree, please provide a reference indicating that JWs include only certain people who disassociate as members of the 'antichrist' rather than indicating your personal opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been mentioned that Watchtower instructs JW elders to contact disassociated persons annually, but not to contact "apostates" "who evidence a critical, dangerous attitude". Admittedly, that's implicit rather than explicit.

Consider "Imitate God’s Mercy Today", The Watchtower, April 15, 1991, page 22,

"It would not be fitting even for elders to take the initiative toward certain expelled ones, such as apostates, who ‘speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.’ ...[However] there may be disfellowshipped or disassociated ones who would respond to a merciful approach made by the shepherds. [...Annually], they would assign two elders (hopefully ones familiar with the situation) to visit such an individual. No visit would be made on any who evidence a critical, dangerous attitude or who have made it known that they want no help."

That's not really surprising, since it's not in their or their adherents' interests to minimize disassociation from the faith.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You are free to form that opinion, but it is only that – an opinion. Wikipedia's official policy is that information is included here only if it is explicity stated in the source material. You admit ("Admittedly, that's implicit rather than explicit") you are making inferences not explicitly stasted in the source material, which Wikipedia classifies as synthesis of published material that advances a position. It therefore cannot be included. LTSally (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The references about who elders wouldn't bother bothering don't say anything about who is or is not part of the alleged 'antichrist'. JWs certainly do talk to others that they call 'antichrist' (see list above), so the identification of certain disassociated individuals as active apostates is independent of who is 'antichrist', and whether elders (or any other JWs) visit certain people is no benchmark for identifying that group.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've mention once or several times that the lack of explicit contradiction allows the existing wording to stand. Unless and until WT publishes something newly relevant, of course.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"strongly discourage independent Bible research"?

The second half of the section Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Source_of_doctrines seems a bit heavy-handed for its title. The new wording states, "Watch Tower publications strongly discourage independent Bible research..." That misrepresents what they actually teach. At most, it could be said that 'independent research groups are not endorsed'; otherwise, their discouragement concerns spreading speculation rather than performing research. Rather than references more than fifty years old, consider this...

"Question Box", Our Kingdom Ministry, September 2007, page 3, "Does “the faithful and discreet slave” endorse independent groups of Witnesses who meet together to engage in Scriptural research or debate?—Matt. 24:45, 47. No, it does not. And yet, in various parts of the world, a few associates of our organization have formed groups to do independent research on Bible-related subjects. ...It is commendable for individuals to want to use their thinking ability in support of the good news. However, no personal pursuit should detract from what Jesus Christ is accomplishing through his congregation on earth today."

It seems significant that the section's new wording emerged when a citation was requested regarding supposed expulsions for [merely] "formulating" an idea beyond JW publications. The references only actually referred to expulsions for advocating ideas which contradicted JW publications.
I get it; some people don't like JWs. That's no excuse for misrepresenting their actual Beliefs and practices.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence had read: " members ... are liable for expulsion from the organization for formulating and promoting teachings reached through independent research." You tagged the use of the word "formulating" with the comment "Request ref regarding expulsion for merely 'formulating' an idea." You obviously misunderstood the sentence. A member can be expelled for formulating and promoting contrary teachings. The sentence was not intended to mean a member could be expelled for formulating ideas, or expelled for promoting ideas. First one formulates an idea gained through independent research, then one promotes it. This draws the attention of local elders, who may then expel the person.

The references I cited support the claim that WT publications strongly discourage independent Bible research. The Question from readers I cited, written in the context of a discussion about disfellowshipping members for apostasy, includes this comment: "Was this unity to be achieved and maintained by each one’s independently searching the Scriptures, coming to his own conclusions, and then teaching these? Not at all!" The 1952 WT article advised: "No individual student of God’s Word reveals God’s will or interprets His Word. God interprets and teaches, through Christ the Chief Servant, who in turn uses the discreet slave as the visible channel, the visible theocratic organization ... We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us ... The truths we are to publish are the ones provided through the discreet-slave organization, not some personal opinions contrary to what the slave has provided as timely food." United in Worship, page 22, advises: "The Scriptures warn against isolating ourselves, thinking that we can figure out everything with independent research." WT Jan 15, 1983, says: "There are some who point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: “This shows that we have to make up our own mind on what to believe.” This is independent thinking. Why is it so dangerous?" This is all strong discouragement of independent Bible research that results in the formulation of ideas. Your more recent reference refers only to people gathering in groups for Bible study or debate. LTSally (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A JW cannot be expelled for "formulating" a contrary idea.

A baptized JW who promotes a contrary idea would be expelled whether he had formulated it or someone else had formulated it.

If "formulation" is unrelated to expulsion, why mention it?

The references which LTSally reads as if they 'discourage independent research' actually discourage relying only upon independent research and disseminating independent research, especially beyond that in Watch Tower publications.

Is that so unnoteworthy that it must be exaggerated (to put prevarication politely)?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. The section is discussing the source of doctrines, hence mention of formulation of doctrines. Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines reached through independent research. They can be exepelled if they promote them. That's the connection. The articles I cited above clearly indicate stern Society disapproval of Witnesses searching the Bible, reaching their own conclusions about scriptures and teaching others about these conclusions. LTSally (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That supposed "connection" is silly.

A person has to read the Bible before he can formulate a biblical idea to promote; does that mean reading the Bible leads to expulsion?

A person has to learn to read before he can read the Bible to formulate an idea to promote; does that mean learning to read leads to expulsion?

It's absurd to pretend that a JW could be expelled for formulating an idea, even if the idea is contrary.

Consider a parallel... JWs recommend socializing closely with Witnesses rather than with non-Witnesses. Would it be encyclopedic to write that

"JWs can be expelled for 'socializing closely with a non-Witness and then fornicating with him'"?

After all, it would be easy to find JW publications which discourage socializing closely with a non-Witness, and easy to find JW publications which show that fornication is likely to result in expulsion!

I've noted before that it's easy to mock JWs in an encyclopedic affectation; LTSally's assertion is patently unencyclopedic. The fact remains that a JW cannot be expelled for formulating an idea.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchtower, 15 August 1952, page 501: "Individual Bible study, certainly! Independent Bible study, beware!"--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems likely (and sad) that there were POV reasons for the choice of wording used in the article. A typical reader of a sentence such as "Watch Tower publications strongly discourage independent Bible research" will infer that WT discourages individual Bible research, which Watchtower absolutely and plainly does not discourage. Even when the matter is well-defined as 'research independent of their official publications', it's inaccurate to call Watchtower's cautions "strong discouragement".

Is there some WT reference which uses language such as "we strongly discourage 'this' or 'that' related to research"? If so, show the reference and include the quoted text. If not, the article needs editing.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What sets Jehovah's Witnesses apart from most other Christian denominations is that its Governing Body provides an absolutist message, with no mechanisms for members to propose changes in doctrines, such as those provided by the synods and councils of the Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran churches. Individuals are completely shut out of the doctrinal formulation process, despite the claims that members of the Faithful and Discreet Slave are supposedly open to "new light". When, in early 1980 the Governing Body learned that some Witnesses at the Brooklyn Bethel had engaged in independent research and formulated some doctrines they regarded as "new understandings" – and which they were adamant were supported by scripture – they were charged, tried, found guilty of apostasy and expelled, with orders given to all Witnesses that they were to not so much as utter a greeting to them again. This saga has been well documented by Franz, Penton, Watters, the Bottings, Time Magazine and others. It is entirely fitting for the Witnesses' attitude to doctrinal change to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Describing independent research as "dangerous" is certainly a strong discouragement, and Witnesses are well trained to discern the nuances of such language. LTSally (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Request quotation

Regarding the {{Request quote}} tag, Template:Request_quotation says, "Please add this template after an unquoted interpretation of a source that you think may be inaccurate. This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, to be provided on the discussion page so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or has been interpreted correctly." [emphasis added]. Certain statements assert a less-than-obvious interpretation of a cited reference. Sometimes no page number is given, which is unacceptable as a reference (perhaps as a mention in 'Additional or external resources' section). Even when a particular page is cited, certain statements seem so odd that it's difficult to imagine from where the asserting editor's interpretation was drawn.

• Example at Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#cite_ref-39. There it says, "When a Governing Body committee investigating high-level members at the religion's Brooklyn headquarters in a 1980 purge of dissidents issued a summary of "wrong teachings" being promoted as "new understandings", its first item of concern was the suggestion that God did not have an organization on Earth.[40] Former Governing Body member Raymond Franz, who was expelled as part of the purge, has subsequently criticized the Watch Tower concept of organization, which posits that God does not deal with individuals apart from an organization.[41]"

40 is page 316 of Franz, Raymond (2002). Crisis of Conscience (4th ed.). Commentary Press. ISBN 0914675249.
41 is page 449 of Franz, Raymond (2007). In Search of Christian Freedom (2nd ed.). Commentary Press. ISBN 0914675176. It seems unclear that Franz was actually making the point presented by the Wikipedia editor interpreting his writings. Please include relevant quotations from those works, here.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem clear that you would question that Franz "criticized the Watch Tower concept ... that God does not deal with individuals apart from an organization". The quote provided by LTSally below, and amply elsewhere in JW literature, indicates that the Watch Tower Society does indeed claim to be 'God's organization', and it is not at all unlikely that Franz would make a criticism to the contrary. However, perhaps an extract from Franz' publication could clinch the matter. (I don't have ready access to the publications in question.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for quotation

Unclear why you are requesting two quotations to verify the source, AuthorityTam. The sentences identify their sources, which are easily verified by reading the specified pages of a book that is readily available. This is all Wikipedia's citation policy requires, despite your longstanding habit of including full quotations of Watch Tower material in your citations. To assist with your first request, here is an extract from the letter from the Chairman's Committee Franz reproduces:

"Following are some of the teachings being spread as eminating (sic) from Bethel. These have been brought to the attention of the Governing Body from the field from Appril 14 onward. 1. That Jehovah does not have an organization on earth today and its Governing Body is not being directed by Jehovah." (Interestingly, the phrase "organization on earth" uses the very term you claim above is incorrect ...) The article uses the Harvard style of quotes, so I'm not sure how this helps or how you'll insert it.

The second sentence for which you have requested quotes is drawn from a lengthy discussion by Franz and a single quote is probably not going to be helpful. LTSally (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's standard requires quotes to be furnished for seemingly questionable interpretations.

Template:Request_quotation says, "Please add this template after an unquoted interpretation of a source that you think may be inaccurate. This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, to be provided on the discussion page so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or has been interpreted correctly." [emphasis added].

In this particular example, the supplied quote from the actual "summary" apparently used neither of the expressions which the Wikipedia editor pretended were quotes (that is, "wrong teachings" and "new understandings", both written with quotation marks implying a quote from the reference). With this revelation, a more conscientious (or chastened) editor will likely correct the wording and punctuation in the article.

If quotes cannot be supplied to support other questionable interpretations, they must also be editted.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The terms "wrong teachings" and "new understandings" are not contained in the section I have reproduced here, but are contained elsewhere in the document and in Franz's book. I'll dredge those out as well. From the positioning of your citation request I assumed you wanted to see a quote pertaining to the organization on earth. Please stop your unnecessary lecturings on what a "more conscientious (or chastened) editor" would do. LTSally (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note also that the {{request quotation}} template expands to "need quotation on talk to verify". It is not necessary, as some editors insist on doing, to include full quotations from source material in the actual articles, except where exact wording might be controversial. Even then such quotes can often be included in the main prose if significant rather than restating the same thing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Re your request for further quotes from the Franz book, page 316. Here are the first and final paragraphs from the letter addressed to the Governing Body, headed "Recent evidence of wrong teachings being spread about". As luck would have it, I missed one word in the extract that turned out to be the word you wanted to see in print. As I explained, your initial request for quotes was unclear regarding the specific terms for which you wished to see verification. I've highlighted the specific terms that you, in another of your verbal attacks on these pages, claim above that I pretended were in the quotes. You may now like to withdraw that allegation and apologise.

"Following are some of the wrong teachings being spread as eminating (sic) from Bethel. These have been brought to the attention of the Governing Body from the field from April 14 onward.

1. That Jehovah does not have an organization on earth today and its Governing Body is not being directed by Jehovah."

... (bullet points continue, numbered 1 to 8).

Note: The above Biblical viewpoints have become accepted by some and now being passed on to others as "new understandings." Such views are contrary to the basic Biblical framework of the Society's Christian beliefs (Rom. 2:20, 3:2). They also are contrary to the "pattern of healthful words" that have come to be Biblically accepted by Jehovah's people over the years. (2 Tim. 1:13) Such "changes" are condemned at Prov 24:21,22. Hence the above are "deviations from the truth that are subverting the faith of some." (2 Tim. 2:18) All considered this is APOSTASY and actionable for congregational discipline." (Their emphasis of "apostasy". I think they wanted to shout that word.)

All told, an interesting and revealing statement from the highest echelons of the Witnesses: any new teachings that conflict with traditional Watch Tower teachings (or, as they delicately put it, have come to be accepted over the years) are condemned. Er, except when the Governing Body decides the "generation of 1914" teachings is wrong. Oh, and that Christ returned in 1914, not 1874. Or that the "superior authorities" are the governments. Or that the whole concept of "vindicating Jehovah's name" is baseless. Or that the gathering of the anointed didn't end in 1935. Etc etc .... 21:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Section: Organization

Paragraph 1

I plan to edit the first two sentences of the section Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Organization. As of now, the first two sentences read:

Jehovah's Witness doctrines are underpinned by a belief that God employs and directs an organization on Earth and deals with humanity only through that organization. The organization is identified as the "worldwide association" of Jehovah's Witnesses,[25] functioning under the direction of the Watch Tower Society.[26][27][28]

After my upcoming edit, the first two sentences will read:

Jehovah's Witness doctrines are underpinned by a belief that God employs and directs an organization and deals with humanity only through that organization, which has a visible part on earth. The visible part of God's organization is identified with the worldwide association of Jehovah's Witnesses, functioning under the direction of their Governing Body.

It's trivial to get references for those points; which points seem to most require reference support?

The existing/former wording is unacceptable. It would be simple to reference hundreds of instances where JWs note the likely intervention of spirit beings and/or holy spirit in the dealings of humanity, so obviously that doesn't occur 'only through the organization on earth'.
Ironically, one of the references cited by the objectionable wording is The Watchtower, June 15, 1998. Amazingly, the cited article (page 12) begins quite plainly: "DO YOU believe that Jehovah has an organization? [Earthly] features amount to evidence of an organization. But if all we see and appreciate is here on earth, we do not have a total grasp of Jehovah’s organization. ...Therefore, if we truly want to perceive and appreciate Jehovah’s organization, we must look to the heavens."

Heaven certainly doesn't 'function at the direction' of some human agency! JWs contend that God has one organization, and that heaven is a part of that organization. This must be worded better. At most, JWs might say "The visible part of God's organization is identified with the worldwide association of Jehovah's Witnesses, functioning under the direction of their Governing Body." Remember, since 2000, GBJW members resigned all positions with the Watch Tower Society. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording that existed was quite clear and correct. Witness teaching is that God has an organization on earth and that all his dealings with humans are through that organization as represented by the Watch Tower Society. Your proposed wording injects unnecessary and confusing detail that is outside the scope of the paragraph. Yes, there is a teaching that God has a heavenly organization, but that is unrelated to the central issue here that he uses an organization on earth, which is probably a concept foreign to most other religions. Also note that the phrase was used by a Governing Body committee, as cited in the section below. Your substitution of "Governing Body" for Watch Tower Society is also unncessary and unhelpful. All organization of and communication with congregations, including publication of literature, organizing meetings and conventions and establishment of congregations is done by the WTS. The Governing Body doesn't work alone and organize all these things, and readers of the article will understand WTS far more readily than GB. LTSally (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

JWs believe God is fully capable of sending an angel or the holy spirit to care for a matter on earth.

JWs do not believe that God must perform every single interaction with humanity via the Watch Tower Society or any other human agency.

JWs pointedly do not believe that God has two organizations. JWs believe God has one organization, only part of which is visible. If this article is about their belief and practices, why insist upon a misstatement of the matter?
Furthermore, it would be interesting to see a reference that "All organization of and communication with congregations...is done by the WTS" for that is patently and demonstrably untrue. The GBJW routinely sends out communication on its own letterhead over its own "signature".

My proposed wording mentions "organization" prominently, and doesn't hide the JW belief that their human agencies are a part of that organization.

It might be more productive to explain any disagreements with the wording I've proposed. The latter is both accurate and neutral POV. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained my objection to your wording. You are raising a host of side issues that have little to do with a proposed rewording of the sentence that simply makes it harder to understand. LTSally (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 1, organization membership

At Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#cite_ref-28, the Wikipedia wording grossly misinterprets its own cited references. The matter of "membership" is never discussed in either publication. Consider...

Article Interpretation	Wiki Cited Reference	Actual Quote (apparently)	Article Suggestion
"All people not in God's organization are said to be members of Satan's organization."	Our Kingdom Ministry, March 1987, page 3.	Paragraph 7 "People must choose between Jehovah’s organization and Satan’s."	Witnesses teach that people must choose between God’s organization and Satan’s.
"All people not in God's organization are said to be members of Satan's organization."	The Watchtower, March 1, 1954, page 151	Paragraph 9 "The people must choose whom they will serve, Jehovah or Satan."	Witnesses teach that people must choose between God’s organization and Satan’s.

Editors must be careful to avoid misinterpreting references.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentation? I don't see your point. If one chooses to be part of, or side with, an organization, one is a member. Oxford Concise Dictionary says a member is "person belonging to a society etc". Most Witnesses would claim they are part of God's organization, and are therefore in its membership. LTSally (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

While a member could be expected to side with his organization, it's silly to pretend that siding with an organization requires membership in it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. The wording is perfectly acceptable. LTSally (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If the difference is trivial, why would an editor insist upon the term "membership"?

It seems far more scholarly to use neutral language which JWs have actually used themselves. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere have I insisted on anything. The words "part of" are acceptable to me and they convey precisely the same meaning. Please change it if you take such exception and think it is so important. LTSally (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The existing and suggested wordings are both unnecessarily wordy. The following would retain all of the import more concisely: Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God uses an organization both in heaven and on earth, and that Jehovah's Witnesses, under the direction of their Governing Body, are the only visible channel by which God communicates with humanity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. That suggested wording is both neutral and accurate, and superior to both the existing first two sentences and my suggestion (at the top of this thread). To summarize the first part of this thread (also above subsection at #Paragraph_1)...
At Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Organization, the first two sentences read:

Jehovah's Witness doctrines are underpinned by a belief that God employs and directs an organization on Earth and deals with humanity only through that organization. The organization is identified as the "worldwide association" of Jehovah's Witnesses,[25] functioning under the direction of the Watch Tower Society.[26][27][28]

My abandoned suggestion would have read:

Jehovah's Witness doctrines are underpinned by a belief that God employs and directs an organization and deals with humanity only through that organization, which has a visible part on earth. The visible part of God's organization is identified with the worldwide association of Jehovah's Witnesses, functioning under the direction of their Governing Body.

I'm going to implement User:Jeffro77's suggestion.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God uses an organization both in heaven and on earth, and that Jehovah's Witnesses, under the direction of their Governing Body, are the only visible channel by which God communicates with humanity.

Later in that section's first paragraph, the concept of 'membership in Satan's organization' has also been removed since its not actually a JW belief. Rather than with terms such as "membership" (or its euphemisms), non-Witnesses are much more typically described as "captives" of Satan's organization in JW publications; they believe certain affiliation cannot be known until an undetermined future date.
The sentence has been rephrased as
::"Witnesses teach that people must choose between God’s organization and Satan’s."

There are other issues with this Organization section, particularly the last paragraph. For example, the last paragraph seems largely unnecessary; still, it might be better for someone other than myself or User:LTSally to tackle it. When I have time, I plan to do with this section as was done with the lead for a related article.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)