Talk:Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

New Layout

I have made the changes. If everyone likes the table in principle, I will add this table to the main article, further adjstments and fine tuning can then be made from there. One area that will need work is references. If I do not get any objections I will add to article shortly. Lucy 23:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For complete discussion: See Archive 2: July 2006

New Editor

I am endeavoring to comply with the many Wikipedia requirements for participation, and appreciate your patience as I learn them. CobaltBlueTony: I saw your HTML comment asking editors to make sure header text is elaborated in the body, and was about to add such comments to the body in compliance with your request, but had not yet done so. I will in the future make modifications to the body first before modifying the summary paragraphs above. Thank you for the pointers.

Also, with regard the NPOV requirement, I suggest that one cannot expect NPOV from Witness proponents on a "controversies rega rding" page since (as proponents) they have a vested interest in downplaying any controversy. Therefore it seems one-sided when it is suggested that former Witnesses should be disqualified for bias. In a spirit of reasonableness, I request such "cause" for disqualification be set aside, while all focus upon NPOV and self-regulation.

It is difficult to find a spirit of cooperation and avoid editing wars where my comments are repeatedly deleted without comment or with one-sided comments. Yet the goal of a rounded article which presents all pertinent information still seems worthwhile, and I look forward to working with you to achieve that. Thank you for your efforts.

Best wishes, AndrewXJW 14:00, 24 July, 2006

This suggestion is not in keeping with Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy. Witness editors could conversely claim that all ex-Witnesses and those who actively oppose Witnesses could be disqualified from editing all other articles related to Witnesses, as they have a (perceived or stated) vested interest in downplaying any positive portrayal of the group with which they may have serious objections. Careful reading of the talk pages and archived talk pages of the various articles reveals that Witness editors have strived and progressed in this are to be NPOV, allowing -- for academic purposes -- that which they would never openly debate in social circles.
Editing from all sides is part of Wikipedia's mission, to present as many valid and relevant sides to topics as is reasonable on a scholarly level, not overemphasizing any one point beyond its academic value. Therefore, it is necessary that all viewpoint-holders be given fair access so as to discourage "ownership" of articles by any one side. This page could contain every objection some blogger might post about Witnesses if strict academic standards were not held to. As it is, this article needs to have stronger (reputable) sourcing to substantiate the controversies as presented. By doing this, contributors to this particluar article bolster their position that such concerns exist outside their own conventional sphere of influence, and are thus notable enough to be included. - CobaltBlueTony 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear CobaltBlueTony: You said "Witness editors could conversely claim..." They already did. That's what I was responding to. You have supported my statement that "it seems one-sided when it is suggested that former Witnesses should be disqualified for bias" as was suggested about me. Based on your response, it becomes clear that you do not support such conclusions. Thank you for this clarification. I'm glad the Witness proponents participating here are "making progress" toward NPOV as you say. I will endeavor to do the same. I agree that it is undesirable for 'this page to contain every objection some blogger might post'. Accordingly, my intention is to help represent only the primary concerns most widely expressed by Witness opponents (based on broad experience with them). Such primary concerns were notably absent before I began participating; rather focus was upon issues that are relevant only to Witness proponents.

They are labelling as "highly controversial" the subtopics that most universally matter to Witness opponents. Please point me to the guidelines I should read on how to respond to this situation so that I may help Wikipedia "to present as many valid and relevant sides to topics as is reasonable" as you say. Thank you. AndrewXJW 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, The minority of complaints about JW's are what you have placed at the top of the page. Most criticism of JW's comes from doctrinal, blood and patriotism issues. Also, your presntation leads the reader to assume these cultlike and/or mind control criticisms are actual fact. While certain 'researchers' and their proponents feel they are facts, this does not automatically qualify them as facts.
It is in the interest of NPOV to present JW justifications for these beliefs and actions and JW responses to the criticisms in a scholarly fashion. The criticism article is not a free for all JW bash where JW editors should just bow out.
You made extensive changes to the article w/o discussion, and you should expect your additions to be edited 'mercilessly' as WP cautions. I have issues with your table but will leave it and try to edit though I am going to move it to a more appropriate location.
Lastly, Please start new discussions at the bottom of the page as is the generally accepted form on WP. George 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


If there is a consensus to put this information on a new page elsewhere, with a link to that page from here, then I would be happy to comply with that idea. Is there such a consensus?

You are quite mistaken regarding "the minority of complaints about JW's". What you have listed as the source of "most criticism" ("doctrinal, blood and patriotism") is basically a quote from Watchtower literature, where the Watchtower Society is framing the words of third parties. Third parties should speak for themselves. I am an ideal representative of such third parties, having worked with many recovering Witnesses and bewildered friends/relatives of Witnesses and therefore having observed their chief complaints firsthand.

On a page titled "Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses" it should not be any surprise to find highly controversial information, therefore deleting it for it's controversial nature is improper. Your desire for this information (regarding family destruction and employing cult tactics) to be untrue in order to support your pet religious views does not make it untrue any more than my unsubstantiated observation makes it true. I agree that more citations are needed. As indicated, I will provide further cites.

I have added the most relevant information for such a page which the previous version glaringly omitted, not wrecklessly engaged in a free for all.

I apologize if I put the material in the wrong location on the page, this is no doubt due to my inexperience, and am happy to make corrections to that effect. Please elaborate "new discussions at the bottom of the page as is generally accepted". I would be happy to comply with this custom, but am not clear what you mean. Thank you for the clarification. Best wishes, AndrewXJW 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a very simple and clear article on Talk Page Guidelines that you might find helpful. With regards where to post comments this is covered under the heading "General Standards". Basically if you are starting a new line of discussion, you need to go to the bottom of the page and put in a new heading and post under it. If you are continuing a discussion, you need to post under that heading but still at the bottom of that discussion. Ok so that may have been more confusing than helpful but take the time to have a look at the article. It gives a far better outline than I did! Lucy 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Family Integrity and Freedom of Mind

Firstly, thank you for including this information. It does fill a void in the article to date and it must have taken you quite some time to research and assemble the required information. There are a few requirements to meet after which the information cannot be debated or removed.

  1. In the opening it states that the assertion comes from critics but does not name any particular party. It also states that this is the most primary objection. This cannot remain as is without substantiation. See Wikipedia Policies Weasel Words and Original Research.
  2. I had a (brief) look at the references you have used for the table. They seem to be relating to group dynamics and mind control as a whole and not directly related to Jehovah's Witnesses. In order to keep this section you would have to find some credible, published sources that link this research to Jehovah's Witnesses. The research on group dynamics is published and verifiable but the link to the Witnesses needs to be established.
  3. There are several instances where blanket statements about the policies of Jehovah's Witnesses have been made (for example is that Witnesses are encouraged to modify relationships with non-witness relatives and the whole section of "How Witnesses Practice it"). I understand that having been in the religion, these are just pure facts but for the sake of the article even these have to be established with references from Witness literature such as the Watchtower.

These may not be the only areas, but they are what I noticed. Other editors will help to further improve the section for the benefit of the article. I hope all of this discussion and that above has not been overwhelming. This article is... well... controversial so when you make additions to it you need to be prepared to defend them and be reasonable about accepting the modifications of other editors otherwise (right or wrong) the additions have a tendency to disappear. Lucy 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the critique, Lucy. I will work to meet these requirements promptly. Best wishes, AndrewXJW 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Resources Critical

I would like to request that a neutral party consider the following links to replace some of the less significant links in the "Resources Critical" section. I understand there has been some consensus discussion on these links in the past, however, the links below, particularly BeyondJW and Grossoehme, are more substantial and important from critical view than most of the existing "Resources Critical". The links to volunteers who answer questions seems reasonable because similar resources are available in the "Resources For" section. Thank you. Best wishes,AndrewXJW 02:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • AllExperts.com Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses: Volunteers who answer questions about Jehovah's Witnesses free of charge based on research and personal experience in order to assist those who have been impacted by Jehovah's Witnesses.
  • Beyond Jehovah's Witnesses A well-documented site which criticizes Jehovah's Witnesses while placing emphasis on accuracy without animosity.
  • David Grossoehme on Lifton
Ithink you already know I thnk these are redundant and unnecessary. George 02:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps others would comment? AndrewXJW 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my request to consider AllExperts.com, as some may interpret this to represent a blog, which is contrary to guidelines. However, I believe the other two are much more substantial and important references to fill missing gaps of information in the "Resources Critical" section than the other external links currently found there. I invite collaboration on this issue. Thank you. AndrewXJW 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like a public explanation as to why Johanneum feels it appropriate to remove the Critical Resource link I added regarding the Watchtower-NGO issue, but retains the positive resource link on the very same issue. He referred me to the policy on "unverified original research& proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)" but I examined that Wiki policy as well as the one on Web Content, and the link I added definitely is NOT "unverified original research" as it is actually a collection of documentation from the Watchtower organization and the United Nations. *IF* this site link is disallowed, then the positive resource must be disallowed on the same grounds, as the positive resource is and has been promoted as specifically a counter to the Critical Resource link I provided. Furthermore, the information on the link I provided does NOT meet "Web Content" as it is available publicly as a published book through commercial and traditional book-and-mortar outlets. I have no question that Johanneum's removal of the said link was an act of bias and an attempt to provide readers of the "Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses (section) with a slanted set of information. So, this is why I am asking for a public explanation as to why one link is being removed (the critical resource) but the other link (the positive resource) is not, if not because of bias on the part of Johanneum. Barring a satisfactory explanation, I will continue to restore the deletion. Thank you. Timothy Kline

Current edit conflict

We should all read: Wikipedia:Words to avoid It also looks like we may be heading for RFC George 02:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Content

Below is the content which has been deleted from the main page, placed here instead to facilitate collaboration among those who feel it is a necessary contribution to the page. I have changed all references from "Freedom of Mind" to either "free choice" or "cult mind control" as suggested. AndrewXJW 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As the section has been revised, it has been moved to the bottom of this section. BenC7 10:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Free for All - Have your say

The word cult is loaded language. It can mean different things to different people and even the article related to cults cannot agree on a single definition. As such, it does not add to the article. I personally think it would be best left out and simply refer to Mind Control or control tactics since these adequately describe the intended meaning alone. Without hurting anyone I would like to give an example. The word nigger originally meant "black" with no negative connontations. As such there is no reason not to include it as a descriptive word on an article related to African Americans right?... wrong. Because of the common use of the word to degrade people over the years it is inappropriate. The word cult has been used in a similar way and may not be an appropriate descriptive word due to common misconception. I think some of the sections may draw unneccessary conclusions. For example, the introductory paragraph to "Family Integrity" could read something like Critics point to several areas of concern within the policies of Jehovah's Witnesses which impact family relationships. These include overt shunning, social seperatism and prohibition of traditional family celebrations. and then move into the three areas under the stated headings. This includes the relevant information allowing the reader to decide the validity of the stated concerns. Lucy 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In accord with Lucy's critique, I have removed all occurrences of the word "cult". AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add:

  • 1. The word claim as I have discovered is not encouraged as per the link I provided earlier. We do need to be very careful of our wording. Other loaded words are floating around this proposed section, and I am just as guilty as anyone.
If 'alleged' and 'claimed' are unacceptable, please suggest preferred verbiage. How about 'It is said that...' and 'Critics say...'? Are these acceptable? Is there another equivalent term that qualifies as neutral? AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Words to avoid George 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 2. This entire section especially if it includes the box gives undue weight to a particular subject. A paragraph or two with references should be sufficient. The box is over the top...way over the top.

George 02:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How does one define 'undue weight' and 'over the top'? I think the degree of weight is justified and relevance of material is strong because these are the primary controversies raised by critics of Witnesses, and the title of the article is "Controversies regarding...". The reason I have used a table is for clarity. Paragraphs do not facilitate clarity in this way. AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating having your work deleted, and yes, I have been a dick about it. I am sorry. Here's why it's been deleted. Not one of the references you provide specifically mentions Jehovah's Witnesses, as such, it is original research.

This is factually in error. Every reference I have provided in the column headed "In the Witness Context" is specific to how this tactic is used in the Witness context. This is not my conclusion, but rather is the stated intention of the referenced author in each case. AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if some random internet jockey takes some mind control "research" and says: "hey Witnesses are like this", unless the "research" itself specifically mentions Witnesses (not a single one of the references you provided does) then it is original research, not to mention that the "research itself" (on top of NOT being attributed to Witnesses or any other religion) isn't even supported by any of the authors' peers! Duffer 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This is again factually in error. Virtually all my references in the segment above specifically mentions Witnesses and describes specifically how Witnesses are claimed to practice the behavior in question. Original research is improper for Wikipedia contributors, not for materials cited by Wikipedia contributors. AndrewXJW 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only is it original research, but it is also undue weight given to an extreme minority.

Jehovah's Witnesses have been expelling on the order of 10,000 persons every year for the past 50 years or more. This figure is not contested. A quick multiplication illustrates how it is quite plausible that there are half a million former Witnesses holding these kinds of concerns who would not consider themselves "an extreme minority", especially considering that they are a considerable proportion of the current Witness membership. How many organizations in the world have to cope with the controversial effects of a body of forcibly-expelled former members who constitute nearly 10% of their current membership? This is a unique situation and a significant controversy, not held by an "extreme minority". AndrewXJW 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This begins to lean towards original research again. What information is available on all of those people? Do they all hold this viewpoint? Who says so? It needs to be cited. The burden of proof is on the editor making claims.
This is a discussion on a "Talk" page. One does not need to avoid OR when discussing a topic, but rather, one needs to avoid OR in composing content being considered for publication in the main article. I accept the burden of proof when writing content intended for publishing. I do not need to prove every detail written on a discussion page, especially when such details are not disputed. Witness literature itself acknowledges the approx. 10,000 expulsions per year figure. AndrewXJW 19:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Many leave voluntarily. Many are "repeat offenders". Many who are expelled simply have no desire to come back and go on to lead "normal" lives. They simply do not wish to hold to the values to which they once espoused, and accept the consequences they knew when they "signed up". The "extreme minority" are those who persist in badgering Witnesses and disparaging them to others at every opportunity, in as many public venues as is possible.
I am not badgering anyone. I am attempting to get both sides of an issue heard so that the public can make an informed decision. Few former Witnesses lead "normal" lives. Rather their rate of suicide is among the highest of any population group, which underlines the necessity of having all sides of this issue heard. Those who accept the necessity of considering all sides of an issue do not find it offensive when persons holding alternative viewpoints seek to promote a rounded treatment of issues. AndrewXJW 19:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
On what do you base your conclusion that this is a view held by an "extreme minority"? I have spent years on this topic and interviewed hundreds of people, and found that their primary complaints, above all others, are (1) family integrity and (2) freedom of mind. AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The quote from the L.J. Encyclopaedia summarizes this point. Duffer 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Lindsay Jones Encyclopaedia of Religion (pg. 1034, heading: Brainwashing) notes: "..social science research has not supported the overwhelming psychotechnology theories, and the judicial system and professional social science associations have likewise declined to grant brainwashing explanations scientific standing." Those associations that refuse to accept the brainwashing hogwash as valid include the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. The Lindsay Jones article also mentions (pg. 1033) the total dismantling of Margeret Singers' theories and court testimony by forensic psychologist Dick Anthony.

Lifton studied 25 westerners and 15 Chinese prisoners who were subjected to "thought reform" programs. From this Lifton developed the eight themes of ideological totalism (Milieu Control, Loading the Language, etc..) In this study all 40 individuals signed confessions that either publically condemned the United States, or had the prisoner confess germ warfare. However, once released, only 2 upheld their confessions and Lifton found totalistic predispositions in both cases. Not only is this research NOT applied to any religion, Lifton himself notes such coercion ONLY INFLUENCES SHORT-TERM BEHAVIOR.

Your method in the two paragraphs above employs one soft science to "disprove" another soft science. I believe our purpose is not to prove or disprove the reality of cult mind control among Witnesses, but rather report on how there is a controversy on this matter; by presenting the facts of what opposing parties believe, and the reasons they believe what they do, so that the reader can decide for himself which arguments are credible. AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The "controversy" is the sole product of the lunatic fringe of pop psychology that's touted by disillusioned, and mislead (or misleading), former Jehovah's Witnesses. That's not a controversy, that's slander and has NO business on Wikipedia. Duffer 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Lunatic fringe", "disillusioned", and "mislead" are your personal judgement. The concept that these views are held only by former Witnesses is your personal judgement. By definition, "slander" must be not only malicious, but also false. Whether controversial claims are true or false is not easily proven. This is why Wikipedia provides rounded articles which allow readers to decide. AndrewXJW 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To summarize: 1 - Undue weight - not only do you have to make the case for brainwashing on the viewpoint of the extreme minority; 2 - you have to find some nutter that applies such hogwash to Jehovah's Witnesses specifically, otherwise it is original research. Duffer 03:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My references include many of those you call 'nutters', please check again. Not undue weight because these are the primary complaints. Not relevant whether provable because we are not trying to prove a case, but rather only report on the nature of the controversy. AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Find one of those so called "researches" that applies their "research" directly to 1 - Jehovah's Witnesses and/or 2 - ANY religion at all. Not a single one of the referenced articles mentions Jehovah's Witnesses. Duffer 03:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This is factually in error. Please look at the references again. Thank you. AndrewXJW 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that the information in the first section (on the family) could be integrated into the section on "Treatment of members who disassociate", if that section does not cover it adequately.
Not adequate because negative impacts on family ties are not said to be only in cases of dissociation, but rather in all cases where there exist Witness and non-Witness members of the same family. AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Said by whome? Find me the qualified professional that says these things in regards to Jehovah's Witnesses specifically. Duffer 03:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Qualified professional"? I do not recall reading that authors and researchers must have such a credential. But for argument, one example would be Kaynor Weishaupt. AndrewXJW 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that the things in the second section (the table) could be reduced to paragraph form, and should be included if appropriate references can be found (preferably not websites, if possible). I don't think you would have to look very far to find something that says JWs are a cult or exhibit cult-like behaviours, but then I don't have a library on the subject at my fingertips.
If there is a consensus that this is necessary, and that clarity of presentation can be maintained while removing the table format, this is acceptable. I would be happy to make such change, but would like to hear from a broader range of contributors before doing so. Thank you. AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any objection to the use of the word "cult", if those who have been critical of JWs deliberately use the word. There is little point in removing the pointy end of the accusations and dulling it down to "mind control techniques" or similar. "Cult" means a number of things, not just mind control. If you look at the article on cults, the first two sentences of the lead seem to define it quite adequately. BenC7 07:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that clarity and straightforward speech is preferable, but in accord with Lucy's critique, I have removed the word "cult", as it is more important that the accurate meaning be conveyed than whether we use a particular word. If it is in fact a "loaded" word, and all sides are willing to desist from using "loaded" words, then I find this an acceptable change. AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've also added some comments to the table above. BenC7 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with serious comments to make? BenC7 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
See above. AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the best way to tackle the second section would be to have a few paragraphs rather than the table. This section could be renamed "Control Tactics". I see the most important information to be kept as being

  • The control of information within the organization. Perhaps the section on Internet could be merged in here instead of having a section on its own which would no longer be necessary.
  • The fact that members are discouraged from forming their own opinions on material and are told to "wait on Jehovah" if ever they find a discrepency in the information received.
  • Social control. This could outline how relationships outside of the group are strongly discouraged and disapproved of. This links in with the issue of disfellowshipping and how it is used by some in a punitive manner. Members who wish to leave the organization can only do so by giving up all whom they know and love.

The paragraphs could describe the situation with Jehovah's Witnesses and then state that critics have likened that situation to (insert tactic) and add a footnote that includes the researcher and where to go for further information on that theory. This way the the focus on Jehovah's Witnesses and not the research into cult mind control tactics themselves. I have tried to incorporate the comments above into this suggestion. What say you? Lucy 03:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Aye! BenC7 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Aye! I will rewrite the section based on this critique, as I was the original writer. Please allow a short time for me to do so. Thank you! AndrewXJW 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you all read WP:NOR#What is excluded? and WP:NOR#Why original research is excluded specifically from 'Why it's excluded': "However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories... ...any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." Duffer 03:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
In a litigious world where authors and researchers routinely avoid mentioning specific organizations for fear of lawsuit, especially facing an organization like the Watchtower, with a large legal team who is prone to sue, specific references against Witnesses are not generally published even where original research included the Witnesses. Minor researchers (read "less than reliable publishers") who apply such research specifically to the Witnesses based on broad experience can only afford to do so, speaking the truth, because they have little or nothing to lose. If both the "reliable publication" and "direct application" rules, which are generally exclusive, are both to be strictly enforced, then the Watchtower legal department ends up directing Wikipedia content. If that is the situation that Wikipedia allows, then balanced coverage of all sides of an issue is impossible, making Wikipedia virtually worthless. Is this the intention of Wikipedia policymakers? I think not. AndrewXJW 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read the sections as requested but I still cannot see where you are coming from. There are numerous reliable, published sources that speak specifically about control issues within Jehovah's Witnesses. This is not original research but rather stating facts as presented by several sources. Control over information, opinions and social interactions are spoken of in depth in "Apocalypse Delayed" by James Penton, 1997, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0802079733; "Captives of a Concept (Anatomy of an Illusion)" by Don Cameron, 2005, ISBN: 1411622103; "Jehovah Lives in Brooklyn" by Richard Shining Thunder Francis, 2000, Xlibris Corporation, ISBN: 0738829528; "Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements" by Dr H Wayne House, 1984, Zondervan Publishing House; "The Four Major Cults: Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism" by Anthony Hoekema; "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Dr Walter Martin, 1997, Bethany House Publishers, not to mention Franz's books.
That is not even going into websites from different organisations including The Apologetics Index (which is currently a critical resource on the article) [1]; Free Minds Org [2] and Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry[3]. This is by no means a complete list. Lucy 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Then cite the resources that specifically say something about Witnesses. Where I'm comming from is the fact that not one of the articles referenced in the above chart mentions Jehovah's Witnesses. That IS original research. Now if you say the books you mentioned talk about the so called 'control' issue then by all means cite them. Duffer 10:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Patience please. We are only beginning this section, since it was deleted several times in it's infancy. Thank you. AndrewXJW 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps finishing it completely in some subpage and then presenting it for review before inclusion would be in order. - CobaltBlueTony 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This is "Talk", a sub-page of "Controversy...", so it would seem we are already doing what you have suggested. Is there a more appropriate sub-page you would like to suggest? AndrewXJW 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Revised content

Family Integrity & Mind Control

Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses (e.g., Randall Watters, Timothy Campbell, David Grosshoeme, Kaynor Weishaupt, Jan Groenveld, etc.) object to Witness policy and behavior where, in their view, the integrity of family relationships and the capacity of members to exercise free choice is impacted.

Family Integrity

Critics point to three Witness policies which they claim have a negative impact on family ties and stability: (1) Overt shunning, (2) Social seperatism, and (3) Prohibition of traditional family celebrations. Critics further suggest that it is a common shared goal of all high-control organizations to undermine family stability because doing so makes individuals easier to control, and that Witness policies are consistent with high-control organizations in this respect.

Shunning When a Witness chooses to end their membership (see section "Treatment of members who disassociate"), even family members are often shunned by relatives who remain Witnesses.

Social seperatism Witnesses practice social isolation from their communities to the extent possible, always preferring to socialize with other Witnesses. This is meant to protect purity of character based on their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:33 (NWT, "bad associations spoil useful habits"). There is no exception to this general rule with regard to non-Witness relatives; therefore, when one member of a family becomes a Witness and the other does not, the Witness social seperatism policy makes it likely that the family ties between such persons will deteriorate.

How can seperatism be complete when it is to the extent possible? POV. Huge need of researched proof that family ties deteriorate. George 14:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not complete. It is a significant degree, and a complete preference, but one cannot completely seperate from the world while living in the world; isn't that so? AndrewXJW 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the last sentence needs a reference. BenC7 04:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Traditional family celebrations Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from celebrating birthdays and holidays. Critics assert this causes family ties between Witnesses and their non-Witness relatives to deteriorate because in many families, birthdays and holidays are their only traditional opportunities to get together.

I find it sad that people only get together when a holiday demands it. George 14:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of how we might like it to be otherwise, we live in a busy world, and the practical reality is that most families have the habit of getting together at specific annual occasions, not considering this a demand on them, but rather an opportunity. This does not mesh well with Witness policy, which, for perhaps unrelated reasons, removes each of these unique opportunties. People should be aware of such things in advance so that they can make informed choices, should they not? AndrewXJW 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This section needs references. BenC7 10:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mind Control

Critics contend that certain Witness practices negatively impact members' capacity to exercise free choice, that any one of these practices alone are not necessarily significant, but in combination are significant. A few examples:

This is ridiculous. Free Will is one of the most treasured attributes that we humans possess. JW's, both individually and collectively, recognize this. There are many references in WTS literature that demonstrate this. For example:
"A key part of our mental and emotional makeup is free will. Yes, God implanted in us the faculty of freedom of choice. It was indeed a wonderful gift from him." (dg part 5 p. 10 par. 2 The Wonderful Gift of Free Will)
The stated intention for Witnesses to allow for free choice does not guarantee that they are incapable of exercising mind control tactics (knowingly or unknowingly). I agree that free will is an important universal and spiritual constant. However, the high importance of free will does not guarantee that it is impossible to circumvent it. Kindly familiarize yourself with the theories of cult researchers before attempting to contribute on the topic of whether cult mind control is possible. AndrewXJW 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments like the above show a basic misunderstanding of JW beliefs. --DannyMuse 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I was a Witness for 30 years, so I do not suffer from such "a basic misunderstanding". However, I suggest you might benefit from a cursory study of the work of cult researchers so as to at least become familiar with their theories. AndrewXJW 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The text should state that these controversies exist. However, they should also state any alternate reasonable causes that could lead to this conclusion falsely. For example, the are studies out showing that particularly in post-industrial society the need for group can be so under-nourished that individuals join in desperation not because of reason. I have also seen studies that imply that specific kinds of social and mental disorders actually draw some individuals to specific groups - religious, support, sport, etc. I'm sure many studies with this type of research can be found in the science literature. If the claim will be made that the methods JWs might use might result from undue attention or "love bombing" - then say that; but also state information about other valid, documented science concerning the nature of human-group interaction and about documented propensities for joining or congregating etc. among those with specific social, emotional or psychiatric needs. JWs might be unknowingly exerting influence; but some individuals may be drawn to the group because the have a fundemental need or lack. The group should not be discussed in an unbalanced manner given the many unstated motivations for individuals who do come into association. Finally, other religions where this could also be a criticism (such as some present-day Islam) should be cross-refernced. If it's written, make it fair, balanced, open to other conclusions (based on well-rounded research) and leveraged out to possible similar criticism in other groups.

Love Bombing, as described by researcher Margaret Singer, is a deliberate show of affection or friendship by an individual or a group of people toward another individual, not arising from personal feelings, but rather for the express purpose of influencing that person. Witnesses are said to practice this behavior in the form of conducting home bible studies and showing special attention to new visitors at their meetings.[1][2]

The first reference is a free press release website, not a scholarly quote. the second reference is OR.George 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Amazing! Jesus said that "By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves” (John 13:35). I wouldn't have believed that anyone would try to turn that around to insinuate that it indicates the exact opposite of what Jesus meant. How on earth could showing a "personal interest" in other people be a bad thing? Why would anyone even want to suggest that? What justification is there for attributing bad/false motives to JW's for being nice to people? Where is the evidence? What is the proof? In fact, the two WT references indicate the opposite! As it is, this commentary is just plain wrong and sounds paranoid. --DannyMuse 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No one has suggested that genuine love can be a bad thing. Dr. Singer suggests that a pretense of love can be used to promote an agenda, and that when a group of people engage in such pretense in an orchestrated fashion, it can create a misimpression in the mind of the recipient of such pretense.AndrewXJW 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Milieu Control, as described by researcher Robert J. Lifton, is an effort to exercise control over information, including what is read, expressed, and even dwelt upon, by means of manipulating access and environment, in order to assert control over people's minds. Witnesses are said to practice this behavior by discouraging members from reading material that does not favor Witness doctrine, and especially from communicating with former members. (See sections "Treatment of Members Who Dissociate" and "Internet Use".)[3][4]

Excuse me? The first reference is a "cult researcher" applying soemone else's research to Jehovah's Witnesses. Grosshoeme speaking about Lifton's research and applying it to JW's? A very transparent attempt to make Lifton's research appear to be about Jehova's WItnesses. The second reference never even mentions JW's. George 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Saying "David Grosshoeme on Lifton" is sufficient for the first reference. It does not imply that Lifton's research is about JWs at all. Especially when you actually visit the page. The second reference needs to be removed, or placed earlier in the paragraph. BenC7 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctrine Over Person, as described by Robert J. Lifton, means to insist that human thoughts and feelings are innately subordinate to claims of doctrine, that personal experience is subordinate to a group-approved highly abstract interpretation of experience. Witnesses are said to practice this behavior by insisting that members may not hold their own opinions, but rather must embrace all officially-sanctioned Witness doctrines, policies, and commentary. [5][6]

Repeats of the problems already listed. first is OR second is dishonest.George 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Loading the Language, also described by Robert J. Lifton, is the use of thought-terminating cliches to dismiss disapproved lines of thought, where far-reaching and complex human problems are compressed into brief, reductive sound bytes which are framed as complete answers. Witnesses are said to practice this behavior by using insider jargon and especially during their question-and-answer sessions.[7][8]

First reference - WHo is the author of the information listed and what are the credentials of this person? Second reference is the same OR application we keep dealing with. Rick Ross does not apply this information to JW's not that his application would carry a lot of weight.
See next point. BenC7 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Group Dynamics, as described by researcher John D. Goldhammer, refers to the use of collective social pressure to obtain compliance from individuals within the group. Witnesses are said to practice this behavior by intentionally embarrassing participants during their question-and-answer sessions, when the expressions of a participant does not reflect Watchtower Society doctrine, in order to induce capitulation.[9]

This reference is from a different website but is a mirror of the information from x morninglanders so I have the same problem - Who is Jan Groenveld? what are this person's credentials?George 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The information appears to be originally from the Cult Awareness and Information Centre somewhere, but I can't find exactly where. Some suitable references may be found on the page; I would recommend referencing this site, which seems to have some more reliable documentation, than the skeptictank site referenced above. BenC7 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive Dissonance, as described by researcher Leon Festinger, occurs in people whose behavior, thoughts, and emotions are not in harmony with one another. Such persons will change their thoughts and feelings to bring them into harmony with their behavior so as to relieve the dissonance. Witnesses are said to exploit this dynamic by requiring all members to engage in door-to-door preaching, and requiring members to shun persons disapproved by the organization. In these scenarios, the inner belief of individual Witnesses is supposedly reinforced through the individual's own behavior.[10][11]

The first reference claims Festinger discusses JW's but conveniently does not quote Festinger on this point. The article applies Festiger's comments to JW's but does not actually show how Festinger did (if at all). The reference to the WP article cognitive dissonance is blatant OR.
This is a good starting point of a revamp of this section, I think, based on critiques from multiple contributors. Please make direct improvements to this section as we move toward consensus on content. Thank you. AndrewXJW 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. Love bombing - Needs a bit more explaining for the JW perspective. How is conducting a home bible study a show of affection or friendship?

Milieu control - Good. Wouldn't it also include the active encouragement by the WBTS for Witnesses to read the Watchtower/Awake publications?

Doctrine over person - Also good. I think that "Witnesses are called foolish for resisting (may not be the right word) the WBTS" should also be included.

Loading the language - The link between the description of the control mechanism and the JW practice needs to be more clearly described. An example would help.

Group dynamics - Good. I have reworded it slightly to remove the words "group dogma" and the phrase "pre-existing compliance", which makes little sense.

Cognitive dissonance - Still doesn't make sense. While I don't necessarily agree with the statement, it may be more appropriate to explain it like this: "Since Witnesses are required by the organization to participate in door-to-door preaching, any dissonance experienced (i.e., My behaviour is to preach door-to-door, my thoughts are that it is not really necessary to do so; these are in conflict) is resolved by changing one's thoughts to be in line with the induced behaviour." It may need to be a bit more 'encyclopaedic', but I think providing an example of how dissonance is experienced makes the concept much clearer. That being said, another reference would be good, as I wonder whether this is really the opinion of just one researcher.

The difficulty I have here is that cognitive dissonace removal is the core of most Torah-Bible based religions in general, not just JWs (maybe Islam too????). Thinking of the major well-known Judeo-Christian religions, I can't think of too many where "anything goes" as a behavioral doctrine is acceptable. There is a historical basis for this within many Judeo-Christian main religions - Catholecism being the easiest to think of - think birth control, something you can't do by doctrine but may dearly want to do. The Pope spends all day getting cardinals, bishops, monseignors, priests and parishoners out of cognitive dissonace - think about all those encyclicals and canons and what have you. If this is true of JWs it needs to be x-ref'd as a major tenant of many beliefs and doctrines to be fair.

Non-website references are also needed, in addition to the ones included here. BenC7 11:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above, Ben you are an intelligent person and that is why your supprot of these sections surprises me. Did you read the references provided? George 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I was commenting more on the content itself. I assumed the references were OK, but have made a couple of suggestions re references above. I did say that non-website references were also needed, though. BenC7 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Edits made by anon me on July 27

To Duffer? (As copied on his page)

RE: Revert of controversies page: Reversion without discussion as usual... Welcome to Wikipedia. You reverted my mods to the "Controversies..." page without any explanation. My mods were not "NPOV" imho - how on earth is anything truly "non-point of view"?? That's impossible. Every human writing represents the point of view of someone, and so does this controversies article. My edits were more concise by far, and gave a better overview of the issues here.

I'll replace tem to be deleted by you later I suppose... Modified intro as follows: how is this "POV" then? As opposed to the previous, which intimates JW's are a cult when they are a recognized religion, and is basically one great run-on sentence... And has various grammatical and spelling errors to boot... Good grief.

Proposed mods as follows:

There is much controversy with regard to the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that involvement in human political organizations is wrong, and so maintain strict political neutrality, refusing military service and involvement in patriotic activities. Because of this, governments have viewed them and their activities with suspicion.

Because Jehovah's Witnesses promote belief in a Creator (see intelligent design) they have been ridiculed by the scientific community.

The main doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses, while being based on their interpretation of the Bible, are very different from the beliefs of mainstream Christendom. This, and their outright rejection of ecumenism or interfaith, has caused friction, criticism, and sometimes outright hostility and persecution from religious leaders.

Jehovah's Witnesses also reject blood transfusions due to the Bible's indication that blood should be viewed as sacred. This has caused much criticism and controversy, with some medical practitioners aggressively condemning the Witnesses as religious fanatics and others accepting their beliefs and providing non-blood alternative therapy.

Some individuals have also claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses are a destructive cult and employ mind control tactics on their members. Such claims are generally considered inflammatory, and are largely without substantiation.

The media has been observed to dramatize and emphasize issues with regard to Jehovah's Witnesses, presumably attempting to capitalize commercially on the controversy surrounding this religious group.

I am not really sure that the introduction needs to be expanded to such a degree. The article is long enough as it is and each of the points in the introduction are expanded upon in the article if any reader is unsure about the context. Having said that your additions do contribute depth to the introduction. I would suggest the following:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that involvement in politics is unbiblical, and so maintain strict political neutrality, refusing military service and involvement in patriotic activities such as saluting the flag. Because of this, governments have viewed them and their activities with suspicion. Due to a belief in creationism or intelligent design Jehovah's Witnesses have met with controversy from the scientific community. The main doctrines and biblical interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses differ with the beliefs of mainstream Christians. This, and their outright rejection of ecumenism or interfaith, has caused friction and criticism from other religious groups.
Specific areas that form major points of contention include their translation and interpretation of the Bible; their policies on blood transfusions; their attitude towards members of other religions and the treatment of members who dissociate; and their policies which have been said to deteriorate family ties and limit freedom of choice. Lucy 00:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page of the IP address that you used to make those edits user talk: 24.224.182.82. user:Cobaltbluetony tells me I was wrong to revert, but I just don't see how those edits are acceptable. It's presumptive, assertive, and draws conclusions. I know an intro is supposed to represent the contents of the article, but this intro just sounds too biased. Also, the intro was not the only thing reverted, the other edits were distinctly NPOV. Duffer 00:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For once I agree with Duffer. If he hadn't reverted the changes, I would have done so. They were not NPOV (neutral point of view), which I think is what Duffer meant to say in his edit summary. If you had looked at the discussion above, as well as taken the template at the top of the article into consideration, you would see that the cult/mind control issue is under discussion and revision, and it is being edited here before going into the article. These things are not bigoted or hate-mongering. The article is here to present the controversy, not to put forward an opinion on it.
You say "reversion without discussion as usual". Well, did you discuss any of the changes you made before making them? Don't be so quick to accuse others, especially when you do the very thing yourself. BenC7 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, I meant: "the other edits were distinctly POV. Duffer 03:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Making additions and modifications to Wikipedia is supposed to be the point, right? Or is deleting said additions (without any summary discussion) the point? 142.176.149.50 19:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)24

Someone could say that BenC7 had a criminal record. Would he want that to be put into a news article, to be seen and read by anyone, without substantiation? Would he be concerned that people might believe it, although it is not true but purely conjecture? Would he accept the excuse that well, it was just an NPOV article? Lots of legal cases have been fought and lost by those claiming JWs are a "destructive cult". Such claims cannot be substatiated and yes, they are usually put forward by hate-mongers. Any claims with regard to mind control (the paragraph even has a link to another article on mind control, for Pete's sake!) and cultism on the top of an article about JW's obviously infers that JW's are mind controllers and cultists, unless there are clarifying statements accompanying such. I'm not comfortable with any article that infers such negative concepts towards anyone, without clear substatiation. And yes, I am concerned that Wiki projects could be used to promote hate. Aren't you? 142.176.149.50 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC) 24

Further on this: is anyone saying the following statement (excerpt from existing intro) is NPOV? Come on. "and their policies which effectually deteriorate family ties (e.g., shunning, seperatism, anti-holiday, anti-birthday), and their use of cult mind control tactics." "Their policies" which "effectually deteriorate family ties"? Sounds like rhetoric to the tune of the standard JW basher, definitely their Point Of View. A blanket assertion, presented as fact, as well. Come on, people. We should be able to do better than this. 142.176.149.50 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC) 24

One more swing. Who are these "anti cult activists"? Do we have any reference to the "high World Council of Anti-Cult Activists Association"? Is there any substantiation for this statement? in my experience anti-cult groups do not focus at all on JW's... Disgrunteld former JW's do that... 142.176.149.50 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I happen to have liked the simple summary sentences! The other now seems like pseudo-intelligent blarghety-blargh. The simple sentences were concise, clear, and most definitely placed the "claims" in the proper light, allowing the reader to make assumptions as to the accuracy or truth of the claims, as per NPOV. Are we afraid of big changes here? Os isn't one of Wikipedia's encouragements "be bold"? - CobaltBlueTony 14:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I liked Lucy's mods also; the original (and current) seems to be quite un-elegant and contains grammatical/spelling errors. Duffer asserts non-neutral but I disagree, I don't see why my entry would be considered non-neutral. Merely concise and clear. In any event, an article on controversy by definition must present two points of view, pro and con... Otherwise there would not be any controversy. The entire article, in its present form, merely presents the point of view of those (sometimes harshly) critical. 142.176.149.50 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)24

Basically, what is the purpose of an article on the subject of JWs: Controversy? The language of this article is, quite frankly, largely prejudicial. What are we trying to put forward with this article? Are we encouraging or condemning? in it's present form, the article seems to be a carefully crafted set of words designed to obliquely make JWs seem like a dangerous organization of cult-like individuals. In simple terms, it presents the point of view of those critical of JWs. Generally such arguments come from two places:

1. Former, now disgruntled JWs. These persons often seem to wish to dramatize JWs as somehow a dangerous, evil conspiracy. In reality, these persons were unable to live up to the standards required by JWs as a religious organization, and rather than accept that they either need to change or cannot continue as members of the religious organization, they have chosen to leave and then pursue a course of attempting to tear down the faith of those who remain. To possess the privilege of a driver's license, you need to obey the rules of the road. To be a member of the Rotary Club, you need to follow their guidleines and instructions. This is the case with any organization or employer.

2. Religious leaders, primarily from other nominal Christian organizations. These persons have a vested interest in opposing JWs and their proselytization work (their salaries come from congregations of their own denominations - they do not want to see congregation members change religious affiliation, as it represents a loss of revenue and influence for them.)

Both of these groups commonly engage in mudslinging, and promote various slurs, half-truths and outright lies against JWs. If Wikipedians are not cautious, their efforts to create a neutral bias, accurate scholarly encyclopaedic work for educational purposes can be manipulated by members of these groups and others, who wish to promote a message which has at it's core simple hatred and prejudice.

OK, now that we have a good discussion going why not reintroduce and we can work out the particulars? George 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate (since it appears it wasn't understood the first time), the section on cult/mind control is under discussion and revision. You criticize people for making unsubstantiated comments. Yet not one of your changes was substaniated with references. You also claim that your statements are NPOV. Let's see.

"Some individuals have also claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses are a destructive cult and employ mind control tactics on their members. Such claims are generally considered inflammatory, and are largely without substantiation." (according to who? you?)

The general public, including members of other religious groups, would agree with this statement. Anyone aware of the issues involved would accept that this is a statement of fact. Calling JWs a cult, or inferring that they use mind control tactics, is a byline of hate promoters and those who wish to promote a prejudicial agenda against JWs. Ask any human rights authority, or any unbiased religious leader, and they will agree that this is the case not only with JWs but with other minority religious groups. In the intro we have a reference to a marginal anti-cult movement in a sad attempt to now validate the statements inferring JWs are a cult, the following quote from the Wiki article about that movement: "However, Martin's own Baptist faith is a major deviation from Catholicism (which has existed for nearly 1500 years longer than any Protestant denomination), thus proving that any Christian church can be given the "cult" label." You claim you are promoting an "NPOV" article but are actually just promoting and reinforcing negative stereotypical attitudes as promoted by those who promote hate against JWs. 24.224.227.154 02:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 24
References? BenC7 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"The media has been observed to dramatize and emphasize issues with regard to Jehovah's Witnesses, presumably attempting to capitalize commercially on the controversy surrounding this religious group." Do I need to comment?

Get off your high horse! This is also a statement of fact. Also substantiated by a simple review of news articles in the mass media over the past 5-10 years. If someone from any other denomination or religious group commits a crime, or has any sort of problem, the headline reads "Man, 32, from Toronto, Commits Crime" but if they were in any way associated with JWs, even just subscribers to the WT and Awake mags, the headline that's plastered is "JW Commits Crime!" NPOV doesn't necessarily mean "anti-JW" you know. 24.224.227.154 02:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 24
References? BenC7 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Non-Blood Treatments: Various non-blood medical procedures have been developed by medical practitioners in response to Jehovah's Witnesses' general refusal of blood transfusion medicine" ...etc. This page is about controversies; the development of non-blood treatments is not a controversial issue.

Non-blood treatments for JWs are most certainly a controversial issue, perhaps one of the foremost controversies with regard to JWs! Blood is big business. Non-blood treatment bucks every medical tradition in the Western world, and yet has been proven without a doubt to be superior to standard treatment in almost every way. A well rounded article on JWs refusing blood, without at least a mention of the amazing success involved with non-blood treatments and the benefits discovered from rejkecting blood treatment, is not possible. Once again, this is simply a reporting of the facts related to the issue. Why do you have such a beef with this? What I see here is a controversy page on JWs when other religions' pages have no such thing, and then a smacking down of anyone who presents information that goes contrary to the prejudicial language extant. What is your bias? 24.224.227.154 02:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 24
I didn't say non-blood treatments weren't controversial. A large part of the article is devoted to it. I said the development of non-blood treatments is not a controversial issue. It isn't. Take a chill pill. BenC7 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note regarding the sentiment that Jehovah's Witnesses have been singled out by having an article that deals with controversial issues. I have heard this mentioned a few times and I am not sure why. I spent just a few minutes having a look and have found:
This is not the only examples but I think you can see my point. Jehovah's Witnesses are by no means being singled out here. Pretty much any religion you can think of has a section or an article or a number of articles devoted to criticism or controversy. I hope this can settle the issue once and for all. Lucy 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"As these postulations [about disfellowshipping] have been, by and large, put forward by disgruntled former members of this religion, their viewpoints have been viewed by some as most likely biased." (according to who? any references?)

Perhaps the wording of this point should and could be altered slightly. Simple logic dictates that former disgruntled members of any organization, cannot be trusted to provide an unbiased (NPOV?) report on something they are angry and hateful against. Have you ever been fired from a job? Did you have anyhting good to say about your former employer? Not only that, but anyone who blatantly promotes hate by distribution of hate literature, attempts to disrupt peaceful gatherings, writes inflammatory articles on Wikis and faux news blogs on the internet, and in other ways puts forward extremely prejudicial effort opposing a religious group or other organization, is obviously not an unbiased person capable of putting forward neutral information. Anyone whose whole life revolves around hatred and the tearing down of other peoples' way of life, can't even be viewed as entirely stable. So yes, most JWs, and even impartial bystanders, view most of these outrageous claims against JWs as biased and inflammatory. 24.224.227.154 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 24
Impartial bystanders eh? References? How many times does it need to be said?? BenC7 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew made a number of changes that were reverted, so he posted his material on the talk page where it could be reviewed and changed before being included in the article. There's nothing stopping you from doing the same thing, although I hope that you would revise your additions first given the comments above. BenC7 02:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unitarian bias

The current version of this section has sentences that read: "The New World Translation is said to be a literal translation, [25] as such, rendering the passage as "God", "Godlike", or "Divine" would not be adhering to the stated goal of literal translation. [26]"

This seems to me a bit unnecessary. The same argument could be used for every other English translation. The _______ Version (insert the name of any formal equivalence/literal translation) also claims to be a literal translation. They would have believed that translating it "the Word was a god" would not be in keeping with the goal of a literal translation. It is sufficient to say that the NWT stands by its rendering and believes that it most accurately represents the original language. It is moot to offer an argument as a defence that can be used for both sides. (By the way, the point is not to offer a defence at all; it is just to present the facts.) BenC7 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is to offer a defence against the assertions. I don't see the defence against this claim as moot, since the trinitarian side is not in question here. The sentence I proposed offers WHY the NWT translated as they did, and specifically exposes the irrationality of the claim to the discerning reader of the article. As a literal translation the NWT renders "a god" although the MEANING is: "Godlike / Divine", or as Dr. Wallace puts it: "“what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too." The charge against the NWT is twofold: 1 - The translation goes against the mainstream by offering a heretical translation (with the insinuation that the translation is not accurate). 2 - The accusation is presented under the heading: "Unitarian bias", as such it is inherently insinuated that the passage is inaccurately rendered to support a Unitarian Bias. Since it is the stated goal of the NWT to render literally, rendering the passage as most mainstream bibles (the Word was God) would go against not only literal translation, but proper conveyance of the original greek thought. A proper defence for the NWT is more than warranted here. It is not rendered to affirm a "unitarian bias", it is translated literally, accurately, and in line with modern TRINITARIAN scholars (Wallace, Moffat, Smith & Goodspeed, and many more), despite the article's claim: "A rendering that depicts Jesus as "a god" is considered by most Christians to be heretical." Duffer 03:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I agree with both of you. George 03:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Any translation that depicts Jesus as a god is heretical. See statements of faith etc. The point about unitarian bias is that the NWT consistently translates certain verses to reflect unitarian beliefs. No other translation does this. The other translations that, for example, have "divine breath" or similar in Genesis 1:3 do not also have "what God was the Word was" AND "by him all (other) things were created" AND etc. They may have "divine breath", but in other places they will have "the Word was God" etc. With the NWT there is a consistent translation in favour of unitarianism. Hence the title.
And no, this is not a place to be offering a defence/justification of each side's POV. Otherwise, I would have filled up the page by now with defences of each point from a CPOV. The point is to simply to state what the controversy is. BenC7 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
OK here we go.... There are translations (quite unpopular) which agree with the NWT. Oh yes, it is heretical, according to your religion. NOT according to the research. The translators of the NWT were brave enough to put all these renderings together, and the fact is that all these ideas existed before the NWT. Also, traditional renderings are biased in favor of trinitarism, thus the favored rendering against the literal "a god". George 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW the criticism is already the your CPOV. However the comment was over the top in my opinion, and unneeded.
(Who said this? What does "is already the your" mean? Which comment? BenC7 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC))
Heresy is defined by religion, not research. Please provide examples of translations that have the same consistent unitarian renderings as the NWT. Are there any? BenC7 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
"Any translation that depicts Jesus as a god is heretical".. What? How does: "and the Word was God" NOT depict Jesus as a God? Do you see? The claim itself ("Any translation that depicts...") is absurd. Since I have proven that the NWTs meaning is in line with modern trinitarian thought on this verse, I fail to see how it can be alleged that the NWT translated John 1:1 to affirm Unitarianism. Not only that but, I would think the claim of polytheism would be the more common allegation here, though Witnesses are Unitarian they don't give any more meaning to the term "God" (when applied to Jesus) than the amount he applied to Himself (John 10:33-36) (unlike Trinitarians who elevate Jesus to a catagory ("only true God") that He explicitely removes himself from (John 17:3)). In regards to "other" in Colossians 1:16-20, read to yourself verse 16; now ask yourself: what is the meaning of this verse, if "other" is not implied? (See main article footnote #25 for answer). So how does "other" in Colossians 1:16-20 assert unitarianism? It doesn't.
Sure there is alot of controversy surrounding the NWT because it does not affirm orthodox perversions of the texts. Note the controversy certainly, allow the claim, allow the refutation, but don't limit the scope of the controversy to a heading (Unitarian Bias) that doesn' accurately reflect the criticisms against the NWT. I'm all for it, but again, you can't have the claim without the rebuttal. I know the sentence: "The New World Translation is said to be a literal translation, [25] as such, rendering the passage as "God", "Godlike", or "Divine" would not be adhering to the stated goal of literal translation. [26]" makes the paragraph a little wordy, but I still firmly believe it is necessary to address the allegations and insinuations (outlined in previous responce). Duffer 06:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I apologize for my emotional response. I was offended by Ben's insult. I also agree with Ben that "The New World Translation is said to be a literal translation, [25] as such, rendering the passage as "God", "Godlike", or "Divine" would not be adhering to the stated goal of literal translation. [26]" does not belong in the paragrph, especially in its curent form, because it is OR, however please don't alienate people on the other side of an issue by insulting their religion on purpose. Calling the NWT heretical was a bad idea. George 12:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

George, I'm not exactly sure what you considered offensive. Consider: a) trying to say that Jesus is a god (as opposed to God) is heretical. Have you read the first section with the table? Statements of faith affirm that Jesus is God usually in the first few points. b) the NWT depicts Jesus as "a god". Thus, c) "a rendering that depicts Jesus as a god is considered by most Christians to be heretical" is true (a+b=c). How else can it be said? Duffer knows very well that the NWT depicts Jesus as a god but not God, and is trying to play games with words to try and make it seem like that is not the case. His argument is not strong, though. (In the post above, "The NWT is in line with modern trinitarian thought", then "Witnesses are Unitarian". Contradictory statements.) I am still waiting to see anyone produce examples of any translations that are the consistently the same as the NWT in its unitarian slant, as I explained above and have now highlighted in bold.
By the way, have you read Revelation 22:13 and Isaiah 44:6? Who is the First and the Last? BenC7 01:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
My argument is unequivocal. How does: "the Word was God" NOT depict Jesus as a God? That's not a word game. I know what the statements of faith are, I'm trying to point out that your interpretation of John 1:1 is not in line with modern Trinitarian scholarship. The evangelical Dr. Wallace and Harner (to name just a couple) say basically the exact same thing that the NWT says (those quotes are available in the article footnotes 22-24) (along with the non-Trinitarian non-Witness Dr. BeDuhn). On top of that, how is that Unitarianism? A.) That is original research B.) Sort of, Witnesses regard Jesus as a God in the same sense that he used the word of himself (John 10:33-36), but in John 1:1 the meaning is not "a god" (see aforementioned footnotes), you must understand the literal translation says it because that is the literal translation, however, the NWT specifically says in the footnote of the bible the MEANING is "godlike"/"divine", and that IS upheld by modern trinitarian scholars. C.) Orthodoxy may regard that as heresy, but regardless, it is almost the exact opposite of a "unitarian" (misleading and inaccurate) rendering of the passage. If you didn't take the meaning into account ("godlike") you'd think Witnesses were polytheists, and ironically it is orthodox translations of the bible that misrepresent the passage to portray unitarianism (the Word was God) even though orthodox bibles fail to see that such a(n inaccurate) rendering denies their own theology; when John says the Word was WITH God, he meant that the Word (Jesus) was with God (THE FATHER), yet the orthodox rendering of the passage "the Word was God" equates Jesus with the Father, so besides Pentacostals I don't know anyone who would agree with such nonsense, not even Trinitarians.
To recap: (Without exegesis from either side of the issue) How is "a god" unitarian? As for Colossians 1:16-20 you have not yet answered my questions: (re: Col. 1:16) "what is the meaning of this verse, if "other" is not implied? (See main article footnote #25 for answer)." Further: "how does "other" in Colossians 1:16-20 assert unitarianism?" Either you want to say Jesus created God or not (16); that Jesus is before God, or not (17). BeDuhn is absolutely right in calling the criticism "absurd".
Also, please find an application of "first and last" to Jesus that is not specifically limited in context to death and resurrection. Then try to find such a qualification when the term is applied to Jehovah. Duffer 03:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The normal rendering depicts Jesus as THE God, not a god. You ask, "How is 'a god' unitarian?" Perhaps you should look up the word unitarian. It's lower case g for crying out loud! Could it be more obvious? Saying 'a god' implies that there are others, and that it is not referring to God.
Regarding "other", the fact is that 99% of translations (including even the Amplified Bible!) do not see the need to insert the word. I am not a bible translator, and neither are you. But I will go with the majority, not the 1%.
But you seem to be missing the point, which I have highlighted in bold previously. It is not the specific examples in and of themselves, but the consistent rendering with a unitarian slant. Again, are there any other translations that do this? Let's see them.
As for the First and the Last, just let the text speak; don't try to make it say something it doesn't. Jesus identifies himself by a title that was only ever used by God. BenC7 05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
"The normal rendering depicts Jesus as THE God.." No, no it doesn't. Not even Trinitarian scholars agree with you on that. Are you not reading what I'm writing? The "normal" (inaccurate) rendering in fact denies the Trinity doctrine, read my post again. "Saying 'a god' implies that there are others..." there ARE others (John 10:33-36), but NONE of them are the "only true God", not even Jesus (John 17:3). Lets get down to the heart of the issue in regards to Wikipedia (and not necessarily exegesis). Saying that our rendering (despite modern Trinitarian support) is "heresy" because it conflicts with denominational statements of faith is original research. Calling the rendering "unitarian bias" is original research. Find a scholar that says 1 - it's heresy, 2 - unitarian. Again I urge you to please re-read my previous post.
Please provide references for your statement that "not even trinitarian scholars agree" that the normal rendering depicts Jesus as God. Will you refer me to references 22-24 in the article? 22 and 23 are from the JW Bible, which is hardly trinitarian. Part of 24 says "Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father)." The original source also says "John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father.". I'm afraid plain old common sense goes against your argument as well. BenC7 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's not trinitarian, it's accurate. Wallace affirms the NWTs translation and interpretation of the passage by acknowledging that 1 - the second 'theos' is qualitative (basically an adjective) as opposed to the traditional (inaccurate) definite rendering; 2 - the passage makes a clear distinction between Jesus and God (the Father). This is in opposition to the common interpretation of the passage: "Jesus is God." You may believe He is God, but John 1:1 doesn't say that, and that's affirmed by Wallace/Harner, Wallace even cites other translations (ironically the same ones that the NWT cites) the NEB, REB. Vines Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says that "a god was the Word" IS the literal translation of of the passage, essentially you're accusing the NWT of having a bias toward a literal rendering. See also Vincent's Word Studies.
Lets talk common sense. Jesus was with God (the Father); do you believe that Jesus IS God (the Father)? That is the interpretation that you are forced into with the inaccurate rendering "the Word was God". To say that 'Jesus is the same as the God whome he was with' is pure nonsense. It is not what John said. It's not even what Trinitarians believe. Duffer 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of this. I have highlighted phrases in the post above, that you appear to have missed or ignored entirely. BenC7 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Colossians 1:16-20. It doesn't matter if other translations don't do it, the NWT is simply making the implicit explicit. Unless you want to say that Jesus created God (16) and that He is before God (17) you MUST interpret the passages as the NWT has rendered them, regardless of what bible you read it from. And again, how is that unitarian? Please specifically answer this.
I hardly think this needs explaining but - if all "other" things were created by Jesus, it implies that Jesus himself was created. If Jesus was created, then he was not God, and the belief that Jesus was not God is unitarian. BenC7 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
All "other" things were created by Jesus (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Hebrews 1:2; Col. 1:16), do you imagine that Jesus created Himself and God (the Father)? I still fail to see how this implies that Jesus was created, especially since that's already explicitly affirmed by Proverbs 8, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3, and Rev. 3:14. Follow Col. 16 through to the invariable conclusion if "other" is not assumed: (ISV, with my additions) "For by him all things in heaven and on earth were created (including Himself and the Father), things visible and invisible, whether they are kings, lords, rulers, or powers. All things (including Himself and the Father) have been created through him and for him." Also, the belief that Jesus is not a member of the Trinity does not automatically make that belief unitarian. It makes a person exactly like every first-second century Christian: who upheld pre-Christ Jewish monotheism, but also upheld and accepted Jesus as the messiah, the pre-existant King, the ONLY name given among men by which we must get saved. Duffer 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I am reporting the controversy as it exists separate to me. Every single site that I have seen that discusses these verses has as an explanation beneath the NWT translation of the verses, "this implies that Jesus was created". Every single one. BenC7 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying that it's a "unitarian slant" but of the three specific examples provided in the wiki article only one has any possible merit ("do obeisance"), and unless CARM wants to bring a scholar to the table to say it, it's irrelevant to Wikipedia anyways. Now regardless if you agree with the other two examples or not, they have nothing to do with unitarianism, though they are controversial.
Why do you think they are controversial?? BenC7 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe it has little to do with translation, and more to do with Witness theology and their strong denunciations of all groups that are represented by the epithet: "Christendom". Duffer 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is controversial because it is one of the most clear biases that exist. Biased in favour of what? I'll let you figure it out. BenC7 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In regards to first and last. If you believe that Rev. 22:16 is not a change in speaker then you have some homework to do. In the book of Revelation the first-person singular followed by the specific identification of the speaker ALWAYS, and without fail, indicates a speaker change. In this case from "Alpha and Omega" (12, 13) to Jesus (16). Consider Rev. 1:9, John starts speaking in verse 9, directly after the Alpha and Omega finishes in verse 8, do you want to call John the "Alpha and Omega"? Similarly is Rev. 22:8, are we to expect John to be the one "coming quickly" (22:7)? John does this deliberatly in Rev as there are three speakers, the angel sent by Jesus (Rev. 1:1), John, and Jehovah. Now look at Rev. 1:17, 18, and 2:8. These are the only two instances of "first and last" used of Jesus, and in both, the passages specifically limit the meaning to his death and unique resurrection ONLY (compare Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:18). Duffer 02:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I regret bringing this up, since it is irrelevant to the content of the article. But anyway, it may be of interest to the people who edit this article, so I will leave it here. Jesus identifies himself as the "Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last". Every translation that I know (which is several) attributes this to Jesus (except the NWT). Trying to interpret it any other way requires a deliberate reading-in of predetermined theology.
Nowhere does Jesus claim the titles of "Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End". EVERY' time John uses the first person singular "I" followed by the specific identification of a person (in the book of Revelations) it indicates a change in who is speaking. Duffer 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That "I am the First and the Last" refers Jesus' death and resurrection is your own interpretation. It is a title. Jesus is using it deliberately. He, of course, knew that it was a title given to God only. He did not use it by accident. Do you think that it was just a coincidence that he chose to use those specific words - even if he was referring to his death and resurrection? BenC7 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You made an error in saying the NWT attributes this otherwise. Its rendered the same as all the other translations. Have you ever actually used or read this translation? I got three other bibles off my shelf to compare when I read your comment. Do you actually have a NWT to compare? How can you know anything about this translation if you don't own a copy? George 05:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
George, please clarify what you mean by "this" and "It" in the first two sentences. I did do a double-check and quickly changed the last second last paragraph shortly after I posted it; that might be what you are referring to. The NWT is available online. BenC7 06:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"It" is the NWT. "This" is the "This" in your firs paragraph of the post I followed: "Jesus identifies himself as the "Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last". Every translation that I know (which is several) attributes this to Jesus (except the NWT)." George 06:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
There appears to be some confusion. Duffer is saying that "I am the First and the Last" in Rev. 22:13 is not Jesus speaking. I said that all other translations that I have checked (except one, which does not specify) indicate that it is Jesus (eg, ESV, GW, WEB, NLT, NIV, NKJV...). Hope this clarifies.
There is no confusion on my part, look at my quote of you. You said the NWT did not attribute the words to Jesus. Goto the NWT online and compare it to the other renderings. Now, lets' get past that. The question is does the Bible attribute this to Jesus or not? Look at the context. The last person talking is the angel. Is he saying that he is the A&O? Of course not! If you look at the New Jerusalem Bible it literally splits vs16-21 off from the rest of the text and calls it an "Epilogue". Thus showing that the realtionship of these verses is not directly to the preceding text. Therefore the only reason to attribute A&O to Jesus is if you want to. George 12:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is the conclusion forced upon the reader by the specific context. It's only used of him twice to specifically (and beautifully) summarize a NT theme: "Do not be fearful, I am the First (Acts 26:23; Col. 1:18; Rev 1:5), and the Last (John 5:21; 6:40), and the living one (Luke 24:5), and I became dead (1 Pet. 3:18), but, look! I am living forever and ever (Romans 6:9)." Jesus was the first and last to be resurrected by Jehovah (Acts 17:31; 26:23; John 6:40), Jehovah resurrected Jesus as a guarantee to mankind that He will judge in righteousness, and it is now Jesus who will do the resurrecting.
"Do you think it was a coincidence..", instead of answering your argument from silence, I'll posit one of my own: Is it a coincidence that of the only two specific instances of Jesus' use of "First and Last" neither include "Alpha and Omega" or "Beginning and End", and that the application of only one "title" to anyone in the book or Revelation is UNIQUE to Rev.1:17; and 2:8? And again I must point out the common fallacy of Trinitarian zeal that undermines what the bible is saying in order to attempt the affirmation of monotheism, it's done in John 1:1 as I've already now pointed out several times, but here also. I'm not saying this of you, it's the fault of those who would presume to teach you, I cite Wallace in support of the NWT at John 1:1 but here I use him as a punching bag to demonstrate and highlight my point. In his footnote to Rev. 22:13 he states: "The speaker here is the Lord Jesus Christ himself rather than the narrator." Well lets examine what that means by taking a look at Isaiah 44:6. Who specifically is called the "First and Last" here? Jehovah, God (the Father). Is Jesus calling Himself Jehovah at Rev. 22:13? No, because Jesus is not speaking. In this way, trinitarian exegesis becomes a shell game hiding the true God under three guises (the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit). But when you pin the context down to the fact that "God" at Isaiah 44:6 is God (the Father), the "First and Last" is Jehovah (God, the Father); saying Jesus is Jehovah or the "first and last" now becomes blaspheme to both Jehovah's Witnesses AND Trinitarians. It becomes blaspheme even to Wallace.
Besides all of this, it does not address my point that this is all original research. Unless a scholar says that X is in violation of group A's statement of faith, and is thus heresy, and/or bias, it is original research. Duffer 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Your own JW literature disagrees with you both. Verse 12, from which there is no speaker change to v.13, is attributed to Jesus (Watchtower, Jul 1 1955, p. 387; Watchtower, Oct 1 1978, p. 15; Revelation Climax, 1988, p. 319). Actually, it's also attributed to Jehovah (Watchtower, Nov 15 1967; Awake, Aug 22 1978, p. 28; Watchtower, Dec 1 1999, p. 19). Note the dates, particularly of the ones I have placed in italics. I'm glad you are both so certain about it yourself, given that the Society you believe in unquestioningly doesn't even seem to be sure... BenC7 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
More obfuscation. It does not matter who speaks in verse 12 or who it's attributed to by various articles, the issue starts with verse 13, a verse that all WT publications will attribute to Jehovah. Now, follow the thought to the only conclusion possible. Who is the "Alpha and Omega" of Rev. 1:8? Wallace even says it: "the Lord God." I.E. God (the Father). Do you dislike Jehovah's Witnesses so much that you would accept total nonsense just to shun our theology? Do you believe Jesus is Jehovah? Since Witnesses believe that 1 - the Father is the Alpha and Omega and 2 - Jesus is not Jehovah, they attribute Rev. 13-15 to Jehovah, and contextually there's nothing stopping from such an interpretation. Duffer 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What I like or dislike, believe or don't, is irrelevant. This is what others have said. BenC7 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You either got your info from an ex jw site which as theyconsistently do left out specific points or you have misinterpreted them yourself.

I would be happy to provide you with my source. [4] BenC7 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • awake1978 8/22 p. 28 Who Is “the Alpha and the Omega”? ***
Finally, at Revelation 22:12, 13, we read: “Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” This quotation appears among others that are ascribed to an angel and to Jesus Christ. Before these words are quoted in the book of Revelation, the angel who was instrumental in presenting the revelation to the apostle John spoke. (Rev. 22:8, 9) Then, after the quotation that begins with Revelation 22:12 and ends with the words of verse 15, we find the statement: “I, Jesus, sent my angel.” (Rev. 22:16) Since the context does not necessitate our attributing the words of Revelation 22:12, 13 either to the angel or to Jesus, they could have originated with another speaker. Consistent with the rest of the book of Revelation, “the Alpha and the Omega” must be the Almighty God. He is the One who comes in the capacity of a judge to reward and to punish individuals according to their works.
Refers to Jehovah, as I said. BenC7 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • watchtower1978 10/1 p. 15 par. 6 “Keep on the Watch” ***
6 Also, in his final revelation concerning “the things that must shortly take place,” Jesus again stresses the suddenness with which he comes:
“I am coming to you quickly . . . I am coming quickly. Keep on holding fast what you have.”—Rev. 2:16; 3:11.
“Look! I am coming quickly. . . . Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me. . . . Yes; I am coming quickly.” (Rev. 22:7, 12, 20)
In response to these last expressions of our Master, surely each one of us joins with the apostle John in saying: “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.”

Notice the way these are put together, avoiding the action you claim. Several people are talking and John does not always identify the change. Again, the inerpretation is shown to be left ot a person's belief being read into the conversation.George 03:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Refers to Jesus, as I said. But the two passages are talking about the same verse. I have highlighted in bold (in the bottom quote) the two bits you seem to have missed. BenC7 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This will be my last post on this subject. Thses two articles say that JEsus says: "Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me..." and that Jehovah must be theone saying "the Alpha and the Omega". However, it may be that a mistake was made in the oct 1 Wt. in referencing vs 12. George 13:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Then there would also be similar "mistakes" in the other two articles I cited that contain the same information. (Just to state the obvious.) I wonder if the WBTS has ever made any other mistakes about important things... BenC7 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ben, we've got to do something about this section. I'm sorry, but you have completely failed at defending the section "Unitarian Bias", I know the passages are controversial but where are the published references that say 1 - these passages are controversial 2 - biased towards unitarianism. And in regards to the worship of Jesus I recommend http://www.jehovah.to/xlation/wo.html . Duffer 12:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I've been working on the section below for a while and haven't put any references in to address that point yet. As you'll also notice, I have highlighted above and asked numerous times for ANY translation of the Bible that has the same unitarian bias as the NWT. That is, that every passage which can be contended is translated such that Jesus and the Holy Spirit can be inferred to be not-God. For example, translation X might not say "the Word was God" in John, but in other places it will say that people "worshipped" Jesus, or it will have the "Alpha and Omega" of Rev 22 in red. Only the NWT has such unitarian language consistently throughout. I will need time to find some textual references; of course, websites would be easy to find. BenC7 05:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, have revised the section. A number of published references are now included, along with quotes in the footnotes. BenC7 11:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Blood

I suggest deleting the section "Conscience matter" in the Blood section. I flagged this a while ago, and it has not been acted upon. It does not address a controversy. I'll delete it unless anyone has some objection. BenC7 06:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(George has made a reasonable revision re this point. BenC7 06:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

RfC

Please see reference, currently labeled 24 in the article. It is the third reference which it cited in support of the statement, "Witnesses contend that the NWT rendering is the literal translation of the passage, and that the original language indicates not that Jesus is "God", but that he is "godlike" or "divine"". I have argued that the third citation (#24) does not support the statement, and removed it, but it was replaced. The citation is:

"Or "and what God was the Word was". Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite ("God") rather than indefinite ("a god") here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons." Dr. Daniel Wallace, http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm 3rd footnote for John 1:1.

Emphasis has been added. The place from which the above quote was taken is the footnote to a translation of the Bible, which incidentally says "the Word was fully God". An additional part of the footnote (by the same author) says: "John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father."

I believe that quoting this person in support of the statement that "Jesus is not God" is extremely misleading and based on selective quoting. Please briefly comment in favour of (K)eeping or (R)emoving the citation. BenC7 01:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment with tentative keep It seems to me that Duffer has left the entirety of the quote intact thus allowing the reader to see the person being quted is not unitarian, therefore I don't see it as misleading. People make admissions on a regular basis without realizing the implications. Take for example the evolutionist who commented on the amazing design in nature. I think you can see his problem. He was quoted in a JW publication. This was not dishonest. If he doesn't believe in the designer, how can he belive in design? George 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of the quote is misleading. It should be removed.--Jeffro77 11:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it misleading to quote a Trinitarian scholar here when he says the exact same thing as the nwt? Duffer 11:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't say the same thing as the NWT, he says the opposite. As used in the article, this quote supposedly supports the statement "the original language indicates not that Jesus is 'God', but that he is 'godlike' or 'divine'." The key portion of the quote is bolded, and the most important words therein are "does not quite catch the meaning" - this quote when fully parsed is a refutation of the statement in the article. The quote should either be removed or moved to support a statement that the NWT translation is wrong. GRBerry 12:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Stong remove (so strong, I'm removing it): Okay.. I think I can solve this for ya. Here's where your problem is. The sentence says: "Witnesses contend, however, that the NWT rendering is the literal translation of the passage, and that the original language indicates not that Jesus is "God", but that he is "godlike" or "divine"."
Now, the sentence does not say that that the correct translation _IS_ "godlike" or "divine"-- it merely says tat the Witness CONTEND that. This means we don't need to get into what IS or IS NOT the correct translation. All we need to show is that Witnesses contend that this is so.
Since the reference in question doensn't even mention Witnesses and what they do or do not believe, the reference does not support the sentence. However, we don't even NEED that reference-- the two preceding references correctly support the fact that Witnesses do indeed contend this is the correct translation. As such, I have deleted the reference, but have not deleted the sentence it supported. I naively assume this will make all parties happy. lol. If it doesn't, then I guess we'll see what other comments come in. But I really think the solution to the debate over what is or is not the correct translation is to simply not even have such a debate, but merely state what both sides feel on the issue.
--Alecmconroy 13:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I can live with it gone. Though the quote does not directly affirm the specific words "godlike" or "divine" it does support the reasons the NWT gave (already quoted in the references), 1 - qualitative 2 - specific distinction between God and the Word. But besides all that, GRBerry, your summation is absurd. Wallace, like the NWT, interpret the passage to have a qualitative sense, Wallace takes that sense further than Moffatt's "divine", but you'll note the NWT says not only "divine" but: "GODLIKE". How on earth is "Godlike": "wrong" - a "refutation" of - or "opposite" to: "just as much God as God the Father"? Duffer 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Significant expansion of unfulfilled prophecies section

I don't believe that the current section adequately covers the depth or breadth of the topic, but then the section is relatively new. For a number of days I have been working on a new section to replace it. I am posting it here before placing it in the article, for comment. Also, if anyone who has made additions to the current section finds that their references are not used here and would like them to be, please feel free to add them in an appropriate place. I have included most of them already.

---

Statements of the Watchtower Society

The Watchtower Society has made a number of statements in their various publications since its inception that have resulted in numerous accusations being leveled at the organization. Such accusations have been a result of: a) statements in Witness literature that are not factual, but presented as fact; b) predictions of future events that did not subsequently occur; c) changes in doctrine by the Society over time; and d) statements that the Watchtower Society has made about itself. While the Watchtower Society has defended itself, claiming that the publications are written by "imperfect men",[12] it has nonetheless stated that people can only understand the Bible and God's purposes through their association with the organization. [13]

Lists of controversial statements, such as those found below, are found in a number of books[14] and on numerous websites[15].

Non-factual statements

All of these statements were views put forth by doctors, in the minority, but nonetheless so. This section implies that JW's are crackpots who believed these things without reason.
I don't know how you know that these views were put forth by doctors, but if that is verifiable then you can add it if you wish. BenC7 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed predictions

  • 1907: Armageddon will culminate in the year 1914[22]
  • 1917: In 1918, God would destroy churches "wholesale" and church members by the millions.[23]
  • 1922-1923: The resurrection of the dead would occur in 1925.[24] In preparation for the 1925 date, the Watchtower Society acquired a property in California, and built a mansion on it. The property was to house people such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Samuel, who would be resurrected to life in 1925.
  • 1924: As of 1926, there would be no more deaths. Witnesses were encouraged to add a room to their houses, and get an undertaker to decorate it, since undertakers would be out of work. Witnesses could then call Abraham's office in Jerusalem and request that a deceased relative be brought back to life. These would subsequently appear in the new room.[25]
  • 1938: In 1938, Armaggedon was too close for marriage or child bearing.[26]
  • 1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.[27]
  • 1984: "The end" would occur before the end of the 20th century.[28]
Paraphrase of an old publication that I cannot check for accuracy. One is an exaggeration. The rest appear to be correct, but again I don't own these very old books. Read some of the work of the educated during this time and you will see just as many mistaken ideas. George 12:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
A number of Watchtower-related sites contain the information (I'm not sure which ones you are specifically referring to). If you look up "Watchtower Quotes" or similar I'm guessing you will find it. But these are not just ideas; they are predictions. And most people at the time didn't claim to be God's chosen vessel for dispensing truth, or the only people in all the earth guided by God's holy spirit. Don't worry, Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians is an article in itself. This is relatively tame in comparison. BenC7 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A number of Christian apologists have argued that in making predictions about the future, the Watchtower Society have acted as a prophet,[29] often citing Watchtower Society publications that use the word "prophet" in referring to the organization.[30][31] The Watchtower Society itself has condemned others for making false predictions about the future, stating that such people were "guilty of false prophesying".[32] The apologists argue, based on Deuteronomy 18:22:

“ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (ESV) ”

that the Watchtower Society does not represent God.[33] This referene is not a reference.

It is meant to refer to the reference currently labelled 28, but this would change once included in the article, so I just wrote it that way for now. BenC7 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In a 1954 court case, a legal representative of the Watchtower Society conceded that a false prophecy (about Jesus returning to the Earth in 1874, see below) was promulgated by the Watchtower Society. He further stated that a person who expressed their view that a statement of the Watchtower society was wrong would be disfellowshipped and was worthy of death.[34]

The Watchtower Society has more recently defended itself against claims of "false prophesying", saying that it does not claim to be made of inspired prophets,[35] and that its predictions have never been made "in the name of Jehovah".[36]

No explanation of the reasoning JW's have on this topic. George 12:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought this would be sufficient; the statements are reasoned. I have stated that they defend themselves against the claim, and then say why. Add to it if you think it is insufficient. BenC7 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes of doctrine

Chronology

  • 1889: Armageddon would end in 1914.[37] 1915: Armageddon would end in 1915.[38]
  • 1906: Six thousand years of human existence ended in 1872.[39]. This term was then said to have ended in 1873,[40] then 1972,[41] then 1975.[42]
  • 1917-1929: Jesus returned to the Earth in 1874.[43] 1968: Jesus returned to the Earth in 1914.[44]

God and the Bible

  • 1902: The Book of Ruth is not prophetic.[45] 1932: The Book of Ruth is prophetic.[46]
  • 1903-1928: God rules over the universe from a star in the Pleiades constellation.[47] 1953: The exact location of God's throne is uncertain for astronomical reasons.[48]
  • 1917: Apollyon (mentioned in the Book of Revelation) is Satan.[49] 1969: Apollyon is Jesus.[50]

Blood

  • 1940: Blood transfusions are acceptable [51]
  • 1945: Blood transfusions are not acceptable [52]
  • 1956: Blood fractions, including albumin, are not acceptable[53]
  • 1958: Blood serums and fractions are acceptable [54]
  • 1961: Blood fractions are not acceptable [55]
  • 1964; Acceptance of blood serums and fractions are a personal choice [56]
  • 1972: Hemodilution is not acceptable [57]
  • 1974: Acceptance of blood serums are personal choice [58]
  • 1975; Blood plasma and blood derivatives are not acceptable [59]
  • 1978: Acceptance of blood serums is a personal choice [60]

Sodomites

  • 1879: The men of Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected.[61]
  • 1955: They will not be resurrected.[62]
  • 1965: They will be resurrected. [63]
  • 1967: They will not be resurrected.[64]
  • 1974: They will be resurrected. [65]
  • 1988: They will not be resurrected.[66][67] They will be resurrected. [68]
  • 1989: They will not be resurrected.[69]

Voting

  • 1964-1977: Voting in elections is not acceptable.[70]
  • 1999: Voting in elections is a matter of personal choice.[71]

The POV problem with this section is that JW's were trying to work out the answers to these questions. *gasps* You mean a religious group might change their stand on an issue if they might be wrong? How dare them! Whole thing is OR by the way. George 12:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the WBTS more-or-less demanded that their views be accepted as fact, even in the process of "trying to work it out". And when did they say that they were "trying to work it out"?
The above statements are taken virtually word-for-word from a few sites which all say the same thing. It's not OR - do you think that I was the first person to synthesize this information? You might, if you have never been to such sites. But here they are: [5] [6] [7] They are also listed in a number of books. BenC7 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what those websites are saying and that they present this information the same way as here. My problem is the presentation is OR. It just needs to be properly referenced and then I guess there will be the inseriton of JW view of teh criticsm or subject.George 13:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Statements about itself

The Watchtower Society has claimed, and continues to claim:

  • That it is the "one and only channel" that has been used by God to continually dispense truth[72]
  • That it is "directed by Jehovah" and "under the direct supervision of Christ Jesus"[73] and that it "alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or force"[74]
  • That people must not "harbour private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding", or be suspicious of Watchtower teachings, but must believe all things published by the Watchtower Society.[75]

Note: References for the above section start at 14.


Reply

There are several problems with this proposal.

1. Voting section is an oversimplification of the issue. Witnesees and their families were being imprisoned or killed in some areas, for not voting. The underlying 'doctrine' did not change, neutrality. The implication was clear that the choice of who to vote for is a big decision. I had just been baptised when I read this article and I understood that, if forced to vote, a write in of Jehovah or Jesus would be the proper action.

The instructions to vote or not vote changed, nonetheless. Should I paste the quotes here? BenC7 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Blood is already covered in the article.

The changes of doctrine in relation to blood is not covered in the article. BenC7 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Statements about itself - cannot be proved untrue in this forum.

As you can see, the statements the WBTS has made about itself are merely presented. No POV or statement about its truth or untruth is offered. BenC7 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Failed predictions - lumps a bunch of armageddon predictions together like they are seperate.

As you can see, they were made in separate years. It is the most logical way to present them.

5. I'll let someone else cover the glaring POV issues

George 12:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


No need to cover the POV issue just yet, we can cross that bridge once the NOR issue is settled.

Mentioning a bunch of books that talk about Jehovah's Witnesses, and then not citing a single one of them (with the exception of the already cited Waldeck #30) in the entirety of the article is unacceptable to WP:NOR.

You will see if you read the reference list that numerous books are cited, including ones already included in the existing article. It is not necessary to "quote" them, if that's what you mean. BenC7 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely it's necessary to quote them. You mention several critical books, but all of your references, with the exceptions of the Walsh Trial, the previously cited Waldeck, and ref #16 (which only affirms the claim that there are books on the subject) are from WT publications. You cannot circumvent WP:NOR like that. Usually there would be some leniency on this, but in this particular instance of such an extensive, highly POV and misleading, edit there is absolutely no grounds to assume good faith. Duffer 03:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not necessary to quote. Please see any other article in Wikipedia. We will see if anyone other than you thinks it is misleading or POV. BenC7 05:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Non-factual statements. What is the point of this, and where are the published resources that say these things are controversial? How do we know they weren't quoting medical journals or doctors?
The wikilinks provided show that the statements are non-factual (in case you didn't know, diseases are sometimes caused by germs; vaccination has prevented various diseases; etc. etc.). The books and websites mentioned throughout the section highlight the controversial nature of these statements, the self-evidence of their controversial nature notwithstanding. BenC7 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean the "books and websites" that you DON'T EVEN CITE? You did not answer my objections. This is unacceptable. What is the point of trying to disparage a group that has never claimed infallibility? Duffer 03:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The books and websites are collectively cited at the top. Not every quote of the WBTS in these books has "this statement is controversial" written immediately under it. It would be unnecessary. The whole theme and idea of these books/websites is to show the ridiculousness of the statements. And the WBTS has claimed that it alone has truth, and people must accept what it says. That's why the statements are there. I have noted at the very outset that it does not claim infallibility. Remember, this is what others have said, not me. BenC7 05:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Failed predictions. I have commented on this [8]. I also highly recommend Jehovah.to, and pray you spend the time to learn the things that the critics are not telling you (this source also diffuses the lie you've been told about the 1954 Walsh trial). Also, here is the real 1984 quote: "He has told us that the “generation” of 1914—the year that the sign began to be fulfilled—”will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matthew 24:34) Some of that “generation” could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that “the end” is much closer than that!" Zealous? Sure. A prediction? Not even close. But again, where are the published resources?
A link to the relevant parts of the transcript of the Walsh trial has been provided in the section. Unlike the website (Jehovah.to) you have provided, which I have examined, the transcript (which is also available at many other sites) include the context, not just a selective quote of "I agree that". It is clear from the discourse following that statement that he was agreeing that it was false prophecy. Otherwise, the questioner would have continued to grill him.
Saying "there are many indications that the end is closer than the end of the 20th century" is a prediction, but I can concede to removing this one if there is a dispute about the wording. Most people reading the WBTS publication would interpret it as a prediction. BenC7 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. The transcript says: "Q. Assume from me that it was promulgated as authoritative by the Society that Christ's Second Coming was in 1874? A. Taking that assumption as a fact, it is a hypothetical statement. Q. That was the publication of false prophesy?" In his answer he EXPLICITELY defines what he means by "false prophesy": "A. That was the publication of a false prophesy, it was a false statement or an erronious statement in fulfilment of a prophesy that was false or erroneous."
And clearly, you have absolutely NO idea how most people reading a WT magazine would interpret any given statement. Duffer 03:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Read the whole transcript. BenC7 05:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have. You are wrong. He said in regards to the 1874 prophecy: "I am not at all familiar with that." Afterwards the prosecutor himself says: "Assume from me...", Covington confirmed: "Taking that assumption as a fact, it is a hypothetical statement." So besides the facts that Covington had no idea about the particulars of the 1874 belief and that they were speaking hypothetically about 'false prophecy' and 'unity at all costs', what here makes you think that Covington admitted that the WTS promolgated a false prophecy in the definition YOU apply to the words, and NOT the definition he EXPLICITELY gave for the term? Duffer 12:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am beginning to wonder whether I am going to have to get a RfC for every change I want to make, especially when things are as plain as day to a normal person. No less than four people, including myself, needed to say that the statement from Wallace supposedly supporting the NWT translation of John 1:1 was misleading before you let it be removed! And then you still didn't agree! Hello!? Stop reading into the text only what you want to see. In the transcript, you can see from the response of the questioner, if not simply from the responses themselves, what was meant. BenC7 10:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changes of doctrine & Statements about itself - Where are the published sources that says these things are controversial? Duffer 13:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
See answer in italics above. If you like, I can put at the start of each section "This is considered to be controversial by ... " and list all the books already mentioned again and again, for each section. As you can see, rather than do this, I have placed such a header at the top of the section before things are listed. Perhaps I could expand this to say, "A number of authors consider these statements to be ridiculous, and proof that God does not speak through the WBTS," or similar. They said it, not me. BenC7 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This whole thing is a bit much isn't it. There are four sections:
  • Non Factual Statements - What is the point of raising medical issues from the early 1900's? Is it really relevant today? It would be different if they were currently publishing these statements but I just do not see the section as topical or relevant.
Others have said it, not me. They say it because the WBTS demands acceptance of its doctrines, but it says things that are not factual. BenC7 05:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Failed Predictions - We do already have the Eschatology section outlining 1914 and 1975 (which are the major two controversial predictions). The main article itself goes into the history to a much greater degree. I suppose you could expand the current section a little to include some of these other dates if you wanted.
There are more controversial predictions than just those two dates. Telling people not to get married or have kids because Armageddon is too near is pretty important. BenC7 05:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changes to Doctrine - This seems like a cut and paste job from an anti-JW website. As already mentioned it does oversimplify matters to a great extent. Couldn't you change it to paragraph form where it is set out in a more general manner. By this I mean get to the guts of the issue by showing that critics (I assume that there are specific references) have stated that the organisation has changed their doctrine over time (a few specific examples in the footnotes) and then get to why this is controversial. Maybe because the society expects unquestioning allegience to the current understandings as outlined in the publications despite the fact that the current understanding changes over time. We do not need to list every change that has occurred over the years. All we would need to do is establish that changes have occurred.
I'm not sure what is being over-simplified. It is a demonstration of flip-flopping. I suppose there needs to be some sort of link between constant changes and the authoritarian nature of the WBTS ("believe and adhere to this "up-to-date" truth or be disfellowshipped").
  • Statements about self - quick note - for current understandings the references for these statements do seem awfully old.
The first and third points have references from after 2000. I can try and find another one that is more recent for the second one. BenC7 05:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
All of the sections would need to have touchups to remove any of those "forbidden words" including argue, contend, insist etcetera and replace with said and say. What a pain huh! Lucy 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Payment of sales tax on literature

I'm itchin' to delete this entire section. It is hearsay and conjecture. The sources are not Wp:nor#Reputable publications. The one link accuses the WTS of money laundering. Maybe the WTS did change how literature got payed for as a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision on the Jimmy Swaggert case. There is no evidence to prove that, nor is there a reputable source given that even insinuates it. Yay / Nay? Duffer 09:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it's a "who cares?" section of the article. I vote toss it, or reduce it to a paragraph. BenC7 10:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Duffer,

1) You cannot simply remove references from verifiable sources (with quotes, no less!) because they conflict with your POV. This is a serious violation! I am putting a permanent link here [9] so others can see the change.

2) It is not appropriate to use two references from the same page of the same book and list them separately. Which is why I removed the second one. Also, if you look up "Philip Harner Watchtower Society" on Google, you will see that he is frequently attributed as being misquoted by the WBTS. If you want to quote him, you should go to the primary source, not one author as quoted by another.

3) It is more accurate (specific) to say that "The NWT with References" states something than that "Witnesses" state it. Why? Because that's who said it.

4) The very reason I included the Wallace quote was because of the discussion on the talk page. Whether you like it or not, there was a consensus that it does NOT support the NWT rendering, but the opposite. You can't just go against the majority because you feel like it. BenC7 11:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1 - "You cannot simply remove references from verifiable sources" I agree, so I'm wondering why you did it in the first place. 2 - Harner was not misquoted regardless if he agrees with the final rendering "a god" or not, he was cited to support the reason behind the translation: that the second 'theos' is qualitative. 3 - The NWT w/Refs isn't the only one saying it though, there are dozens of WT/Awake articles covering this specific issue. I could quote a few if you like (WT 3/1/91, pg. 28; WT 10/15/93, pg. 28; Awake 4/22/05, pg. 8; etc..). 4 - No, actually there wasn't any clear consensus at all.
You disagree with my reversion, lets review your edits. "The New World Translation with References states that the latter is the most literal way of translating the passage.." More than just the NWT w/Refs says this, the WT and Awake articles alongside modern scholars say this too. "however most scholars disagree." This is patently false. You've got all your apples and oranges in one big pile, lets sort them out.
Julius Mantey - I'm supprised you quoted Mantey on theology instead of translation. For your edit to be accurate it would have to say: "however, one (mistaken) scholar disagrees." But besides that, your edits crash the paragraph headlong into incomprehensibility. You have the opening statement talking specifically about the translation, then the reference of the opening sentence speaking to the mechanics behind the translation (which leaves the reader wondering what's going on since the original context was removed: "and that the original language indicates not that Jesus is "God", but that he is "godlike" or "divine"."), and then you say "most scholars disagree" but you cite Mantey in regards to theological interpretation, NOT translation. Sure Mantey is critical of the translation itself, but you don't provide a quote that "refutes" translation, you provide one from Mantey that "refutes" the REFERENCE ("careful translators recognize.."). Mantey does specifically say of the translation: "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'" But he is wrong, as Harris points out: ""Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone,[QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered "the Word was a god,...." -Jesus As God, 1992, p.60. Harris goes on to disagree with the NWT on theological grounds, but atleast he's honest enough to recognize that the NWT is accurate. Please also note a previous reply to you on this very page: "Vines Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says that "a god was the Word" IS the literal translation of of the passage, essentially you're accusing the NWT of having a bias toward a literal rendering. See also Vincent's Word Studies." Basically you have one mistaken scholar who disagrees with the NWT. That is not: "most"
Van Buskirk, Michael - I don't know where you got this quote, it's origin is Dr. Bruce Metzger, not Buskirk. This is one of Metzger's more unfortunate mistakes. "..It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, "…and the Word was God". That rule of grammar that he's talking about is Colwell's rule. Or as I call it accurately, Colwell's mistake. For more on Colwell's rule, and how it DOES NOT apply to John 1:1 please refer to the first few sentences of the RFC'd Wallace quote. That's right, Metzger was wrong (to be fair, Metzger was wrong because Colwell was wrong).
Wallace - I'm supprised you cite Wallace as being against the NWT when he explicitely gives the very same reasons the NWT gave for the translation. "Godlike/divine" is a big, ambiguous, umbrella. Sure the WTS shies away from Wallaces language: "just as much God as God the Father", but I don't think that's a statement that Witnesses would outright disagree with given the fact that Wallace is talking about likeness of essence as a result of a qualitative rendering of John 1:1.
What does all this mean? Ben, you are being lied to by whomever you get your "research" from. Let's recap. - The quote you provided by Mantey speaks to the article's reference ("careful translators recognize.."). - I supplied a quote by Mantey that says what you want it to for illustrative purposes, but in the same breath point out that he is mistaken (for the same reason Metzger was mistaken) (It's really all Colwell's fault). - Colwell's rule does not apply to John 1:1 - The NWT's physical translation: "a god" is directly supported by a dictionary (Vines Expository). - The mechanics behind the translation is supported by several published modern scholars (Wallace, Harner, Bowman, Dodd, Wenham, Stafford, Furuli, DeDuhn) - Your edits are wholly untenable. Duffer 13:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Would saying that most or few scholars be OR? Is there some guideline on WP about this? George 15:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the controversy over John 1:1 isn't even discussed. It seems incorrect to place a footnote about how JW's are allegedly wrong in reference to a statement about their reasoning. So the Maney quote whold be somewhere else anyway. A short paragraph about what the theological issue is since the translation issue is moot? George 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversy used to be addressed, George, but someone decided to have a spack attack and argue that "a god" did not imply unitarianism - regardless of the opinon of essentially all scholars who are not JWs.

Now, Duffer, if these resources, which I have now replaced for the second time, are removed again, you'll be reported. I don't care if you think people are lying. I don't care if you think the scholars are mistaken. I don't care if you think an argument is untenable. The article is not entitled "The World According to Duffer". The resources are verifiable, and there are quotes from the people concerned. Mantey has written to the WBTS long ago about their misquoting of him in support of their argument - see here, under the paragraph under point 11 that starts with the words "Van Buskirk points out that..." or here for the whole letter. If you want to say, "Witnesses say", then yes, you should quote the WBTS, as is appropriate. Otherwise the statement needs to be reflective of the reference, which is solely the NWT w/ References. BenC7 10:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to give undue weight to two mistaken critics that are perpetually lauded by opposers who have absolutely no idea that 1 - Metzger and Mantey were mistaken because not only is Colwell's rule inaccurate, it does not apply to John 1:1 2 - ALL published modern scholars with the exception of the above 2, agree with the NWT that "a god" is a perfectly acceptable literal translation, and that theos when applied to Jesus at John 1:1c is qualitative (basically an english adjective). Mantey got in a tizzy over theological differences when he claimed the WTS misquoted him. Stafford has a lengthy discussion with Robert Hommel over the matter here. In my recent edits your 2 mistaken scholars are presented accurately as the extreme minority. I hope we can reach consensus, but if not, perhaps another RFC and/or arbitration is in order. Duffer 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added a reference which contains lists of scholars who disagree with the NWT of John 1:1. This is to show that it is indeed a large number of scholars who disagree with the translation of the verse. "Extreme minority"? Oh please. I challenge you to find even half the number of scholars listed in the links I have provided in the article who support unequivocally the NWT of the verse. I've even given you a headstart by making one of the links a JW page! I'm sure that for every one you could find, I could find at least three who disagree.
The link you gave me was broken, but again I don't really care whether you think the people are "mistaken" or not. It's not your call. I've presented it as they have said it. BenC7 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I was un aware of the amount of mistaken/dishonest scholars. I am working on an attempted compromise that notes the scholars' disagreements with other scholars and the NWT. Please do not remove the dispute tag. Do you not dispute my application of Wallace? Duffer 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Er, Wallace was settled. You cannot use him. See above RfC. The purpose of the RfC was to determine what people thought should be done. Other than yourself and George, who obviously have vested interests in trying to find and quote scholars thus, no-one agreed, or even expressed an inclination, that quoting Wallace was appropriate. Others would have made comments, but they were obviously not needed.
I have to also wonder what it is you're thinking when you see the entire list of these scholars, most/all with PhDs, saying that the NWT/translation of that verse is wrong, but you, who are not a Greek scholar, have the gall to argue, "No, this other way is correct", in spite of the great lack of scholars who will support this. How closed to reasoning can you be? I'm sure that if you manage to find any scholars, you will be quoting them out of context, as you have already done, trying to make them say something that they do not. BenC7 07:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Duffer to insert comments here about what he believes is "POV" or "factually inaccurate". Because that is what you do when you put a dispute tag up. BenC7 07:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs serious work

Such serious work that I would suggest we write a whole new article, and abandon this one. Perhaps start a working copy and edit that, then just replace it when we're done. The current article is unreferenced, has bizarre biases and isn't very well written. joshbuddy, talk 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean to say that about the whole article? As you can see from the template at the top of the page, the article is undergoing major revision. There has also been a fair amount of recent activity on the "Unfulfilled predictions" section, where most citations appear to be missing. Some of the recent edits have been incredibly biased, and the section isnow a bit of a shambles. I think you may be generalizing from that section. BenC7 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me outline some of the more glaring flaws in the article:

  • Bible Translation section - far too long. I believe New World Translation covers the critical points. So use summary style, and divert the reader there.
  • Blood - same problem.
  • Unfulfilled predictions - this should be with eschatology. The eschatology article should really hold onto the main points, and again, summary style would be appropriate here.
  • Family Integrity & Freedom of Mind - huh? A whole sentence gets a section?

As well, the title "Unfulfilled predictions" has a sort of built in bias to it. Better off dropping it, calling it eschatology, and letting the reader draw their own conclusions.

If this seems sensible enough to everyone, I'll clean it up myself. Thanks for telling me to slow down Ben :) joshbuddy, talk 06:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on Bible translation is fairly important; if you follow some of the links in the reference list (particularly ref. 28), you will see the vast number of scholars that disagree with the renderings of the NWT, particularly of John 1:1. Having said that, it is possible that the Colossians example could be removed, as it doesn't continue to add new ideas to the text.

The blood section may be able to be condensed somewhat; but it is a fairly important issue that deserves a reasonable amount of attention. Either in this page or the 'JWs and Blood' article. I don't know that there really needs to be a whole separate article on JWs and blood.

I may be able to integrate the unfulfilled predictions/escahtology sections with the section I have proposed above (see Statements of the Watchtower Society). Or you can do this if you want to save me some time. I have made some revisions to the above proposal since, and can post it here if you wish.

The Family Integrity bit is supposed to include information that is also included on this talk page, but it is still in need of more references before inclusion in the article. BenC7 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Shortening it does not reflect on its worthiness for inclusion or not. I'll refer you to summary style for an idea of what I mean. Write something short, that grabs the attention. If the reader wants to know, they will follow up. But no point overwhelming the readed with needless details that they may not even be interested it. As it stands, right now this article is fairly incomplete with regards to controversies surrounding JWs. The article could in fact, be more inclusive, and drop much of its current detail.
In terms of JWs and Blood being a separate article, well, it is a fairly important point of belief with huge amounts of detail; it has to go somewhere. A complete article seems the answer. Though, its possible it should be changed to something like JWs and medicine, and become a little more inclusive with regard to the history of medical beliefs, and the current beliefs. joshbuddy, talk 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, but some of the details that are currently in this section need to be included in the JWs and Blood article, as they are not there at present.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "fairly incomplete"... I'm not sure what you think is missing... BenC7 23:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps "fairly" is overstating it. I really need to sit down with this article and work on it in some detail. However, one major point that is being overlooked it the Mexico/Malawi controversy. joshbuddy, talk 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't plan on getting highly involved on this, but I just thought i'd say about the New World Translation article, when I just looked at it it had no criticism section at all that I could see, and no controversies over it much at all seemed to be covered by that article, quite the contrary, much of it seemed to take the Watchtower's viewpoint on everything that happened. Homestarmy 00:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
When I work on this article, I will redistribute those parts to their respective articles. I can't possibly see how the article on New World Translation can be complete if it does not include some mention on controversy surrounding it. joshbuddy, talk 01:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

greyfox saying thank you don't need me any more Good Bye

I started this page a while back i would like to say thank you guys for what u have done keep it up.

sorry, duff for being hard on you it was some emotional problem i was going through at the ime see you guys.

Revision of section proposed earlier

I have made some changes to the section I proposed earlier about the Statements of the WBTS. I have reduced the bullet-point style presentation and removed the section on medical statements, considering, as Lucy said, that they were quite old. I am posting it here for comment before its inclusion in the article. BenC7 02:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Statements of the Watchtower Society

The Watchtower Society has made a number of statements in its publications since its inception that have resulted in criticism, particularly from Christians and ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. These critics have identified a number of controversial statements, changes of doctrine, and failed predictions made by the Watchtower Society. Lists of controversial statements, such as those found below, are found in a number of books[76] and on numerous websites[77].

Failed predictions

Predictions such as the following have appeared in various Watchtower publications:

  • 1917: In 1918, God would destroy churches "wholesale" and church members by the millions.[78]
  • 1922-1923: The resurrection of the dead would occur in 1925.[79] In preparation for the 1925 date, the Watchtower Society acquired a property in California, and built a mansion on it. The property was to house people such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Samuel, who would be resurrected to life in 1925.
  • 1924: As of 1926, there would be no more deaths. Witnesses were encouraged to add a room to their houses, and get an undertaker to decorate it, since undertakers would be out of work. Witnesses could then call Abraham's office in Jerusalem and request that a deceased relative be brought back to life. These would subsequently appear in the new room.[80]
  • 1938: In 1938, Armaggedon was too close for marriage or child bearing.[81]
  • 1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.[82]
  • 1969: Human existence will not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years". Young Witnesses were encouraged not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.[83]
  • 1984: "The end" would occur before the end of the 20th century.[84]

A number of Christian apologists have argued that in making predictions about the future, the Watchtower Society have acted as a prophet,[85] often citing Watchtower Society publications that use the word "prophet" in referring to the organization.[86][87] The Watchtower Society itself has condemned others for making false predictions about the future, stating that such people were "guilty of false prophesying".[88] The apologists argue, based on Deuteronomy 18:22:

“ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (ESV) ”

that the Watchtower Society does not represent God.

In a 1954 court case, a legal representative of the Watchtower Society conceded that a false prophecy (about Jesus returning to the Earth in 1874, see below) was promulgated by the Watchtower Society. He further stated that a person who expressed their view that a statement of the Watchtower society was wrong would be disfellowshipped and was worthy of death.[89]

The Watchtower Society has more recently defended itself against claims of "false prophesying", saying that it does not claim to be made of inspired prophets,[90] and that its predictions have never been made "in the name of Jehovah".[91]

Changes of doctrine

History of Eschatological Doctrine
Last Days Begin Christ's Return Christ as King Resurrection of Anointed Judgment of Religion Great Tribulation
1879-1920 1799 1874 1878 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920
1920-1925 1925
1925-1927 1914 1878 1878 within generation of 1914
1927-1930 1914
1930-1933 1919
1933-1966 1914
1966-1975 1975?
1975-1995 within generation of 1914
1995-2008 imminent

The Watchtower Society has made a number of changes to its doctrines since its inception (see table, right). The controversy surrounding this issue is that the Watchtower Society has said that:

  • People must not "harbour private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding", or be suspicious of Watchtower teachings, but must believe all things published by the Watchtower Society.[92]
  • People can only understand the Bible and God's purposes through their association with the organization. [93]

A number of changes in chronology have occurred, particularly in regards to dates for important events such as Armaggedon, the end of human existence on the earth, and the return of Jesus to the Earth. For example, prior to 1914, it was said that Armageddon would end in 1914. In a 1915 edition of the same book, it was said that Armaggedon would end that year. Today, Witnesses are taught to expect Armageddon imminently.

Other changes in interpretation of the Bible have been observed. These have included statements about the Bible itself;[94] identification of persons in the Bible;[95] whether or not people receive a second chance after death (changed five times in a 34 year period);[96] and perhaps most controversially, their standing on blood transfusions:

  • 1940: Blood transfusions are acceptable [97]
  • 1945: Blood transfusions are not acceptable [98]
  • 1956: Blood fractions, including albumin, are not acceptable[99]
  • 1958: Blood serums and fractions are acceptable [100]
  • 1961: Blood fractions are not acceptable [101]
  • 1964; Acceptance of blood serums and fractions are a personal choice [102]
  • 1972: Hemodilution is not acceptable [103]
  • 1974: Acceptance of blood serums are personal choice [104]
  • 1975; Blood plasma (a blood serum) and blood derivatives are not acceptable [105]
  • 1978: Acceptance of blood serums is a personal choice [106]
  • 1983: Hemodilution is acceptable [107]
  • 2000: Primary blood fractions are not acceptable; smaller fractions are a personal choice [108]

The standing of the Watchtower Society on other matters such as the acceptability of vaccinations[109] or tertiary education[110] have also changed over time.

Statements about itself

Critics of the Watchtower Society (or of Jehovah's Witnesses generally) often cite statements such as those listed above alongside other published statements that the Watchtower Society has made about itself; namely that:

  • The Watchtower Society is the "one and only channel" that has been used by God to continually dispense truth[111]
  • The Watchtower Society is "directed by Jehovah" and "under the direct supervision of Christ Jesus"[112] and that it "alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or force"[113]
  • People must not "harbour private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding", or be suspicious of Watchtower teachings, but must believe all things published by the Watchtower Society.[114]
  • People can only understand the Bible and God's purposes through their association with the organization. [115]

These critics have used such statements to question the credibility of the Watchtower Society. They question whether an organization that states that it is "directed by Jehovah" would make a number of failed predictions or change its doctrine numerous times over a period of decades.



Replaced sections

Unfulfilled predictions

The Watchtower has made predictions over the years regarding specific dates and events that have not come to pass, most significantly being that Armageddon was going to arrive in 1914, and later that the resurrection onto earth was to happen in 1925.

The religion's publications have stated that it does not claim to be inspired by God, or that the interpretations given are infallible. [116] It is believed that God’s spirit directs his organisation to uncover scriptural truths over time and that mistakes can be made only to be refined and improved upon over time.

Prior to 1914 it was said that Armageddon was going to occur on October 2nd 1914. For instance The Time Is At Hand (1889) 1908 ed. p.99 stated “In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A. D. 1914.”

Millions Now Living Will Never Die p.88 stated that 1925 was to be "resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old.” The Watch Tower 1922 September 1 p.262 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures because it is fixed by the law God gave to Israel. Viewing the present situation in Europe, one wonders how it will be possible to hold back the explosion much longer; and that even before 1925 the great crisis will be reached and probably passed.”

The prediction that Armageddon would occur in 1975 was never specifically stated but implied in a number of articles. The confusion surrounding 1975 started with an announcement by the Governing Body that, according to their Biblically-based calculations, the year 1975 marked the end of 6,000 years of human history - i.e., the Adam was created 6,000 years earlier. Beyond that, the official organs and publications of the Witnesses said nothing. But this date was taken by many people as the year during which Armageddon would occur, and it spurred thousands of people to join Jehovah's Witnesses - only to leave after 1975 came and went, and nothing happened. The only things the Governing Body did say about 1975 during this period in the Witnesses' history were, 1) that they had never said anything about Christ's second coming happening in 1975, and 2) that Witnesses should remember that Christ said his kingdom would not come when everyone was expecting, but when it was least expected -- so it almost certainly not be 1975.

Critics contend that the Watchtower has claimed to be a "prophet" in the past and continues to expect members of Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept their guidance,without question, which demonstrates a similar position today. [117] [118] [119] [120]

Witnesses view these charges as fundamentally flawed, and deceitful, in that they apply a meaning to a word not intended by the given contexts.[121] The criticism implies the meaning of "direct divine revelation" to the word "prophet" despite the context in which the Watchtower Society presents it: interpretation of prophetic biblical passages, and "acting as a prophet" by relaying that interpretation.[122]

Eschatology

Main article: Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses

1914

Christ's presence (Greek: parousia) is considered to be his invisible rule from heaven and is believed to have begun in October of 1914. Witnesses believe that Jesus' prophecy recorded in Matthew 24 is being fulfilled since that time. They identify the same period with the "last days" referred to in 2 Timothy 3:1. It is taught that the outbreak of World War I in July 1914 was a sign of Christ's presence in October of 1914. Reports of other conflicts and natural disasters are suggested as proof that world conditions have worsened since the expulsion of Satan from heaven in 1914.

The date 1914 is based on the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, calculated by the Witnesses to have occurred in 607 BC. This date is subject to debate with almost all non-Witness scholars placing the destruction within a year of 587 BC.

1975

Some leaders in the organization, mostly local, strongly suggested that Christ's millennial reign over earth would begin by 1975.[123][124][125] Many pre-1975 Watchtower articles further insinuated that the 'great tribulation' would occur in 1975, stating that the year would be marked by serious problems with world population, famine, and oil shortages.

While Witnesses have always been encouraged to increase the preaching work, and avoid secular life goals or careers, the reaction to that instruction was especially strong prior to 1975. The disappointment from the fallout of this failed expectation caused considerable loss of membership.[126]

Statements of the Watchtower Society

I will be posting a question on the material added. I do not have the time to go thru it all right now but I see bias, inaccurate info. This is not a page to attack a relgion this is an encyclopedia and should meet such standards. My hope is to present balanced info, with out forcing the reader into a conclusion. Johanneum 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Removal of under contruction tag

I oppose the under construction tag for three reasons 1. it is unnecessary anyone can do it here User:Andries/Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses 2. It is ugly 3. it has been there now since at least one week.

I will remove the tag. Andries 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While those reasons are completely irrelevant, it is probably OK to remove the tag. The most recent major change was made on the 26th of August. The section on "Freedom of Mind" still needs expanding. BenC7 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WTS Statements about itself

Re reversion to The Watchtower Society is the "one and only channel" that has been used by God to continually dispense truth - here are a few direct quotes, including some of the references that are included in the article (apparently these weren't checked before the wording was changed...)

  • Is not the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society the one and only channel which the Lord has used in dispensing his truth continually since the beginning of the harvest period? (Watchtower, Apr 1, 1919)
  • It is through the columns of The Watchtower that Jehovah provides direction and constant Scriptural counsel to his people... (Watchtower, May 1, 1964)
  • Jehovah poured out his spirit upon them and assigned them the responsibility of serving as his sole visible channel, through whom alone spiritual instruction was to come. Those who recognize Jehovah's visible theocratic organization, therefore, must recognize and accept this appointment of the "faithful and discreet slave" and be submissive to it. (Watchtower, Oct 1, 1967)
  • ...our heavenly Father has an appointed channel of communication, "the faithful and discreet slave." That "slave" has the responsibility to determine what information is made available to the household of faith, as well as "the proper time" for it to be dispensed. This spiritual food is available only through the theocratic organization. We should always look to God's appointed channel for reliable information... (Our Kingdom Ministry, Sep 2002)

BenC7 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If the quote is true from 1919, which I have no reason to beleive that it is not, there then there has been a change since around Russell's time. The FDS/ GB and JW's are not the same as either the 1)Watch Tower Society ( two words), the Watchtower Society (one word) or Kingdom Services or IBS etc. all of these are LEGAL instruments which are not the channel. The channel is The FDS. They use various literature and legal means all of which is not the channel! Any by the way which Watchtower Society do you think is the "only" channel since there are more than just one now. Johanneum 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with Johanneum; since 1919 the "channel" has been identified as "the faithful slave" and not any corporation used by them. Statements have been made, at least at assemblies, if not in literature (at least I can't find any, but I'm rushed at the moment), that the faithful slave and its Governing Body would continue to direct Witness activities with or without legal corporations' existence/assistance. - CobaltBlueTony 14:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
To me this seems overly nit-picky. But it can be changed to something like "Jehovah's Witnesses Governing Body" or "(JWs) leadership" say these things. Trying to introduce various names at that stage would only be confusing. BenC7 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Entire Article

I've noticed that this article among others that pertain to Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be written with a negative, biased view. I am an advocate of fairness among all. Please take this thought into consideration when writing or editing another Page that includes Jehovah's witnesses

Feel free to provide specific examples. BenC7 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes of doctrine

Re reversion to People must not "harbour private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding", or be suspicious of Watchtower teachings, but must believe all things published by the Watchtower Society. (Watchtower, Aug. 1, 2001; Feb. 15, 1981, p. 19; Qualified, 1955, p. 156). Again, here are some direct quotes, including some that are referenced in the text. It would be nice if I did not have to do this for every paragraph.

  • "First, since “oneness” is to be observed, a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and “the faithful and discreet slave.”" (Watchtower, Aug 1, 2001)
  • "Avoid.... questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization... How is such independent thinking manifested? A common way is by questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization." (Watchtower, Jan 15, 1983, p. 22 - under the heading "Avoid Independent Thinking")
  • "....some who point out that the organization has had to make some 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?... Fight against independent thinking." (Watchtower, Jan 15, 1983, p. 27)
  • If we have once established what instrument God is using as his "slave" to dispense spiritual food to his people, surely Jehovah is not pleased if we receive that food as though it might contain something harmful. (Watchtower, Feb 15, 1981, p. 19)

I assume this should be enough. It would be appreciated, Johanneum, if you would check the references before deleting entire paragraphs. BenC7 11:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This looks like original research. There are partial quotes, which most Witnesses may see as taken out of context as support for this argument. For instance:
  • Where does the phrase "must believe all things published by the Watchtower Society" exist? The full context of each of these supporting texts is in reference to the value of the counsel provided in relation to Scriptural principles or commandments.
  • The WT '83 quote does not contain the phrase "Fight against independent thinking" anywhere after the phrase "Why is it so dangerous?" It is the subheading of that particular section. Reorganizing it to suit the particular needs of your point, giving it the flavor you are hoping it to have, is original research. Leaving out the reasoning behind the counsel to cooperate with the Governing Body's Bible-based counsel changes the context and the support for the thought, making it seem as if it's arbitrary and without merit. Even if you don't believe it, it's what Witnesses believe. They do not beieve in blind obedience to men. Nor do they believe that the men in question are somehow wise in their own right. They believe that the Bible-based counsel offered is acceptable and directed by God as 'food given at the proper time for it'. (Matthew 24:45)
  • The phrase "suspicious of Watchtower teachings" does not appear anywhere, and again changes the perception held by Witnesses to one held by non-Witnesses, ex-Witnesses, and other opposers. Since Witnesses believe in the "channel", namely, that direction from God comes through Christ, and then through the faithful slave, they do not consider it "Watchtower" teachings, but Bible-based counsel from the "faithful slave". To be academically accurate, Witnesses believe that they should not be suspicious of the faithful slave's counsel, and as long as the "slave" uses certain legal corporations, those corporations are their tool.
It's the perception of opposers and non-Witnesses that the counsel does not come from God, and that the "faithful slave" is not being utilized by Christ. The only real controversy is this fact alone.
- CobaltBlueTony 15:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure if you examined the literature that is out there, you would see that statements such as those above are considered to be controversial, for the reason stated in the article. The quotes etc are presented as they are by other authors.

In terms of the wording:

  • "must believe all things published by the Watchtower Society" is the same as saying (although in fewer words) that people should "have complete confidence in the truth as revealed by the FDS", "avoid questioning the counsel provided by God's visible organization", and not think independently. Cf. "must believe most things published by the WTS" - does not capture accurately the sense of the quotes above.
  • "must not be suspicious of WTS teachings" is (IMO) exactly the same as saying that a person should not receive teaching "as though it may contain something harmful". If you can think of a word other than 'suspicious' which gives the same idea as presented in the quote, please feel free to suggest it. BenC7 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, it is the faithful slave that is the real question. Using "the Watchtower," "the Watch Tower Society," of "WTS teachings" is essentially inaccurate. Using the corporate names and not "the faithful slave" or even "the Governing Body" is the signature move of opposers of all kinds. The terminology of other authors should be noted as such, while the most recent terminology found in JW literature should be used when documenting what they believe, thereby allowing the reader to interpret each as they see fit. Allowing your opinion to merge the two is bordering on presenting your own opinion as fact, original research. - CobaltBlueTony 13:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that there is a way of presenting these ideas as you suggest. The WTBS has changed its ideas over time about who the FDS is (see here), making it hard to pin down exactly who can be attributed as saying what. The quotes appear in the "Watchtower" magazines (mostly), which is published by the WBTS. Saying that the WBTS did not say these things would only confuse your average reader, I think. BenC7 07:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not the WTBS that is in contention; it is the "faithful slave." By using the corporate names and not referring to the faithful slave or Governing Body directly, opposers hope to change the perception of those who listen to them. You can say it comes from the Watchtower magazine, but it is not being taught by the Watch Tower Society; it is being taught by the "faithful slave." - CobaltBlueTony 05:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
If you suggest an alternative wording, perhaps we can work on that. BenC7 00:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
People must not "harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding", or be suspicious of teachings from the "faithful and discreet slave", but must accept their counsel in doctrinal and procedural matters, as published in the Watch Tower Society's publications and taught at the various meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses.[127]
Change spelling to coincide with U.S.-based organization; addressed source of teachings; specified where Witnesses must look/listen for counsel. Added more recent resource. Thoughts are welcome. - CobaltBlueTony 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, although I would change the word "counsel" to "teaching" - the Watchtower magazines are there to provide instruction and to convey doctrinal beliefs to adherents. "Counsel" often implies personal one-on-one advice.
Also, to avoid this situation occurring again in the future, it may be an idea to reference each of the statements individually, mid-sentence. BenC7 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben I do not appreciate having to go through this all. You posted the information and have a responsibility to present it accurately and fairly. I have deleted it for good reasons. Witnesses are encouraged to “make sure of all things” and then “to hold fast to what is fine.” Not the other way around! Thus I will correct and make it sound more encyclopedic. Why? First, There is no quote that says “must believe all things.” The closest you find is in the 1955 publications you mentioned. However, 1)it quotes from the Bible that says love “believes all things” and thus applies the scripture with an application to written material. 2)The sentence is qualified by “IF”.... We shall(not must)not be suspicious but shall as the BIBLE says,... 3)Just three paragraphs later on pg 157 it encourages one to “Make sure of all things for yourself.” In light of the above and MUCH MORE it is misleading to say as it does that one “must believe all the things...” Second, The August 1st WT that you have quoted discusses much on the freedom we all have(including JW's) to believe as they wish. 1) page 3 “Your Right to Believe” 2) page 6 “Of course, it is your decision as to what you want to believe. However, it is the course of wisdom to make sure that your beliefs are shaped, not by human wisdom and desires, but, rather, by God’s revealed Word of truth.—1 Thessalonians 2:13; 5:21.” 3) page 7 “Can You “Distinguish Both Right and Wrong”?” and “keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord.”—EPHESIANS 5:10” 4) The quote about not “ harbor[ing] private ideas” is about JW “ advance[ing] to spiritual maturity”. This is about attaining to “oneness” mentioned at Ephesians 4:11-14. Once again such a statement is qualified with Scripture. Thus one is encouraged to not “harbor private ideas” but to attain to the “oneness” mentioned in Scripture. Thus this is a goal for one to reach out for but not one required to become a JW. Third your quote from the Watchtower, Jan 15, 1983, p. 22 does not exist, unless one combines the subheading with the paragraph and takes away the application! nJohanneum 20:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am presenting the controversy as it exists separate to me. The statements and quotes I have presented are those that various authors (who are cited) have identified as controversial. BenC7 05:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Impaled" on a Stake and this articles POV

There are no sources suggesting Jesus was impaled on a stake. Jehovah's Witnesses believe he was nailed to a stake, which is the traditional Roman punishment. The crucifix apparently comes from some imagery relating to Thor, but was rarly used as a punishment. The stake is simply one wooden pole, identical to the crucifix but without the crossbar. Even the source that was attributed to the the suggestion on impaling made this clear. That was just a case of sensationalism and this article's severe bias. I've fixed the mistake. Robinoke 21:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A further addition is this wikipedia article. Rendering of σταυρός (staurós). Robinoke 23:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that the article is biased, please feel free to provide specific examples. BenC7 05:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well for starters, there is no literature published by the Jehovah's Witnesses claiming Jesus was impaled -- that was something fabricated by a Wikipedia user. Even the source cited didn't claim this. I think I was a bit inflamed when I said the whole article was biased though, because it isn't really. Robinoke 10:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Resources Critical Part Deux

I would like a public explanation as to why Johanneum feels it appropriate to remove the Critical Resource link I added regarding the Watchtower-NGO issue, but retains the positive resource link on the very same issue. He referred me to the policy on "unverified original research& proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)" but I examined that Wiki policy as well as the one on Web Content, and the link I added definitely is NOT "unverified original research" as it is actually a collection of documentation from the Watchtower organization and the United Nations. *IF* this site link is disallowed, then the positive resource must be disallowed on the same grounds, as the positive resource is and has been promoted as specifically a counter to the Critical Resource link I provided. Furthermore, the information on the link I provided does NOT meet "Web Content" as it is available publicly as a published book through commercial and traditional book-and-mortar outlets. I have no question that Johanneum's removal of the said link was an act of bias and an attempt to provide readers of the "Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses (section) with a slanted set of information. So, this is why I am asking for a public explanation as to why one link is being removed (the critical resource) but the other link (the positive resource) is not, if not because of bias on the part of Johanneum. Barring a satisfactory explanation, I will continue to restore the deletion. Thank you. Timothy Kline

I went to the current Wiki policies for "No Original Research" and for "Reliable sources" and here is what I've found that I believe applies to this issue: "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source." As Robert King's link does, in fact, cite from reliable sources (the Watchtower Society, the United Nations and the NGO branch of the UN, for example), his link meets the criteria for inclusion in the Resources Critical. Further, the guidelines state: "It [original research] introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;" Again, there is an ABUNDANCE of citations from reputable sources (is not the Watchtower Society a reliable and reputable source for its position on any given issue? is not the United Nations and the NGO branch not a reliable and reputable source for information?) in Robert King's link. As I've indicated above, if Robert King's link is removed from the Critical Resources section of the article, by equivalency, the "jehovahsjudgment" links must be removed under the same policy, as they are nothing more than opposite sides of the same coin.
Within the guidelines of "Reliable source," the following is stated: "A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about." The same guideline states: "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." Once again, Johanneum would have to argue that Robert King's link does NOT, in fact, provide direct evidence through the extensive citing of the Watchtower organization's own publications as well as the United Nation's publications--when in fact Robert King's link meets all of the qualifications of this Wikipedia guidelines. The only way that the link would NOT meet the requirements under this guideline is if Johanneum's argument is that the Watchtower organization's publications are NOT "available by a reliable publisher" nor is the United Nation's publications. That Johanneum may personally disapprove of Robert King's link is moot, and indicative of editorial bias. Otherwise, he would apply the same standard to both Robert King's link and that of Thirdwitness' link (jehovahsjudgment site). Thank you. Timothy Kline

Request

Jehovahs Witness publications insist that everything published is verifiable through the scriptures. They also insist their constituents continually test this to see if they are in "the truth". I did some of what I consider original research in order to comply with the Jehovah Witnesses scriptural challenge to continue testing. I have later found that others do existwho are equally convinced as I am about my personal discovery. I am convinced that what I discerned through my scriptural inquiry will eventually become common knowledge as it reveals the man of lawlessness. I am equally convinced that it may not fit the Wikiproject editing guidelines.

So here is my request:

Would a responsible and capable wiki editor, a Baruch please adjust what I have written in the following so that it complies:

The man of lawlessness revealed

Thanks

Geoff Wright

There is no need to double-post. Please see my reply on the project page. BenC7 03:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Saw your reply on the project page. It gives creedence for the reason I thought it necessary to include qualifiers in my request. Unfortunately, my low expectation was not disappointed however, I still remain hopefull.

Geoff Wright

Geoff, some supposed "revelation" or similar interpretation of Scripture is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. You should familiarize yourself with sources that are considered appropriate for Wikipedia (WP:VERIFY) BenC7 10:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
BenC7, The entire Jehovah's Witness Organization is based on; "some supposed "revelation" or similar interpretation of Scripture" however, now that there is a little evidence that you are starting to understand the request. My hope has increased.

Geoff Wright

Internet Critics "the earth helped the woman"

I think that if you are going to publish what some critics think about the JW Internet philosophy then alternate critical opinions should not be witheld from the public.

Here is a scripturally supported alternate criticism with help from academia:

Other critics point to a scriptural fulfillment in regard to the Internet and it's effect on revealing the truth. Something which the Wikipedia project as a whole is making a large contribution. In regard to the Internet Mr. Stephen Cox, a professor of literature at the University of California made a very astute observation about: "the strange and unforeseen persistence of truth in our allegedly post-modern age" and used the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society as a case study.

Some person's blog is not an appropriate source of information. BenC7 10:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

607

Why is there no mention of 607 in the article? There used to be. Why was it removed?--Jeffro77 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to cover their alternative chronology. In short: it is based on an interpretation of a prophecy as "70 years of exile" if I remember correctly. The controversy is that historical research contradicts the results of that interpretation. 213.134.106.125 11:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, of course the 607BC doctrine should not be spoken of as if it were actually true. But the belief is central to their doctrines, and it is a contraversial issue, and one which causes many to leave when they learn that it is false. So it should be mentioned in this article.--Jeffro77 12:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Umm, was that a response to me? I was just agreeing :)
Sorry, I kind of misread what you'd said. I realised after posting, but there wasn't much point reverting it.--Jeffro77 13:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Traditional Christianity"

I'm not sure why Angicanism is on this list:

"Jehovah's Witnesses have a number of doctrines that differ from those of traditional Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism)."

The grammar here suggests that the four denominations in parentheses are an exhaustive categorization of traditional Christianity; however, Anglicanism is a form of Protestantism. The other three should cover every mainstream Christian group, I think. Mtford 16:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)