Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

The following discussion is an archived section of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. No further edits should be made to this page.

Contents 1 Christian New Religious Movement

Christian New Religious Movement

The sub-Section above titled Christian contains a yet open discussion on the appropriateness of this Wiki article to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. I invite editors to continue reviewing the evidence and interacting on the subject.

This sub-Section raises a different issue: Should Jehovah’s Witnesses be recognized as a new religious movement? According to long-standing edits in the Wiki article List of new religious movements the answer to the question is, yes. Furthermore, this is underpinned by the description offered in the Wike article on new religious movements.

When the opening sentence of this article (Jehovah’s Witnesses) was edited to state “Jehovah's Witnesses are members of a Christian new religious movement of the same name” Dtbrown edited out the designation of “new religious movement”.

The question posed here is whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are rightly presented as a new religious movement based on how the expression is used in the world base of knowledge? Comment is invited, and reputable reference sources are welcomed. -- Marvin Shilmer 15:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Another silly suggestion IMO. Is there some sliding history scale for defining which groups can be called Christian? If the proposal is to only call those groups that formed at Pentecost Christian then all others since are "new", and that would be every Christian group in existance today. There seems to be a silly effort to find some way of delegitimizing JWs. Again there are thousands of Christian sects which began at varying points in chronological history. By the way I am not a Christian at all, but let's have some objectivity and fairness. Thanks. 63.196.193.236 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

63.169.193.236: The scale of language usage determines recognized presentation. Everything beyond that is an ism, at least until the usage attains common status. Do you find it common usage for the average person on the street to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian?

Do you find it common usage for the average person on the street to declare caffeine as trimethylxanthine?? Marvin's question is equally irrelevant. A fact that is not common knowledge is still a fact.--Jeffro77 07:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Trimethylxanthine is not asserted as common English usage. It is asserted as a chemical name for a compound. Whether there is a “fact” of common English usage declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian is determined by a consensus of the literature as it examines the body of world knowledge. This existing consensus is a subject of discussion you apparently prefer to avoid addressing in a straightforward manner. -- Marvin Shilmer 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin's analysis of the comparison is invalid. He is attempting to compare "common knowledge" with "common usage". The word Christian is indeed in common usage. Whether or not JWs being Christian is "common knowledge" is irrelevant, as those (unbiased) individuals who do know of their basic beliefs realise that those beliefs identify them as Christian.--Jeffro77 22:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The usage in question is whether to assert Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. It is not common usage to declare Peoples Temple under Jim Jones as Christian. This is based on commonly understood knowledge of what Christian is in the minds of the average person. This is why the average person would refuse to USE the term Christian to depict Peoples Temple under Jim Jones. Hence, usage is an indicator of common knowledge. If it is “common knowledge” that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian then why does practically every home I visit in my ministry as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses tell me I am not Christian? Why is it relatively rare to find vetted articles on Jehovah’s Witnesses that declare the religion Christian?

If you want to carry on a respectful discussion on this subject (rather than carping at my thoughtful replies here) then I suggest you begin by answering all the questions you left unanswered in the Section above on Christian. While you are there you might as well respond to the evidence there you never bothered to comment on with any substance. -- Marvin Shilmer 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already indicated that I have no interest in feeding the trolls. I will make comments for the benefit of other readers as I see fit.--Jeffro77 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: My recommendation is that you respond to evidence and cease your not so well veiled ad hominem. I have asked you to address evidence. What you think of me is of no consequence here. "Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, small minds talk about people." (attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt) -- Marvin Shilmer 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To digress back to the subject heading, to my knowledge there is no proposal here “to only call those groups that formed at Pentecost Christian then all others since are ‘new’”. The question asked is whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are rightly presented as a new religious movement based on how the expression is used in the world base of knowledge?

You presume and imply adverse intent in raising this question. Perhaps you are aware of a proclivity to denigrate the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses by use of terms such as cult etc. Precisely because of the relative little knowledge among the average person of Jehovah’s Witnesses together with its relative youth as a religion, academic presenters have used the designation of new religious movement as a tool to overcome bias, and the success of this tool is documented. Hence use of this term actually has the opposite effect you assert. Rather then de-legitimizing the religion it humanizes its perception in public view. Have you studied this phenomenon in the body of academic literature? -- Marvin Shilmer 16:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Do you find it common usage for the average person on the street to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian?" Yes, certainly. You know, in my youth I once was a part of a Baptist church that split from the larger body over some minor issues. But they rejected the larger and we had to meet elsewhere (the YMCA) until another church was aquired. Now they still considered themselves Baptist, indeed still believed basically the same dogma. You would call them a "new religious movement" based, I suspect on the hope that people will think that since they are "new" they can't be anything like the original church of the first century and hence are illigitimate. The "world base of knowledge" you speak of is not at all unified, especially on matters of religion. No one imprecise, unscientific reference can presume to speak for all. As for your last paragraph above all I see is more balony. Again, there is no religious World Court recognized by all that decides who can and cannot call themselves Christian and I find your arguments to be highly arrogant and specious, not to mention a waste of time and space. YOU cannot speak for them and decide that they are not Christian if they believe themselves to be so. 66.14.116.114 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

66.14.116.114: I appreciate your anecdote. As for the body of world knowledge, if there were no such a thing we would have no libraries archiving it. But we do have libraries, don’t we. If words have no meaning that is testable based on either usage or essential elements then communication would be impossible. But communication is possible; hence words must have meaning.

I have not said there is any “World Court” speaking for everyone. I have asserted there is such a thing as existing consensus of whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are declared Christian. Apparently you have not availed yourself to the vast resources on this issue which is available at any well funded library in the developed world. If you need assistance with a particular reference source let me know. As time allows I am glad to help. -- Marvin Shilmer 20:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You say: "I have asserted there is such a thing as existing consensus of whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are declared Christian." What you don't seem to be getting is that it doesn't matter if Joe Blow Christian sect(s) don't recognize the JWs as Christian. It is not theirs to decide that for another group especially if that group does believe themselves to be so. The "vast resources" you speak of are more than likely biased religious sources which don't happen to like JWs. About your contention that to be Christian means that Christ is "central", central in what way? This is obviously a subjective, interpretative issue. The problem with the professional sources you refer to is that though they may be giving their interpretation of what it means to be Christian based on their understanding none would presume (nor have the authority to if they did) to claim that their's is the one "official" interpretation. None would be so arrogant as to. But if you must have it from "official" secular books the British Journal of Sociology calls JWs a 'non-mainstream Christian sect' [1]. The Lancet says "Jehovah's Witnesses, the 6 million adherents of a Christian religion" [2]. This site refers to JWs as "The Christian sect known as the Jehovah's Witnesses". This site says that JWs are "are members of a Christian movement". This site says that JWs are "Christian fundamentalists". This one calls them "a Christian organization". Jehovah's Witnesses The Foundation Years refers to them as "The Jehovah’s Witness Christian movement". This site refered to them as a "Christian faith". This site refers to them as "a Christian movement." Two sources which you yourself cited above refer to them as a "Christian sect" (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 14 (1979), 21 1-34) & (Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997). See also this definition. Now I suspect that you will say, these sources are not official sources so they don't count. Again, there are no "official", universally recognized authorities. That they call themselves Jehovah's Christian Witnesses is their right and not out of line as has been pointed out before since they acknowledge Jesus as their "savior", and strive to be "Christ-like" (the literal meaning of Christian), read and follow the New Testament etc. For you to keep harping on this point looks to be trollish and purely disruptive and very POV IMO. This is all I'm going to say on the subject but I would suggest that others might lodge a complaint if this continues. 63.196.193.237 04:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

63.196.193.237: 'Non-mainstream Christian sect' is accurate and narrower usage, and acceptable based on the body of evidence. "Christian sect" is accurate and narrower usage, and acceptable based on the body of evidence. "Christian movement" is accurate, and narrower usage and acceptable based on the body of evidence, so long as the exclusive nature of the movement is made clear. -- Marvin Shilmer 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for Wikipedia precedents have a look at Jews for Jesus. That's an organization that calls itself Jewish, though other Jews disagree. There it was decided (after much acrimony) that the view of the majority of Jews overrode the views of the group themselves. 199.71.183.2 20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

199.71.183.2: I have no idea how or why you feel that information is relevant here. Could you please explain? Wikipedia asks editors to build consensus. What good is majority opinion of a handful of editors if that opinion runs contrary to existing consensus in the body of world knowledge? Wikipedia is not for pandering original research, whether in the form of creating an original consensus (which is an artificual consensus) or otherwise. --Marvin Shilmer 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then I guess the founding fathers were right then when they considered African Americans to be less than people. And based on that kind of democracy if one group wants to invalidate or even enslave another its perfectly OK so long as the majority feels the same way. 66.14.116.114 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

66.14.116.114: You are talking about a social-political endeavor. Wikipedia is an academic endeavor. Nevertheless, because a majority says something does not mean the majority is morally correct, or even necessarily academically correct. On the other hand, when participants are charged 1) to verify editing and 2) to avoid original research then there is little choice but to acquiesce to whatever is the existing consensus of presentation on whatever the subject. The existing consensus is only as far away as the local library. On contentious issues, such as this one apparently, it is all the more important to seek the most objective source material as possible. Historically this would be found in vetted literature. --Marvin Shilmer 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the inappropriate footnote from the lead of the article. An analogy: Assume person A and person B are both green. Person A believes person B is actually blue. When saying that person A is green, no footnote is required to say that person A does not believe person B is also green.--Jeffro77 07:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro, I agree, the footnote belongs elsewhere.Wonderpet 12:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77 and Wonderpet: Both of you have pleaded to accept Jehovah’s Witnesses profession of faith (i.e., Christianity) as reason enough to declare the religion as Christian. If this self-declaration is your basis then you cannot reasonably argue that is it inappropriate for the point of assertion (the opening sentence) to actually verify precisely the self-declaration. In other words, you cannot on one hand argue that a piece of evidence it sufficient (self-declaration, in this case) and then turn around and say that same piece of evidence is inappropriate to reference as source verification. The profession of faith taught by the Watchtower Society is that 1) Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian and 2) Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only Christians to the exclusion of all other religions. This is the actual profession of faith, and it is self-declared. If you do not like this actual profession of faith then you need to stop using it as a basis for the introductory sentence. Let the evidence speak for what it says. Editing this verification material out is directly contrary to Wiki guidelines and policy. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin's claim of 'verification' is invalid. The footnote in question does not verify that JWs are Christian, it expresses the religion's attitude regarding other religions. It is of no value in the lead. That JWs are a Christian group is plainly obvious from their basic teachings and therefore goes beyond being merely self-declared. (Of course that makes them far from being right, but that is irrelevant.) Even several of the "vetted sources" Marvin provided earlier attest to the fact that they are a Christian group (and Marvin has occasionally given the impression that other sources calling them a "sect" precludes them from being "Christian", though the two are not mutually exclusive). Marvin claims to be a member of this religion yet vilifies it continually. Either he is a member playing devil's advocate to get non-members to defend his religion, he is a disgruntled member who is on the verge of leaving or has recently been shunned, or is just a troll. In any case, his own POV is adding bias, demonstrated by his continuous tenuous arguments.--Jeffro77 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Jehovah’s Witnesses self-declaration of their Christianity is not merely that they are Christian. Jehovah’s Witnesses self-declaration is that they are the only Christians to the exclusion of any and all other religions. This is the self-declaration of Christianity made officially by the Watchtower organization as the belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hence, if Jehovah’s Witnesses self-declaration is, as you prefer, the basis for this article to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian then this same standard requires that you present actually what Jehovah’s Witnesses declare of themselves. As for me, my personal circumstance has absolutely no relevance to this article. Why you persist in your ad hominem defies the senses. If you want talk about peer reviewed sources then please have the decency to talk about what the body of this source presents rather than cherry-picking.

The footnotes are without commentary. In concise terms the quoted material expresses the actual self-declaration of Christianity Jehovah’s Witnesses make of themselves. If you do not like the official self-declaration then I recommend you take it up with your preferred source, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses since these are the sole authority determining what is published in the pages of the official literature of the Watchtower organization, which presumes to speak for all Jehovah’s Witnesses. -- Marvin Shilmer 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin's footnote relates to a theological view held by JWs, which is not supportive of the statement that JWs are a Christian group. Whatever the theological self-declarations of the religion, they are not relevant to the plain identification of the religion has being essentially Christian in nature.--Jeffro77 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring to the previous placement of said footnote, which immediately followed the word Christian in the first sentence. That was, and remains, entirely inappropriate. The current placement, relating to the view held by JWs about other Christian groups is acceptable.--Jeffro77 07:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the term back to "movement" per the concensus here, but I personally don't really like that word. It's overly nebulous. Why did we change the wording to require a word at this position at all? --Fcsuper (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, "new religious movement" is the most accurate term available. Marvin believes that a term is required here because secular sources identify the religion as a 'Christian sect', so he doesn't like them being called Christian without further qualifying the term. An analogy: Person A says an object is a red (Christian) piece of fruit (religion). Person B says it's a red (Christian) apple (movement/sect). Though it is undisputed that the object is red, and that the set, 'fruit' includes 'apple', Person C asserts that because of the disagreement between A and B, the object cannot be called red (Christian) without further identification.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: You are again presenting specious arguments. The only one who gets to define what is true Christianity and who is a true Christian is Jesus Christ. If a religious group adheres to the teachings of Jesus Christ, they are Christian. If they are Christian they are not new, by definition. So the most reliable and unbiased way to settle this debate in a truly academic way is for you to demonstrate in what ways JW's are acting in an unchristian way then show how all the other so-called Christian religions are not making the same mistake, and vice versa. As to whether JW's should be condemned for holding that they are the only true Christians, it is simple: To do otherwise would be profoundly hypocritical. If they knew another religion to more closely adhere to the Christ's teachings they then must either correct their errant behavior or abandon their religion in favor of the truer one. I would think any adherent to a given religious order believes that theirs is the superior one. Applying interfaith principles or modern sensibilities like "I'm okay, you're okay" and "We have no losers, only winners" to Christianity is against what Jesus himself taught. Jesus' own review of the seven congregations in Revelation show that unambiguously. Ironically, if you think you are a Christian but other religions that are opposed to you doctrinally are also Christians, you cannot be a Christian, by Jesus's own definition. I believe, Mr Shilmer, you get off track because you do not see that Jesus Christ as the true authority on Christianity, but rather that you and those who you prefer actually are. Editors: Any proper academic review on Christianity should begin and end with Jesus Christ's definition of Christianity, and nowhere else. And any religion that can clearly be shown be exclusively following the teachings of Jesus Christ cannot be, by definition, a new religious movement. --cfrito 02:35 22 December 1007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is not enough evidence to show that the religion is not part of any established religion, denomination, church, or religious body therefore it does not meet the criteria of a new religious movement Wonderpet (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: Wikipedia is not an academically vetted source. Scholarly vetted secondary sources contradict your claim, and in fact routinely cite Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “sect” and/or a “new religious movement”. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: I concur: According to Wikipedia's New Religious Movement, a group achieves such a distinction by emerging somewhat anew either 17th century, or the mid-19th Century, or circa WWII -- a 300 year spread, not exactly high precision. Since JW's were the subject of Nazi persecution pre-WWII by-and-large for the beliefs currently held -- and specifically for those beliefs -- one would have to use the earliest demarcation date (17th century) to be completely clean in their assertion JW's are a NRM, or argue that the somewhat equally arbitrary mid-19th century date came a few years before Russell began his organized study group or later when he broke away from Barbour over the value of the Ransom. Apart from this, If JW's comply with the teachings of Christ, then they cannot be a NRM: their teachings and tenets would be from the 1st century (by definition). If one uses the Russell/Barbour break as the founding point, then it is only clearly the 17th century criteria that met, the mid-19th century criteria is a matter of debate, and they clearly predate the WWII demarcation.-- cfrito 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC) (some minor edits for clarity -- cfrito 03:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cfrito: You are tinkering, again. You have materially edited your response just above with the effect of disjointing existing responses. If you need to clarify something you wrote that other editors ALREADY RESPONDED TO, then please have the decency to do it in addition to what you have ALREADY said, rather than editing what others ALREADY responded to. This makes it possible for other editors to follow the discussion. I apologize for the uppercase. Stop tinkering, please. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cfrito: Russell started what he started in the 19th Century (1870 or 1879 depending on perspective). This is squarely within the period NRMs are attributed to.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

cfrito, what 17th century criteria were met?? JWs did not exist in any form in the 1600s.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Well if we assume that JW are so doctrinally different from true Christianity then they do not meet the 17th century test. Otherwise, they would straddle the mid-19th century test, but clearly beat by some 70 years the post-WWII test. I clarified this below for Shilmer, sorry for being unclear above (i did clean up the above -- it was sloppy) cfrito (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cfrito: At the earliest, the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses was formed no earlier than 1879. This is well within the period where religious movements are expressed as a new religious movement. You repeat this yourself, yet go on to suggest the religious movement of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not a new religious movement. Why?

When you say Jehovah’s Witnesses “comply with the teachings of Christ” whose biblical interpretation are you using to draw this conclusion and assert it? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: According to the publication Jehovah's Witnesses -- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom pg 718 1993 ed., the first organized meetings of the group that formed the IBSA met in Allegheny, PA USA in 1870 and marked the beginning of their regularly scheduled, formalized, systematic study of the Bible. It was approximately 6 years later (January 1876) that Russell received his first copy of the Herald of the Morning edited by Barbour. In October 1876 Russell published his article pointing to 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times. In 1877 Russell and Barbour published the coauthored three Worlds and Russell's Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return at the offices of Herald of the Morning. Between 1878 and 1879 Russell tried to understand and make sense of some of the errors in the earlier writings and positions and Barbour took public issue with Russell for examining the mistaken views. By May 1879 Russell cut ties with Barbour because of Barbour's view of the value of the Ransom sacrifice.

So, Russell began in formalized, regular congregational meetings in 1870, a five-plus years before joining up with Barbour. He only worked smoothly with Barbour for two years or so, and then broke off association in the third year. The date should be 1870 given that the beginnings were just Russell and a group of fellow Bible enthusiasts meeting as a "congregation". Since I personally consider the "late 19th century" to be 1868 onward (and early-19th century as 1833 and earlier), I wrote what I wrote with the advisory that vagaries like "mid-19th century" lead to senseless debates. So your confusion is with the founding of the congregation headed by Russell in 1870, the congregation's early non-publishing period from 1870-1875, the initial publishing efforts working with Barbour (1876-1879) and the split with Barbour and the publishing of the first edition of Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence in July 1879. Frankly the whole "mid-19th century" demarcation is wishy-washy, and there is no real consensus about even which century, let alone which month and year NRM's "began" so it really isn't worth debating the 1870 vs 1879 dates (i.e., when the "Russellites" first convened regular congregation meetings vs. when Russell and Barbour had had it with each other and Russell took his money and started his own publishing effort. I hope this helps clear up any apparent misconceptions.

As to "why" JW's shouldn't classified be an NRM: If they are as they say they are, "footstep followers of Christ", then their faith, practices, beliefs, etc., go back to, well, the Christ (1st century). If you say they descend from the Adventist movement, then you can date their beliefs and practices to the early 19th century (the most marked difference between IBSA/JW and Adventists is the Trinity doctrine which the Adventists adopted well after Russell cut off association with Barbour). If you dismiss these lines of reasoning, then JW's worst-case straddle the middle-most very-fuzzy NRM date range (out of entire possible date range of some 300 years -- See New Religious Movements: "Debate surrounds the phrase "of recent origin": some authors use World War II as the dividing line after which anything is "new", whereas others define as "new" everything after the advent of the Bahá'í Faith (mid-19th century) or even everything after Sikhism (17th century).) So maybe they are, maybe they aren't, depends on your POV, it seems. But to say either way, then, means you are expressing a non-NPOV, according to this quote.

Regarding the "whose Biblical interpretation are you using?" question you pose, it is not so much a interpretation-based conclusion (subjective) as it is a graded test score (objective). To remain objective we can only consider black-and-white issues. I mentioned some earlier (e.g., Matt 28:19,20) and you accused me of preaching. So I again pose my question to you: Which black-and-white requirement are they not meeting? -- cfrito 03:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cfrito: Regarding “new religious movement” (NRM), I still have no idea what your objection is. It appears you may misunderstand how academics have determined their usage of NRM. Academics have, as you cite yourself, applied the term NRM to religions that formed anywhere from the 17th Century to WWII in the 20th Century, or even later. Jehovah’s Witnesses as a unique religion fits into the latter portion of this period, which makes the religion a prime candidate for the NRM usage. When sociologists discuss NRMs in their articles and the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses arises the term is consistently applied to it. Even when sociologists are not addressing NRMs, we still find that if they apply declaratory language they the consensus is to apply the terms “sect” or “new religious movement,” and in some cases “cult”. Nothing you have presented contradicts this, and everything you have presented builds a case that the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a NRM, or sect.

Regarding “whose Biblical interpretation are you using?” let me rephrase based on your reply above. Whose “graded test” are you going to use, and who is going to establish its gradient and objectivity? When it comes to the question “What is Christian according to the Bible?” there are as many “graded tests” as there are religions professing Christianity. For example, the Watchtower organization has published its “graded test” to show that only Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian, and this test uses the same biblical texts you cite. Is this the “graded test” we apply? If so, then we will have to declare all other religions as non-Christian. The Catholic Church also has published its “graded test” to express what Christian is. Do we apply this “graded test”? Whose “graded test” do we apply, and who is going to establish its gradient and objectivity? Wiki editors cannot do this unilaterally because Wikipedia is to present what is already represented in the body of world knowledge, and specifically we are to avoid original research. So whose “graded test” do we apply, and who is going to establish its gradient and objectivity? Who? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

marvinshilmer, Wikipedia is the number one and number two hit on the Google search engine for "new religious movement" which gives wikipedia a lot of weight. A religion that is a sect of an established religion cannot also be new. Wonderpet (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: Well, that remark from you explains a great deal. Are your academic research projects always this heavily influenced by a Google search?

If you want to do serious research on this subject you will have to either go to a well-stocked library or else subscribe to one of many databases of vetted research material. The number of Google hits is no indicator of academic reliability. If we accept such a method as you suggest, why don’t you Google Jehovah’s Witnesses and see what the number hit says about whether the religion is Christian? Are you game? Or, do you suddenly understand the folly of assigning academic integrity to the number of hits from Google’s search engine? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

marvin, your question could just as validly be applied to any Christian group. Are you also suggesting that the Catholic Church is not a Christian religion. Is it not by their own biblical interpretation that they make such a claim? The existence of god is unproven. The existence of Christ is unproven, and the existence of Jesus is debated. The only actual yardstick for a religious group being Christian is that they assert themselves as Christian (believing Jesus to be the Christ) and ascribe to their interpretations of Jesus found in the bible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Of course it could. This is why for an encyclopedic presentation of the Catholic Church religion should defer to whatever is the consensus presentation of the religion found in vetted literature, if there is one. Of course, when it comes to a religion’s teachings/beliefs/doctrines, these should be expressed for just what they are, that is as teachings/beliefs/doctrines. Whether Jehovah’s Witnesses “believe Jesus to be the Christ” is a theological question. What does it mean to be “the Christ”? Theologians in general do not agree what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach on this subject is valid biblically. The answer depends on whose interpretation of the Bible one wants to accept. Despite the thorny problem of theological perspective, some religions of the world have been accepted by a consensus of world academics as Christian. This is found in the literature. Wikipedia is for presenting information, not inventing information. The information to present is what is already in the body of world knowledge. If this is not what editors are here to express then what are we doing? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The question, "what does it mean to be the Christ" is a red herring, in that the JW answer to that question is essentially the same as that of all other Christian religions, being that Jesus was the Messiah sent to save mankind. As previously demonstrated, secular sources acknowledge that JW is a Christian religion. The theological opinions of other religious groups are irrelevant. Whether JW beliefs are correct is irrelevant; their beliefs are inextricably Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Hence we have "Christian sect," again. (Alternatly, "new religious movement") There is no mystery why this is the consensus presentation of the religion in vetted articles, if they bother to use declaratory language.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok Marvin, you have already stated your belief that Wikipedia is not a credible "vetted research" tool. There are those here who believe it is and are working to keep it that way by removing biased material. Wonderpet (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: There is a reason why Wikipedia policy asks editors to provide third-party verification. Wikipedia articles are not third-party verification for Wikipedia articles because Wikipedia is not to invent information; it is to provide information. Were we to use Wikipedia articles as third-party verification then we could write whatever we wanted to write and then verify it with something else we wrote and placed in another Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia articles should have some semblance of consistency from article to article when touching on the same subject. But authenticity of this consistency depends on the academic rigor of editors working on various articles. This rigor should be tied tightly to whatever is the consensus held in the body of world knowledge, if there is a consensus. Additionally, if there are majority and minority views (which is often the case) then each deserves presentation without giving undue weight to either.

Wikipedia is not vetted in the academic sense of the word because edit participation has no protocol for review based on field of expertise, credential and experience.

If you want to remove bias then research the body of world knowledge to ascertain what if any consensus exists in the literature, and then present that without spinning it one way or another. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: If you believe the contemporary organized religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses (est. no earlier than 1870) is “part of an established denomination, church or religious body” other than itself, then please specifically tell everyone which denomination, church or religious body Jehovah’s Witnesses are part of, other than itself. The Watchtower organization takes special pride in distinguishing Jehovah’s Witnesses as separate and distinct from any and all other religions on the face of the earth. Apparently you disagree with the Watchtower organization. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you marvinshilmer, as you know, the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be restored first century Christianity, a previously existing religion. Wonderpet (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: Thanks for sharing that Watchtower POV.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvinshilmer, any time you want my opinion just ask. It is no big deal, I don't mind sharing my beliefs when asked. And thank you again for asking for my point of view. Wonderpet (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: You have offered no evidence demonstrating the organized contemporary religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is "part of an established denomination, church or religious body” other than itself. Hence it is vandalism for you to persist in removing "new religious movement" on a basis that Jehovah's Witnesses are "part of an established denomination, church or religious body”. If you have evidence for editors to consider please present it here, on the talk page. In the meantime I have reverted your vandalism. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

marvinshilmer, Hey partner I ask you not to refer to my good faith edits as vandalism. and please refrain from your POV editing Wonderpet (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: It is inconsistent with good faith to persist in asserting the same edit without substantiating it with weight of evidence beyond your personal opinion. There is ample evidence above demonstrating that should declaratory language be used the consensus presentation is either "Christian sect" or "Christian new religious movement," or something of the kind. Specifically the overwhelming consensus is to avoid declaratory language, particularly declaratory language presenting the religion simply as "Christian". Persistently editing contrary to this weight of evidence is vandalism when the only substantiation you assert is your opinion. I have not asserted my opinion on this point. I have deferred to the overwhelming weight of vetted literature.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "sect" is pejorative. See my new comments above. It cannot be used in good conscience. It is as inappropriate as the word "cult" or even the N-word, regardless to how many sources are sited. This prejudice cannot be argued away by using books (many of which promote the prejudice). If one feels a word is necessary, then one now needs to work with the group here on this discussion board so that the group can come up with a word that is both correct AND agreeable to the consensus here in this discussion forum.

I find it ironic that I am highly critical of JW's beliefs, yet here I am trying to make sure they are not portrayed perjoratively. I even previously cracked a joke here about how JW's self-declared themselves as not being a religion at all well into the 20th Century (a true statement, btw).

Self-declaration has to be taken with a grain of salt. Vetted material has to be taken with a grain of salt (again, see my new comments above). Terms that encourage prejudice must be avoided if at all possible. A balance based on consensus here on this discussion board is the only viable solution on this matter, as required by the wiki rules anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcsuper (talk • contribs) 02:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: Your remarks you refer to above in the section "Christian" has been read and responded to. There is significant gap in your presentation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)