Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 New title? 2 removal of Bible from sentence 3 Not Notable? 4 Leaders 5 Citations

[edit] New title?

Should this article perhaps be renamed Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational dicipline or something? Maybe other kinds of dicipline should be discussed as well in the article.Summer Song 09:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the title fits.George 03:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of Bible from sentence

Hello, Joshbuddy!

• I disagree with your removal of the phrase "by Bible requirements as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses". The portion "as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses" distinguishes the Bible requirements as something inpterpreted by JWs, which is perfectly NPOV, unless you're debating the fact that there are requirements in the Bible which have been diversely inpterpreted by many groups claiming faith in the Bible.
  
  It seems that this removal attempts to take away the strong attachment to the Bible felt by Witnesses. The statement was worded such that it acknowledged that these Bible requirements are "understood" in a certain way particular to the Witnesses, which is all that is needed. Please, explain why "Bible" needed to be deleted from the statement. - CobaltBlueTony 14:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Bible requirements" did not seem inclusive enough to me. I would prefer maybe, doctrinal requirements. After all, two paragraphs later we have "Some reasons for disfellowshipping are not explicitly listed in the Bible, and are the Governing Body's interpretation of Bible-based principles (not rules or laws) for Christians." which really seems to cover the point. Why state it twice? joshbuddy, talk 15:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this sentence qualifies (and was perhaps added after the fact because of) the deleted phrase. After all, the most fundamental disfellowshippable offenses are directly related to widely recognized Scriptural principles: moral fidelity, honesty, respect of property not one's own, respect of life, and so forth. The first statement covers the more usual and obvious reasons for disfellowshipping; the second sentence you mentioned covers the more principle-based reasons, which are not usually on the minds of Witnesses when they think of what could get one disfellowshipped. - CobaltBlueTony 15:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses" is still a more inclusive. The 1994 Question from readers that always gets cited would prefer that phrase I think. It says something like "beliefs perculiar to Jehovah's Witnesses". I need to look up that source. Seeing as the entire article is unsourced anyways (well, large parts of it are) I think there are probably bigger fish to fry here. joshbuddy, talk 18:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Notable?

If this means that the details of our disciplinary procedures are not of particular interest to the general public, but mainly those in the congregation, or those somehow affected by this discipline, then some details might be excessive. For example, the list of 30 offenses might be left to a ref. The Restriction of duties section is essentially summed up in the 'reproof' section. 'procedures' might be condensed, and merged with the intro. A lot could be condensed, or eliminated. I would like to work on condensing this to reflect what might be of interest to the general public.--Brotherlawrence (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Wikipedia definition of notable: "to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The page which deals with "Wikipedia Notability" is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

• "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.

Failed.

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

Failed.

• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.

Failed.

• "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.

Failed.

• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

Failed. --Editor2020 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leaders

I removed the term 'leaders' in reference to elders. This is how Witnesses view that title. > Awake! 9/8/76 p. 28 Are Clergy-Laity Distinctions Scriptural? | “Furthermore, those serving as elders in the first-century congregation were under command to avoid taking a superior position with reference to its members. No man was to be viewed as an official leader or head of the congregation. .. Jesus Christ stated: “do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for your Leader is one, the Christ” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brotherlawrence (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Those taking the lead" is commonly used in JW literature as a euphemism for elders, i.e. leaders.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"No problem. It was technically correct in this setting, just felt it was not in the spirit of Watchtower phraseology .--Brotherlawrence (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In Thailand, they refer to the elders as Leaders.

[edit] Citations

It seems like the citations 51, 52, and 53 are no longer present, but the article still has the citation marks. Should that information be removed, or can other sources be found? Also, where exactly is “trouble making apostate” being quoted from in the last paragraph? I think something like "...exercise “discernment” to figure out whether one is promoting apostate views." Sjoden (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)