Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 41

Can't quite put my finger on it
I read this whole article, and I just had to create an account. There's just something about this article that doesn't sit well with me. I feel like it's very biased in many areas. All in all, I think that this article should be revised by a person that is actually a Jehovah's Witness. That would be more accurate I believe. This is like getting information about how to perform heart surgery from an electrician.

~AccurateAlly~ (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can determine, some of the regular editors of this article are Jehovah's Witnesses, or are at least knowledgable about the subject. If you can make improvements be bold and do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As a Jehovah's Witness, you may find it a novel experience to read an article about your religion that includes critical comment. This is something not normally included in the material published in WT Society literature. Rather than saying you can't put your finger on it, can you please identify the specifics of what you believe is "very biased" and what needs to be "more accurate". LTSally (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Put your finger on it, or the article won't substantially change.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is one of the most heavily sourced that you'll find on wikipedia or practically anywhere else, for that matter. JW's don't like the article because they feel it is biased against them. JW-haters do not like the article because they feel it is to favorable to JW's. That fact that both extremes feel the article is biased is to me a good sign. When taken as a whole, the article is very neutral, even in its handling of actual criticisms and controversies. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) For example, JW's are told that their religion was founded with Adam or Enoch or something like that (depending on the context). If there was a verifiable source for this, it would be included in wikipedia.  However, no studies into the origin of JW's has found this to be true.  Their lineage distinctly begins some point in the late AD 19th Century.  This idea that JW's began before the 19th Century is excluded from the article.
 * 2) Another example, Jw-haters want to add details about how JW's commit organized abuse against children and use mind control and say they are a cult. However, the body of studies into these matters do not bare out those POV items either.  So those are also excluded from the article.
 * 3) Please also remember, the wording has to be accessible to someone that is not familiar with JW-speak. JW's have edited this article.  When they do so, they frequently use jargon that is nearly meaningless to someone not exposed to JW-speak.  It does not serve this article well to use terms when every other sentence is an explanation of some word or phrase used in the previous sentence.  This article would be its own encyclopedia!  So genetic terminology must me used.

I'm trying to put my finger on what adjective would best describe the article at present. There seems to be a certain amount of possessiveness towards the subject. For what reasons do Jehovah's Witnesses deserve admiration? What are their beliefs about love and loyalty? These are academic questions. Of course, it would be necessary to find references to support an analysis from this perspective. In an article about Buddhism, for example, I would expect to find a heavy emphasis on the subject of peace. I see on looking at the Buddhism article that the first major quality cited is "wisdom." Peace gets a mention too - peace in the individual and the community. The page at present still seems quite amateur and unnecessarily provocative.

Mandmelon (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that there are missing elements that may be added if that can be backed up with notability. As far as provocativity, there is no way to write this article without it. No matter what is written, JW's will say it does not put them in a good light, and JW-haters will say it puts JW's in too good of a light. The possessiveness you claim to exist is more to do with trying to prevent extreme factions from taking over this article, that includes JW's, JW-haters and even intellectualist who have made edits that require a expertize in religious studies in order to understand them. That said, this article is one of the most sourced anyone will find anywhere in any forum. It is far from amateur. I invite you to read the Bible article. It is an article about the most regarded piece of literature in history, yet the article focuses on variations of versions between belief systems and barely touches the bible's popularity, nor does it address the meaning to those different faiths, it doesn't go into detail about its importance hardly at all, nor does it go into detail about the stories and events in the bible beyond the Torah. In my opinion, that article is far worse off than this one. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Relationship With Governments" section needs revising.
The sentence that reads, "Voting in political elections is considered a compromise of their Christian neutrality" is no longer official Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Please reference November 1, 1999 Watchtower, pages 28-29. Said article states, in part, "As to whether they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible-trained conscience and an understanding of his responsibility to God and to the State . . . If someone decides to go to the polling booth, that is his decision. What he does in the polling booth is between him and his Creator."

75.171.249.41 (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The vague statement from the article above indicates that a JW will not face sanctions for going to the polling booth. However, if a JW admits to the elders that they actually voted, they are subjected to sanctions for violating their 'neutrality'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I must ask, however, is this information based on anecdotal evidence? Or is this a universally applied, de facto, unofficial policy? 75.171.249.41 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That WT statement portrays voting as a conscience issue. If voting in political elections is considered a compromise of a Witness's Christian neutrality, who considers it thus? Bottom line: the statement needs to be sourced or removed. As it stands, it reads like a personal interpretation of the statement made in the Watchtower, or something based on someone's personal experience. LTSally (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it can be sourced, but without a source currently, it should be removed. I will say, from my experience, the new wording is not a change in their beliefs.  The wording of the "new" policy does mean "Don't vote", but has been convoluted to make it appear as though they allow members to vote.  This change was to appease certain governments.  To add something about this in the future, I recommend we get sources from former congregation elders or an article written about such. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by getting "sources from former congregation elders or an article written about such". A reliable third party source is what we're looking for. I had an idea one of Franz's books referred to this, but I've hunted without success so far. His indexes aren't the best. Penton's book precedes the 1999 WT statement, so that's not much help (he writes that witnesses must not vote for public officials).LTSally (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt will find anything public right away. But I'm also sure there can be at least primary sources available eventually.  No big.  I am in favor of removing the wording until sources can be established.  —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 03:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If the new policy was a ruse intended only to "appease certain governments," what governments were they? And how do we know the motivations of the leaders of the church?  Have any internal documents been leaked?  I think we should treat anecdotal experience very skeptically until we can look at some broader statistics.75.171.249.210 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In light of the fact that there is still no cited reference for the assertion that voting is a violation of a Jehovah's Witness' neutrality I move that the sentence be deleted until one can be provided. If in fact this statement has been outdated for the past nine years it is an embarrassment to the accuracy of the article.Sungmanitu (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some reference to their antipathy to voting should still be included though. Perhaps a line saying that since Russell's day it has been regarded as inappropriate and from the 1930s (as far as I can gather -- see Penton, page 139) they were told to refuse to vote in political elections, although this policy was relaxed in 1999 and became a matter of conscience. That's the theory, though I would say that any Witness who announced that they had turned up at a polling booth on election day and voted would be treated with the utmost suspicion and caution from that moment. Whether or not that would lead to sanctions, however, and whether the society does indeed still regard it as a violation of neutrality are the points that remain unclear. LTSally (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As a former JW who has somehow managed to remain un-disfellowshipped up til now, I can say that of the things I don't mention about myself to relatives and friends who are still JWs, that I voted in 2006, and wanted to in 2008 are at the top of the list. I'm sure that if it became known to the elders in my former congregation, they would immediately form a committee to handle disfellowshipping me. And then would my mom or old friends ever speak to me again? I doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.102.99.252 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting is not cause for disfellowshipping also the committees are not some sort of moral police they try to help you and use the bible to reason with you. I am disfellowshipped and I know it takes a lot of effort to be disfellowshipped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.154.197 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you vote? Did you seriously think one of those squabbling human politicians was a more fit leader than Jesus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.205.164 (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

General Filling
As a Jehovah's Witness myself, I can honestly say that the article does it's job at being neautral, and surely doesn't favor one side over the other. With that said, however, it can be noted that perhapse a few aspects about the article could stand to be changed. First and foremost- the 'Jehovah' section is way too short, and mention of Him is so minute that it appears we believe Jesus is running the show, which we do not.
 * If there is something else of substance to add under the section, 'Jehovah', then add it. However, having more there just so there is more about Jehovah than there is about Jesus is not a good enough reason.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless 'controversies' continue to take place in this topic such as 'child abuse' and 'racism' without any bit of factual proof. I can honestly say that there is NO FORM of child abuse or racism in JW affairs. So don't believe anything you hear or read about a JW unless you're hearing it from one. If I came off as harsh, I apologize.

Passivechicken (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not logical to only believe something about JWs that is said by a JW. How is that supposed to give people an impartial viewpoint? JWs tell people their views about other people's religious beliefs and organisations. Why should they not expect the same in return?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reference in this article to racism. The cited source for the single reference to sexual abuse is barely acceptable and should either be improved or the reference removed. I'll try to find a better one, because the isssue has attracted much media attention. The section on "Jehovah" is a brief and adequate summary of the religion's belief in God and its distinctive use of his name. There are fewer words in this section than there are about Jesus, but this is hardly an imbalance. There does, however, need to be more detail on the religion's leadership and organizational structure, explaining the work of the Governing Body, which is the real group "running the show". Your suggestion that nothing about the religion should be believed unless it is spoken by a member of that religion is nonsense. Presumably you'd say the same about Scientology or radical Islamists. The Watchtower Society has a long tradition of ignoring criticism and expelling critics, thus (in theory at least) prohibiting Witnesses from listening to their criticism. A Wikipedia article, on the other hand, uses reliable, third-party sources to provide a balance of views to provide the truth. But your apology is accepted. LTSally (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If this article were only to cite the testimony of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, it would be nothing more than a propaganda piece. And just because a person identifies him/herself as a Witness does not make them an expert on the movement or on its doctrines. Anecdotal evidence is akin to no evidence at all. Attention must be given to broad statistical studies and to the testimony of critics and neutral observers. Sungmanitu (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the necessity to present criticisms and controversies when presenting information about a religion or philosophy. My issue with this article is that in the description of Jehovah's Witnesses it presents controversies. Shouldnt it just define what Jehovah's Witnesses are and controversies left in the controversy section?

I also find that the child abuse accusation should be followed with an explanation. It seems it is just stated as being an issue and that's that. Most people do not dig deeper to read that the issue lies in the theocratic process that if a child is abused 2 eye-witnesses must confirm or they have to believe the offender if they say they do not abuse the child. This is just the elders' way of believing in the honesty of a Christian, however, if the truth ever came out that in fact the person was abusing a child they would be disfellowshipped, along with any elders or people that tried covering it up or were involved in some way. But if that makes the article too long to have that explained, I would suggest removing the accusation since it does not add to an article presenting a religious belief unless anyone can provide evidence that the dogma or beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses directly encourage or support child abuse. Brocknroll81 (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the article is more than just a definition. A simple Google search will show that Jehovah's Witnesses attract much controversy and negative comment, so it is fair and reasonable to include within the article reference to the controversy they attract. The sex abuse issue is one sentence contained in the "Controversies" section; this section is only a summary of the splitoff article, which deals with it in greater detail. LTSally (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am full aware of what this site is. No need to insult my intelligence. Upon reading all your contributions on this page, LTSally, I have alot of respect and admiration for your deligence and dedication to presenting all information in a fair manner. I understand I am new to the community, but can only ask you give me the benefit of a doubt and extend the same consideration. That said; do you not agree that in any written document the subject should be presented with nuetral unobjectional facts first. Then present the pros and cons. In the world of documenting information, it is a cumbersome task to balance the subjective and objective but this should be considered at all times. It is only fair to the subject to be presented in nuetral facts at first. Brocknroll81 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to insult your intelligence. But I think you'll find the answer to your point at Lead section. LTSally (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link Sally. I think the article currently reflects the appropriate subjective tone now. And the child abuse is in it's proper section and cited and explained very appropriately and fair. Brocknroll81 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I need to start putting references to audio files of talks and assemblies. The religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is much more than the Watchtower Society. Also references to child abuse need to be removed since that is never a teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses. talk)17 January 2009

Introduction and Critisism
I really do not like this paragraph in the introduction. "The group has been criticized as authoritarian[10] and accused of coercing members to obey doctrines including the ban on blood transfusions.[11] The religion is said to demand unquestioning obedience from members, with the consequence of expulsion and shunning facing any who fail to comply with, express doubts about, or disagree with doctrines.[12][13]"

To we really need this in the introduction? Also, many of the statements in the opening paragraph are completly lies and unfounded. Look at the article on the Roman Catholic Church I didn't notice even a single line of critisism anywhere, when there is much more to critisize the church over then there is to critisize Witnesses!!!--Kanata Kid (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Kanata Kid, if you haven't noticed by now the vast majority of wikipedia articles are controlled by a clique of editors. The reason the Catholic Church article has next to no criticism within the article is down to a very strong clique of editors who work together impose an agenda. I am in no way claiming the Jehovah's Witnesses article has such an agenda, I don't edit here to form an opinion. My advice is to take each article with a pinch of salt and definitely read the Discussion page to ensure article opinion isn't being generated through group bullying. Check out The Wikipedia Review for a more balanced view of the website. Jamie (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't particularly matter that you dislike that paragraph. It is well sourced, and has been demonstrated as consensus-baased, per prior threads in this page. The statements in the opening paragraphs are neither lies nor unfounded. The entire paragraph is sourced. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just read the updated introduction today. That is a very balanced presentation of the facts. Bravo. Brocknroll81 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the "Witnesses" that post their comments should not be taken seriously. I am a former JW and I know that witnesses are commanded by god to "preach the good news far and wide" however they are also advised that the Internet is not the forum for doing this. leading me to believe that the are not JW's or are not accurate depiction's of what the JW's want to portray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.154.197 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Status as a cult
Shouldn't this article mention that Jehovah's Witnesses are viewed by the majority of Christians as a cult and not true Christians. And by the majority of Christians I mean the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Methodist Church, Episcopalean Church, Baptist Church, Pentecostal Church, and numerous others all identifying Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult. As it is, the intro identifying the group as a "Christian denomination" is a highly controvercial statement. The majority of Christians would not view this group as being Christian. I personally have nothing against Jehovah's Witnesses but it seems to me that its a bit of an POV push to define them in this way. Perhaps something like "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion which has its roots in Christianity. However, it's identification as a Christian organization is a controvercial topic as many major Christian denominations denounce the religion as a cult." If you need references to support the fact that this is an official position of many denominations I can provide them. Broadweighbabe (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Shouldn't this article mention that Jehovah's Witnesses are viewed by the majority of Christians as a cult and not true Christians". How are they viewed by the majority of Muslims, or atheists, or...? Any time we charge a group of people with deciding whether X qualifies as Y, we risk being preferential. Usually it's easiest to just let the group classify themselves, while noting (as we already do in this article) that the classification isn't universal. Ilkali (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. By defining them as "Christian" than aren't you taking away the right of Christians to define what a Christian is? Shouldn't the Christian community as a whole get a voice? What makes an atheist's view more valid than a Christians? Here are several books from across the Christian milieu all identifying the group as a cult:










 * The Catholic Church's Apologetic stance against Jehovah's Witnesses



These are just a few examples of literally hundreds of publications that identify this group as a cult. It's not a fringe opinion by any means and really should be included in the lead. By all means I think the group's own self definition should be included as well. Isn't the point of neutrality presenting all sides to an issue? I merely want to bring some balance to the article. Further, if you look at major encyclopedias like Britannica, the group is defined as a "religious movement" with the terms "Christian" or "Christian denomination" left out on purpose by discriminating editors. Not every topic can be easily defined or conveniantly categorized. Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This argument is self-contradictory! It claims that "the Christian community as a whole" has a right to determine a definition of 'Christianity', but conveniently excludes from that 'community' any that don't conform to a subset of Christians.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an incorrect spin on my arguement. First of all, the term "Christian" can have several possible interpretations which are all equally valid. It's not wikipedia's job to pick and choose which theology is right and which one is wrong. Merely to present the facts. The facts in this case are that a significant portion of Christians form multiple subsets do not recognize Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians. Therefore, definining the group as Christians is controvercial. Wikipedia should be able to present a controvercial issue without giving an authoratative opinion that chooses one side of the arguement over another side.05:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are partially right. In fact, it is not Wikipedia's "job to pick and choose" any theology is right. This is a secular encyclopedia, and JWs are Christian based on secular definitions of the word Christian - following the teachings of (attributed to) 'Christ' and believing him to be the son of god.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "By defining them as "Christian" than aren't you taking away the right of Christians to define what a Christian is?" What right? Christians don't own the language used to describe them.
 * "These are just a few examples of literally hundreds of publications that identify this group as a cult". To be clear: I am not disputing that any group thinks of JWs in this way. I am disputing the significance of that claim. Ilkali (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First I would agree that Christians don't have the sole right to define the term, but they do have a right to have a voice. I think the fact that so many authors have written published material designating this group as a cult establishes the notability of the opinion. Frankly, the fact you don't believe it significant surprises me. It seems like a no brainer to me. Wouldn't the fact that the vast majority of Christian organizations dissassociate themselves from this group seem to matter when discussing the organization. Defining Jehovah's Witnesses as a "christian organization" is a biased opinion as is not defining it as one. That's why both views should be presented in the lead. What I find most ammusing is your contradictory logic. One minute you are saying that groups should have the right to define themselves and the next that they don't. I am not advocating either view. My opinion is that all notable views deserve a voice. And this is a major prevelant view. Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the books you've cited there, but if they are authoritative and balanced themselves, it's reasonable to add a line, citing sources, of that claim by those authors. I'd be cautious about the wording, though -- the claim that "Jehovah's Witnesses are viewed by the majority of Christians as a cult and not true Christians" sounds dubious. The word "cult" has been observed to be applied to any religion the commentator simply doesn't like. Certainly many reference works, including those specifically examining Jehovah's Witnesses, regard the group as a bona fide religion. LTSally (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "First I would agree that Christians don't have the sole right to define the term, but they do have a right to have a voice". And how do we neutrally decide how much of a voice to give any particular group?
 * "Wouldn't the fact that the vast majority of Christian organizations dissassociate themselves from this group seem to matter when discussing the organization". Nobody's claiming it doesn't matter. Read what I wrote: "Usually it's easiest to just let the group classify themselves, while noting [...] that the classification isn't universal". There used to be mention of this controversy in the lead, but it's apparently gone now. I would tentatively support reintroduction of that material.
 * "What I find most ammusing is your contradictory logic. One minute you are saying that groups should have the right to define themselves and the next that they don't". Again, read what I write. I have said that groups should be allowed to choose their own label, but I haven't said that they should be able to decide who else can take that label.
 * "My opinion is that all notable views deserve a voice". Creationism is a notable view, but Origin of life still redirects to Abiogenesis. This idea of "deserving" a "voice" is utterly wrong. NPOV isn't about apportioning article space among all interested parties and hoping the end result is balanced, and there's no requirement to only use claims that nobody will ever disagree with. Ilkali (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It can be stated in the article that some groups claim that they're a cult if properly referenced by authoratitive sources. However, there is not enough unbiased concensus that they are cult. Also, even if they're a cult, it doesn't change the fact that the religion is a restorationist Christian group.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated about this time last year that this debate arose: "If JWs believed that Jesus was a pink cat that gorged itself on pig entrails and told people to only communicate through interpretive dance, then you might have a point." JW beliefs are fundamentally Christian in that they follow the teachings of Jesus as they interpret them, and believe him to be the saviour of mankind, the Messiah, and the son of god, which is the basic definition of Christianity. Enforcing further definitions of Christianity is POV. This argument arises occasionally, and the result is always the same.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Jeffro's version, which includes the line "The organization's teachings and practices diverge greatly from traditional Christian theology, which has caused several major Christian denominations to denounce the group as either a cult or heretical sect." is an adequate, informative and balanced reference in the intro. LTSally (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I would like you to produce a source actually defining the group as a "Christian denomination". Every encyclopedia I've come across avoids using the term preferring the term "religous movement" as the prior is controvercial and the latter acceptable to all parties. Second, the fact that a significant number of of major Christian institutions would not define Jehovah's Witness as "Christian" should matter. Wikipedia really shouldn't be making a decision in a controvercial topic over who is right and who is wrong. Defining the group as either "Christian" or "not Christian" is biased. We need to remain neutral. That seems like a fairly reasonable interpretation of neutrality guidelines. As for a definition of Christian I would assert that the above definition wouldn't coincide with a number of theologians, with some holding stricter interpretations and others much less stringent. Defining Christianity is a somewhat loaded topic. I also don' think that the above sentence by Jeffro acurately depicts the scope and breadth of opposition faced by the JWs. Broadweighbabe (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Defining the group as either "Christian" or "not Christian" is biased. We need to remain neutral". I already addressed this. You could find someone, somewhere, who'll disagree with any claim we might make. The solution is not to hide every statement under a "group X says..." disclaimer. There is no bias in picking a uniform strategy that prioritises self-identification - in fact, it's one of the only ways we can avoid bias. Ilkali (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Defining the group as either "Christian" or "not Christian" is biased. So you'd say the same about the Anglican or Catholic churches? Who decides? Because a group of churches gather and decide that the Nicene Creed is the basis of defining a Christian religion, does that make them the arbiters? Majority rules? If a religion demonstrably claims to follow the teachings of Jesus and claims to worship God and uses the Bible, then they're fairly and reasonably called Christian. It would give the Watchtower Society, which believes they are the only true religion, the greatest satisfaction if there was a definitive rule for defining a Christian religion, or the "true" religion, but there's not and that's why there are so many religions. Cut to the basics, you want to impose your view on an encyclopedia's description of them. There is no POV on this issue in the article at the moment. The point you made has been accommodated and neutrality has been maintained. LTSally (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to LTSally, the breadth of opposition in this case is so wide that I think its not out of line to suggest some careful crafting of language that would neither assert a Christian affiliation or a lack of Christian affiliation. Hence why I prefer the term religous movement. This isn't just a small group of individuals kicking up a fuss. This is the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Methodist Church, Baptist Church, Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church, the Assemblies of God, and numerous other denominations. We're talking about the bulk of Christian institutions world wide. I agree that self identification plays a role but not the only role. Does a terrorist identify himself as a terrorist? No. Would a cult identify itself as a cult? No. Self identification isn't always a reflection of truth. On the other hand, is the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Methodist Church, etc. correct in their opinion? Maybe yes and maybe no. It's really up to each individual and not wikipedia to decide. But regardless, we have numerous publications from numerous authors affiliated with a diverse array of Christian denominations that assert that JWs are a cult or a heretical sect. The official policies of said denominations also identify JWs in this way. It really can't be more clear than that. I could easily write a well sourced article that began "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religous cult with Christian roots..." That however would be biased. But the fact that I could do it with verifiable sources should say something. Right now this article is marginalizing the perspective of the majority of Christian institutions. If that isn't an NPOV violation I don't know what is. And the very first sentence is where the neutrality violation is: Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist[1], millenialist[2] Christian denomination. Not everyone would define it that way. In fact a lot of people don't. Broadweighbabe (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The official policies of said denominations also identify JWs in this way. Are you serious? The Roman Catholic Church and Methodist Church both have an official policy that defines Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult? Do they have a list of every Christian denomination within their official policies? Where can these lists be found? This article is marginalizing the perspective of the majority of Christian institutions. Really? It's an encyclopedia article about the religion that acknowledges its beliefs in God and Jesus Christ that mark it as a Christian religion, and notes the dissenting view of some others. No one is being marginalized. LTSally (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly serious that there are official policies that designate them as either a "cult" and/or a "heretical sect". I can say for sure that it is the official position of the Catholic Church, Baptist Church, Assemblies of God, and at least certain branches of the Episcopalean, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran Churches. I can put together the doccumentation if you give me some time and feel its worth it. You'll have to give me about a week or two though. FYI, I am a former Methodist minister and a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary but I'm now an agnostic without an affiliation with any one religion. I'm educated in this area and I do have my own biases that I readily admit to. However, believe it or not I'm doing my best to keep them out of this discussion. I genuinely believe that this article has completely dropped the ball on covering a religous movement that has garnered a wide degree of controversy and opposition. The group is generally dismissed as a cult/heretical sect at most theological seminaries. I guess it's an insiders perspective from the Christian community but it seems to me to be a relevent one. I'll start pilfering through my old polity books for the Methodist position and I've got the Catholic stance in my library which I'll have to dig out. I don't think you will find any such list of "cults" for most of the denominations, although I wouldn't doubt if the Catholic Church and Assembly's of God have one. You will, however, find numerous official appologetic publications put together to defend the denominations teachings against a particualar heretical sect or cult which ammounts to an official designation. My question to you all is that if I actually bother to establish ecclesiastical polity of the different denominations in regards to the designation of the group as a cult/heretical sect, to what extent would that influence the way in which this article was presented. If you're still going to fight me over the definition even after I go to the trouble of lots of research I'd rather not be bothered with it. Broadweighbabe (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A further note, I have purposely been avoiding any theological/hermeneutical debate on this issue (largely because an encyclopedia like wikipedia is not really the forum for personal opinion). As one of my favorite professors said, "Hermeneutics is the process by which we prove what we want to believe. Theology isn't about truth but about being right." You can make theology say anything you want it to. It's not my place to decide whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian or not. It's not my place to even ask the question. It is my place as an editor to point out that a large number of Christian denominations do not recognize this group as Christian and that the defintion of this group as "Christian" is controvercial regardless of my personal feelings, thoughts, and perspectives. You might not like the fact that the term "Christian" is controvercial when applied to this group but it is. That's the reality of the situation. Broadweighbabe (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal: Jehovah's Witnesses were described in the 1954 Walsh case in Scotland as a denomination. The Watchtower of June 1, 1955, seemed happy to accept Judge Strachan's ruling on that. In 1958 they decided they weren't, saying in the Feb 1, 1958 WT: "The New World society is one of primitive Christians, and it is neither a sect nor a denomination in the usual sectarian sense of these words. Rather, it is before the world now as a new nation ..." The book What Man Believes: A Study of the World's Great Faiths (McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1973) says: "The Witnesses say they are not a denomination, but rather an association of men and women who put God's service first." Britannica and several other encyclopedias I checked today use the word "movement" or "sect" to describe them. None use the word "Christian". James Penton's study of them is inconclusive: he describes them at the outset of his Apocalypse Delayed book as a "religious movement", "a religious community" and a sect, but refers to the Adventists, Millerites and Mormons as "other Christians", implying there that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians too.


 * Perhaps "denomination" is the wrong word to use to describe them. But "cult" is too pejorative a word to use. The books cited above may use the term, but many authoritative books and encyclopedias don't. Penton uses the word "sect" repeatedly in describing them, and says in his introduction: "The motivating factor behind their development as a sect and their insistence on remaining one – that is, a religious movement alienated from the world which stress that it alone is the bearer of "the truth' – has been their peculiar millenarian eschatology." (italics mine). Perhaps "Christian sect" would be a better term, but Broadweighbabe would probably balk at that because of the use of the word "Christian." There is no simple solution to this: if the churches that form The Club decide JW's aren't Christian, yet the JW doctrines focus firmly on God as the creator and Jesus Christ as God's Son, the redeemer, the Messiah, yet with a different interpretation of their roles or nature (and they insist they are Christian), who can make a definitive decision? I'd suggest "restorationist, millenialist religious movement" in the opening line as a compromise, yet retain "Christian" in their orientation in the infobox. Whatever the outcome, I don't think this debate warrants yet another Neutrality tag on the article. That's overdramatising the issue. LTSally (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LTSally, you were on the right track when you noted that they are legally identified as a 'denomination'. However, the doctrinal view of JWs that they are 'not a demoniation in a sectarian sense' (in their attempt to assert themselves as a continuation of 'original' Christianity) is not a defining point for such status as a denomination in a secular encyclopedia for the same reason that the definitions set for by other Christian religions does not affect a secular definition of their being Christian.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To illustrate, a particular dentist might include unorthodox methods, which the bulk of dentists might find unacceptable, and he might be disavowed by varius dental associations - they might object that he's not a real dentist. But he's still a dentist. (Not really sure why I chose dentists - perhaps I was just trying to get to the tooth of the matter - now that was painful!)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Broadweighbabe's recommendation that "this article mention that Jehovah's Witnesses are viewed by the majority of Christians as a cult and not true Christians" is now included in the article. Case closed .-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you LTSally for obviously putting a lot of thought and effort into your response. Its nice to work with an editor who thinks intelligently. Jeffro77, not all of my issues have been addressed in the articles current form. I still disagree with the first sentence of the article which is a blatant POV push. Now for my comments. I agree that cult is too pejorative a word to use in the opening definition of the lead. Not everyone views the Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult and it would be unfair to suggest so. As Jeffro has pointed out the fact has been added to the article that the group is viewed as a cult by several Christian denominations. I would also agree that "restorationist, millenialist religious movement" is probably the best term, and is in fact pretty much what I have been advocating from the start. However, I suggest avoiding using Christian as a descriptive term, even in the infobox, while noting that the group has roots in Christianity. In this case it's not so easy to categorize or label this group without adhering to one bias or another. There is a reason why encyclopedias like Britanicca avoid using the term Christian. Info boxes are a pet peeve of mine at wikipedia, which I think uses them way too much. We try to disseminate information neatly into info boxes when often times information out of context becomes misleading and devoid of essential nuance. In this case we have a label that means different things to different people and its application here isn't agreed upon by all parties. How do you fit that into an infobox? Even with important studies supporting the label of Christian, I can produce others that would challenge the assertion. Then you have those that would use the term "Christian cult" or "Christian heresy" in defining the group. Labeling a religion's orientation as "Christian" implies a totally different meaning than "Christian cult" would. In my view its just easier to remove this category from the infobox all together since its a topic that can only be handled in a neutral way within a contextualized paragraph.Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure the case is closed! My point was that when I searched external reference books, I could find none that actually called the Witnesses a Christian denomination. And not even the Witnesses themselves make that claim (though admittedly because they consider themselves something better!). Because Wikipedia draws its information from outside sources, it's a fair call to ask, as Broadway did, to see the basis of the claim that they are a Christian denomination. You deleted that {fact} tag without supplying a reference. I'll repeat my suggestion that it might be a safer course to describe them in the opening sentence as a restorationist, millenialist religious movement. That, at least, is a term used by outside reference books. LTSally (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree LTSally. Further, even if a reference is found wouldn't restorationist, millenialist religious movement still be better since its the more common presentation of JWs and the least controvercial definition? Also remember wikipedia requires multiple sources.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let's wait a day or two for other comment. There's only four of us in on this conversation at the moment, someone else may have an opinion. LTSally (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses are referred to as a cult by persons belonging to mainstream Christian denominations seems irrelevant to me. "Cult" is a very specific term in the sociology of religion and should not be used to describe the JW movement unless we would use the non-scientific, common parlance-form of the word (basically any religion that seems weird to the observer). This would not be maintaining a neutral point of view. "Institutionalized sect" is the proper categorical classification for the the Jehovah's Witnesses. Consider: Jehovah's Witnesses are not (at least not any longer) led by a charismatic leader. They have not adopted a new (or supposedly lost) body of sacred writ. They do fit squarely in the Millerite/Adventist tradition. They have adopted the denomination-like aspects of bureaucratic authority structures and explicitly defined doctrine. They maintain some of their original protest elements (claiming to be the only true religion, labeling their parent religion as "apostate," etc.) In short, I submit they are no more a "cult" than are the Amish, Mennonites, or Hutterites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sungmanitu (talk • contribs) 15:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is advocating that we refer to JWs as a cult in the definition. However, the fact that the group has been designated a cult and/or heretical sect by a large number of Christian denominations and in a lot of publications should be mentioned whether we personally agree or disagree with that designation or not. Its a fact that JWs are considered a cult by a significant number of Christians. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevent. I personally don't see how numerous published sources, which I've only provided the tip of the ice berg, as well as official policies of major international denominations would be not relevent since such denominations have a considerable influence over public opinion, public perception, religous debate, and theological study/inquiry. One only has to do a quick google search to find thousands of websites denouncing or defending JWs for this reason. Like it or not this is a major topic of discussion in Christian circles on both the conservative and liberal side. It's an essential issue surrounding the group and its one that JWs themselves spend a lot of time trying to refute. Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would certainly agree that the controversy over this issue should be mentioned at some point in the article. I propose that it be moved to the criticism and controversy section, however, rather than in the opening section.  When one reads the Wikipedia entry on the Roman Catholic Church, for example, one doesn't read in the first few paragraphs that a great many Christians consider it to be the Whore of Babylon (even though that might be noteworthy at some point in the article).  Also, for the sake of balance, I would like to see some reference to a more precise sociological term to classify the movement.  As I said before, they do not fit the description of a cult or new religious movement.  "Sect" (or more specifically, "institutionalized sect") is the correct term.Sungmanitu (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's important enough to remain in the intro, but moved to become the opening sentence of the fourth paragraph, thus keeping the negative aspects together. But it should also be mentioned, fully referenced, in the Criticisms and Controverseies section of the article. Why do you assert that "institutionalized sect" is the correct classification? Where does that come from? LTSally (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Penton was the first to suggest that classification. I've lost my copy, but I remember it being mentioned in the first few pages.  Also see http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/cstheory.htm and the Wikipedia article (admittedly rather sketchy when it comes to citations) on "sociological classifications of religious movements."Sungmanitu (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I still hold that "religous movement" is the most commonly used phrase. It's used by pretty much every encyclopedia, including Britannica. I don't think sect is the best word because a sect typically refers to a group which has broken off from a well-established religious group, like a denomination, which really wasn't the case here as the Bible Student movement was a movement in itself. There identification as a Christian sect is also disputed by several denominations which view the group as a cult. Others, like the Catholic Church however, refer to the group as a heretical sect. So sect isn't really a bad choice but I don't think its the best choice. Religous movement is a term that everyone could agree on; it carries a less negative connotation as a sect (at least in certain theological circles) and its the most commonly used phrase in the sources already used at this article. As for the designation as a cult or heretical sect, in this case I think it would belong in the lead by virtue of the breadth and depth of opposition. The Catholic Church is a false analogy. Most denominations recognize the Catholic Church as being Christian. Only a handful would criticize it as the whore of Babylon, etc. In this case, JWs are pretty much opposed by every single major denomination. That's not a position held by many other movements or sects. It's pretty unusual actually.Broadweighbabe (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why the Jehovah's Witnesses could not be considered a sect. They certainly sprang from the Adventist movements that formed in the aftermath of the Great Disappointment and the collapse of Milleritism.  I suspect that the widespread opposition against them is more a reaction to their aggressive proselytism than to any qualms about their heterodoxy.Sungmanitu (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm entering the fray, in response to Sally's request for more comments. The main point of what I'll say is this: I can go either way; either for "Christian denomination" or for "religious movement". I think they both have good arguments behind them. I have a slight preference for "Christian denomination", because I think it would be a happy instance of calling a spade a spade. Again, the OED def: "a member of a fundamentalist millenary sect, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, founded c1879 (under the name ‘International Bible Students’) by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), which rejects institutional religion and refuses to acknowledge the claims of the State when these are in conflict with the principles of the sect." "Fundamentalist millenary sect" can only apply to a Christian sect/denomination. They read the Bible, and somehow they believe in the Trinity. That's a Christian, even if they are rather odd, as viewed from the viewpoint of most/mainstream Christians. Also, looking at the recent archives, it seems there was at least some measure of consensus for calling them "Christian" in the recent past; this was on 15 September and is located in Archive 35; just a bit of precedent for you. Anyway, it seems a bit PC and undue weight to insist on replacing "Christian denomination" with "religious movement". On the other hand, "religious movement" is accurate and it seems we can easily source it. So I can't really argue with it. I have a slight pref for maintaining the status quo, but in the interest of compromise and coming to a decision, I can settle for "religious movement". Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why believing in the Trinity is material to the definition of a Christian. Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity, but they do fit the dictionary definition of Christian: "One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."Sungmanitu (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point; I've struck though the offending part. But yes, we agree on the point that they should be called Christian. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I move that the term "Christian" remain. "Denomination," however, is the troublesome part.  Jehovah's Witnesses are an offshoot of Adventism, so "Christian sect" would be most accurate. "Denomination" implies an established, conventional religion (which JW's are not).  "Sect" refers to an unconventional organization within an established religious tradition (Witnesses are an Adventist sect).  "Cult" (or the more politically correct term, "New Religious Movement") refers to an atypical group with a novel system of beliefs that has little in common with preexisting doctrines.  See http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_doktor.htm   Granted that "sect" is sometimes used pejoratively (incorrectly, in my view,) "Christian religious movement" could be substituted. Sungmanitu (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps "Christian-based religious movement" could be used. The BBC Religion page does it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/ataglance/glance.shtml  Sungmanitu (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Christian-based religious movement" sounds fair to me. The orientation in the infobox should remain as Christian. Christianity is certainly the direction in which they are oriented. LTSally (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that any special qualifiers on 'Christian' ('Christian-based', 'self-identify as Christian', 'psuedo-Christian' etc) imply more bias than leaving out 'Christian' altogether. They are quite definitely a Christian group, and no good secular definition has ever been offered that contradicts this. The fact that they are 'restorationist' also identify them as 'Christian'. It is stated in the article that other religions dispute their status as Christian, and that is sufficient.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I for one agree wholeheartedly with the unqualified "Christian" label. To define Christians as only those who accept historically orthodox creeds would necessarily exclude Gnostics and others.  What would we call them, then?  "Heretic" is a label only given by the religion which believes itself correct to the one it considers wrong.  Wikipedia can take no sides in religious debates.  On another note I would prefer to see "sect" instead of "religious movement," since it is more precise, but I understand this would invite specious protests. Sungmanitu (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that wikipedia should avoid taking sides in the debate. Thats why I have been advocating that we not use the term Christian as a label at all. As Jeffro77 has stated, "special qualifiers on 'Christian' ('Christian-based', 'self-identify as Christian', 'psuedo-Christian' etc) imply more bias than leaving out 'Christian' altogether." On the other hand, identifying the group as Christian clearly is biased since its taking an explicit side in a debated issue. I would further point out that some of the arguements used above (like they follow the teachings of Jesus) are validly up for debate with this group. How do you define the teachings of Jesus with a group that rewrites them willy nilly without any basis in historical record, textual criticism, or any other standard hermeneutical tool of theological research or study? They may not have technically adopted a new (or supposedly lost) body of sacred writ, but they have substantially changed the Biblical text to the level that it is in all practical terms a different book (hence why JWs have a different bible). They basically made their religion up. (Of course I would say all religions are fiction, but thats my personal opinion.) However, we aren't here to make a theological arguement but an editorial one. There is a reason why encyclopedias like Britanicca have avoided identifying this group as Christian. Its to avoid bias. You can make some great arguements to define them as Christian but you can make some great ones from the other side as well. Picking one side is just wrong. I don't see why we can't just not use the label Christian. Labels have implications whether you like it or not. This is a case where a label's implementation is controvercial and has certain implications that present a problem. I can't be any clearer than that. The best solution to this problem would be to address the label problem with verified sources in its own section. We could then address self label, secular label(s), and the labels given by other Christian writers/denominations. That, however, could turn into fifty page thesis if you let it. Wikipedia's definition, however, should avoid all controvercial labels.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We can all agree (or at least we can irrefutably source) that it is restorationist and millenialist. Accepting these descriptors, it seems a bit silly not to accept that JW is a Christian religious movement/denomination/what-have-you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if "following the teachings of Jesus" is necessarily part of the definition of Christian, as that is a loaded statement. Who gets to define the teachings of Jesus (or whoever wrote his lines)?  "Claims to follow the teachings of Jesus" should be all that is necessary.  The JW bible differs only slightly from other translations, granted at certain texts crucial to the exegetical conclusions of mainstream Christians, but nonetheless those verses are possible and technically correct translations.  It is a prejudiced exaggeration to say it is a substantially different book.  From a sociological secular point of view the Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian sect. 75.171.246.130 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there are only slight differences and that the translations are "technically correct"; a fact that any Greek scholar (including secular ones like myself) outside of the JW camp would say. Greek is an incredibly precise language, probably the most precise language ever created since it includes more verb tenses and a much more complex use of nominatives. But you don't really want me to start rambling on about the 2nd aorist tense or postpositives in Greek etc. Suffice to say, there are significant changes which reinterpret the Bible in such a way that the outcome of the overall content is entirely different. To suggest otherwise is just frankly inaccurate. As for your definition of Christian, I personally agree with it. I even agree that from a sociological secular point of view the Jehovah's Witnesses could be defined as either a Christian sect or a Christian religous movement (I personally prefer the latter). However, once again there is controvercy here and I think a more careful crafting of the language to reflect that controvercy is appropriate in the context of an encyclopedia. It's fine to use the word Christian if we say who is saying it and what they mean by it. But to just start the article that "JWs are a Christian religous movement" we do neither, and it's sloppy writing given the controversy around the term and its application to this group. That's my main beef. I'm not saying you all are wrong, I agree with you. I just think there is a better way to approach it. Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that it perfectly reflects the wording of the source, were you ok with "Christian-based religious movement", Broadweigh? Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this debate over? Broadway now accepts that "from a sociological secular point of view the Jehovah's Witnesses could be defined as either a Christian sect or a Christian religous movement " (the very term in the article), yet he still thinks this is "controvercial". The only one creating "controvercy" here is Broadweigh. His objections have been accommodated, the objection of Orthodox Christian churches to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses is noted prominently and there is general agreement that if they are a restorationist, millenialist religion that accepts the Bible, professes faith in Christ and the Judeo-Christian God and is awaiting the next move by the Messiah to bring about God's Kingdom, then they are Christian. The one reservation may be the lack of outside encyclopedias or refernce works that explicitly define them as Christian, but given the above evidence, it's reasonable to make that call. LTSally (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict. ressponse was to Carl.bunderson)If we can define what we mean by Christian in the article itself then sure. We would also have to point out that the term, although applied in a secular context, might not be applied to the group by a large number of Christians. If we can explain exactly what we mean by "Christian", than I have no problem using the term. That's easier said then done, and hard to do without making the lead bulky. That's why I opted for leaving it out of the lead all together and creating a section further down in the article. My whole point has been that the term is controvercially applied here and that we need to be careful using the term Christian in this case. If we use it we owe it to the reader to explain it. That's not something you have to do in every article about a Christian group, but its necessary here given the controvercy. My suspicion is that encyclopedias have avoided the term Christian in this case for this very reason.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. What makes you think I am a he? ;-)Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, my suggestion is this: maintain the article as it is now (Christian religious movement; plus having this sentence: "The organization's teachings and practices diverge greatly from traditional Christian theology, which has caused several major Christian denominations to denounce the group as either a cult or heretical sect." in the lead.), but adding a section to the body that expands on the controversy of whether or not JW is "Christian". Thoughts? Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That would seem reasonable to me.Broadweighbabe (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, well since you brought it up, and you presumably have those six books you listed, you do it :P Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Best place would be the opening paragraph to the Beliefs section. LTSally (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. Give me some time. I'll want to pull together the best resources possible, and preferably secular ones that address the issue.Broadweighbabe (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had written another comment in here last night (or at least I thought I had, but apparently I must have closed the window before clicking Save (perhaps a lack of caffiene in the blood stream). Anyway, regardless of the differences in JW theology to that of most other Christian religions, they are Christian in a secular sense - they aren't Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim or some other thing, their principle beliefs are quite obviously Christian in that they believe Jesus was the Messiah, the son of god sent to redeem mankind, and they seek to follow his teachings as they understand them. Whether JW beliefs (or any other Christian beliefs) are true is irrelevant. The first references in history to Christianity are from the first century, so JWs failing to comply with rules established in the fourth century cannot be used to classify them as non-Christian (neither does that ratify their claim of restoring original Christianity). I don't think the article calls for a lengthy definition of 'Christian'; it seems sufficient to say that mainstream Christian religions dispute their status as such, which is already in the article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also had mentioned that any claim that JWs are a sect/cult instead of being Christian is also invalid, as they are not mutually exclusive. I will be away for the next few days, but will check in again on Monday.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffro77. Here are some links to secular references classifying the Witnesses as a sect of Adventism and an "established sect:" http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Jehovah's.htm  http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessionid=LQDJ9VKHbYhT2RqCynXwpRv1WVGnpy6398Jg9LfGSg7knyNcDGhh!23083005?a=o&d=97803201 and, even more explicitly, as a "Christian sect:" http://www.springerlink.com/content/p70t402339861562/  To claim that JW's are non-Christian would be to side with subjective, religiously-motivated (i.e. biased) opinion. Sungmanitu (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I googled dictionary and encyclopedia and then searched for Jehovah's Witnesses in the first link in each category. Both define JW's as Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.147.109 (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm jumping into the discussion late, and I'm not displeased with the decision you all reached, but it seems Broadweigh's whole problem is that calling JWs christian is "controversial," saying, "Wikipedia's definition, however, should avoid all controvercial labels." Is Wikipedia's mission to avoid controversy at all costs? It seems to me that Wikipedia should, and does, it's best to avoid bias and POV, but that anything neutral will be controversial to people who have strong opinions about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.102.99.252 (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I only skimmed over the previous statements, so I am sorry if I am repeating something or getting off topic. A christian is someone who is a follower of Jesus christ and practices the religion that he instituted, the structure of which is found in the Bible. By this definition, none of the "christian" denominations that label Jehovah's Witnesses a cult are actually christian themselves. For example, many (dare I say most) of the practices of Catholicism do not originate with the Bible, but rather with pagan practices that were adopted by the church after the third century as well as traditions that arose from corrupt medieval church officials attempts to control the masses. These include: the concept of the trinity, the idea that Jesus was God incarnate, life after death, hell, the cross and the divinity of said cross, the veneration of mary, and many more that I have probably forgotten in this hasty rant. On top of these, the Catholic church also permits things such as military service requiring the taking of life. Some churches now even allow homosexuals to hold prominent positions in the church (prominent positions that Jesus did not even institute to begin with). Do these people really have the right to call us a cult? At least we don't have false doctrines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.205.164 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses persecuted over rejecting alternative military service / Non-combatant service.
USER Broadweighbabe, you’re edit is incorrect. Stop reverting my edit without a proper response. First off, the Watchtower Tract Society has directly stated that they are not pacifists, look it up. Secondly, the exact reason why JW’s were often persecuted over military service was because they refused what pacifistic religions accepted… alternative or non-combatant military service. So in most instances where witnesses were imprisoned for rejecting military conscription, alternative service WAS offered by the Gov’t to only be willingly rejected. However, this same service is accepted by almost all pacifists like Amish, Mennonites, Christadelphians, Quakers, Catholic Worker Movement, ect. As you see, this truly has nothing to do with pacifism, as all these pacifists typically accept civil duty instead of combatant duty. To not include this information would be a disservice to the entire point of that sentence and to what makes JW’s truly different from the hundreds of other anti-war denominations. Their persecution over military service historically was almost always precisely the issue of not accepting alternative service, and not technically because they refuse to kill.

In actually, Witnesses will kill or use lethal force if necessary for self defense... Witnesses are not pacifists, and their refusing military service has far more to do with being "no part of the world" than it has to it with refusing to kill for self-defense as it can be argued that a government is merely and extension of two or more people for a common purpose, and surely two or more people have the right to use lethal force for self-defense from invaders seeking to do you harm.Jadon (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify what you mean by "even non-combatant duty"? You may mean alternative service, but that policy was changed in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, to allow Witnesses to accept this as a matter of conscience. Raymond Franz details the background to this extensively in Crisis of Conscience. LTSally (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, conscience matters. When Jehovah's Witness publications speak of something being a "conscience matter", it is almost always hinted that a strong conscience will not allow one to go on the course portrayed as that of least resistance; Example: a christian with strong faith and a strong conscience would not be afraid to defy compulsory military service laws and suffer imprisonment or even death (or perhaps a trip to Canada). Only if his faith is weak will his conscience also be weak enough to allow him to bend to the fear caused by governmental policies. I know of no Jehovah's Witnesses who would find ANY kind of military service acceptable, whether that means, killing, healing killers, or fixing killers vehicles and weapons.

article much better now
Haven't read the Jehovah's Witnesses article in a while, and I have to say it's much better than the last time I read it, which was six or eight months ago. Then it sounded like a member of the governing body wrote it. 173.102.99.252 (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Who better? At least that way, the things said about us will be facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.205.164 (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What do Jehovah's Witnesses think about teenagers?
I've just reading an online article called, "Parents - Be a Fine Example for Your Children" which quotes columnist William Brown as saying that: “If there is any single, secular God for the teenager it is the God of conformity. . . . Being different for teens is a fate worse than death.” What else do Jehovah's Witnesses think about teenagers, seeing as there isn't any specific reference to that stage of life in the Bible, I don't think?

Mandmelon (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vision for the Jehovah's Witnesses pages
I'm interested in better communities - communities that produce artisans, athletes, thinkers. I think that it is important to use your hands regularly so as to keep your mind fresh. Whatever you can access in the world around is what can reward you. I was just reading an article on the Watchtower Society website about cleanliness. It says: "The problem is that some teachers do use cleaning as a means of punishment." "A former director general of the Commonwealth of Australia supported this conclusion when he said: "All questions of public health reduce themselves to a consideration of the one man, the one woman, the one child."" I think it would be informative to look at the attitude of Jehovah's Witnesses towards men, women and children (and possibly teenagers too).

Mandmelon (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject matter is hardly significant to Jehovah's Witnesses is it? It may be very well informative but it is veering into the realms of original reasearch. The article should stick to the main tenets of the religion plus areas of significance. Where do you draw the line once you start to include sections like Attitudes of Jehovah's Witnesses towards men, women & children. Jamie (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Policty
It has come to my attention that Jehovah's Witnesses on this site have been label as "Polity Hierarchical." The majority of Religions on Wikipedia do not have a polity listed. The hierarchical label is actually derogatory. Hierarchical means that Witnesses have One individual or a single group of people that has absolute control of the rest. This label has been placed on Witnesses as well as Mormons, in my opinion with negative objectives. Such a label needs to be discussed. The Watchtower Society teaches a hierarchical is the bases for clergy/laity distinctions. See JV chapter 4 --Saujad (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're correct that the "Proclaimers" book in chapter 4 spends a lot of time denouncing the hierarchical development of the Catholic Church. That doesn't alter the fact that authors of studies on Jehovah's Witnesses, including Penton, the Bottings and Raymond Franz, have described the Witnesses as a hierarchical organization, ruled "from the top down" as JF Rutherford used to say, headed by the Governing Body with successive levels of power below them. This fact is noted under the "Organization" section of the main Jehovah's Witnesses article and in Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. Penton, interestingly, goes further in highlighting the curious similarity between the Watchtower hierarhcy and that of the Catholic Church in which:


 * The Pope of Rome = The President of the Watch Tower Society
 * The College of Cardinals = The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses
 * The Papal Curia = The committee structure of the Governing Body
 * The Vatican = The Brooklyn Bethel
 * Archbishops = District Overseers
 * Bishops = Circuit overseers
 * Priests = Elders
 * Deacons = Ministerial servants
 * Regular Orders = Pioneers
 * The Catholic laity = The Jehovah's Witness community


 * He doesn't take that all that seriously, but it's an interesting observation. Saujad, the facts speak for themselves. There is a hierarchy, and a strong one. Wikipedia's information can't be determined by the Watchtower Society's own view of itself. LTSally (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Such comparisons can be made only by people with poor knowledge of Church and Dogma history.--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Polity (organization) being Hierarchical is generally understood to be religions like Catholic, Orthodox and Episcopal. Some extremist labels all cults as hierarchical. I believe this is why someone has misleadingly attached this polity to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.--Saujad (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You've used words such as "derogatory" and "misleading" to describe the use of the word hierarchy. Jehovah's Witnesses clearly have a hierarchy in their organization. They don't use that word in their own literature when describing themselves, but the hierarchy still exists. As far as I can determine, you object to that phrase in this article because other religions you don't like are also hierarchical. LTSally (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It still amazes me when people use Penton and Franz as sources when thes guys are obviously disgruntled and anything they say is suspect. - (Yes I'm) anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.21.174 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Obviously disgruntled". "Anything they say is suspect". I suspect this has been written by someone who hasn't read their work. Their books are shining examples of diligent scholarship and fairness. Both have clearly and carefully revealed untruths, half-truths and inconsistencies published by the Watchtower Society that show the WT Society simply cannot be trusted as a source of balanced and reliable information on the religion's history. But if individual Jehovah's Witnesses are content to receive information on their religion from only one source -- a source that forbids members from reading the works of former members, thus shutting down any criticism -- that's their choice. LTSally (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the main principles of Wikipedia is neutrality when dealing with an issue. Stating that "the WT Society simply cannot be trusted as a source of balanced and reliable information on the religion's history" is not neutral. In fact, Wikipedia is not actually meant for debates or for sharing opinions. If some people want to discuss and critisize Jehovah's Witnesses or their organization, there are various other websites with discussion boards made for that. Summer Song (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree completely with Summer Song. Brocknroll81 (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Doctrinal Controversies
This section of the article needs work. It has many statements that are not backed with reliable citations. The Witnesses are not unfamiliar with these controversies concerning the unfulfilled dates and the controversial date of 1914 being the end of the gentile times and the "invisible enthronement of Christ". So the actual controversies exist and are recognized by the Witnesses themselves. They have addressed these issues and printed their defenses of the false dates (1925 and 1975) in their "Proclaimers" and "Reasoning" books plus some Watchtowers. However printing only the defenses would off balance the information though, I propose we do include the defenses so that people reading the article understand why Jehovah's Witnesses hold fast inspite of the controversy and of course this allows fair representation of the issues to allow readers to come to their own unbiased conclusion.

Another issue is that the three dates presented should not be grouped together for, though they are all controversial, the 1914 date still remains as a fulfilled prophecy to the Witness doctrines. The publication "What the Bible Really Teaches" describes how the date is currently supported.

For now, we need to remove the following until reliable citations are provided:


 * The Watchtower Society has been accused of making false predictions and issuing self-aggrandizing statements.


 * Watchtower publications since the 1870s have issued numerous predictions based on Biblical chronology, many of them surrounding the dates 1914, 1925 and 1975. None of these predictions have been fulfilled.


 * The Watchtower Society has substantially altered doctrines since its inception and abandoned core teachings, many involving Bible chronology, it had earlier claimed as beyond question.

What do you guys think? Brocknroll81 (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair point and I'll accept the blame here. I wrote that section as a summary of the material at the splitoff article. All those statements are fully sourced there. It would clutter up the summary too much to include every citation, but some should certainly exist in the main article. I'll do it in the next day or two. LTSally (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have done some research the past few days looking into the dates (1914, 1925, and 1975) and the information I have found would make the current wording a false statement.

Here is what the article has stated:


 * Watchtower publications since the 1870s have issued numerous predictions based on Biblical chronology, many of them surrounding the dates 1914, 1925 and 1975. None of these predictions have been fulfilled.

So I took the task of tackling each date and look for Watchtowers or other publications that speak on these dates and used critics' citations to help a bit in finding some of the literature. Here is what I have found:

1914- Using 607 BCE as the date for Jerusalem's destruction, the Bible Students placed 1914 as a significant year that would mark "Christ's enthronement" (What Does the Bible Really Teach p216)and Russell and his fellow bible students believed they would be taken into heaven at that time. Alexander H. Macmillan states concerning that time "A few of us seriously thought we were going to heaven during the first week of that October." And while recalling Russell's announcement that the 'End of the Gentile times has come!' Macmillan explains, "We were highly excited and I would not have been surprised if at that moment we had just started up, that becoming the signal to begin ascending heavenward-but ofcourse there was nothing like that." (Proclaimers p 61-62) This apparently caused some problems in which many became disappointed due to such an expectation. However, to this day, according to the 'Bible Teach' book, the Witnesses still hold 1914 as the enthronement of Christ and the 'End of the Gentile' times. Their reasoning for this is explained in both cited publications and pages. They claim to have scriptural and secular/historical backing to this claim.

Proposed action for 1914: we cannot present it as unfulfilled in the article since there is plenty of evidence that shows that Jehovah's Witnesses believe it to have been fulfilled. Stating that it is unfulfilled would imply that their beliefs are wrong therefore taking a bias stance.
 * Note that the fulfilment was supposed to happen in October of 1914 (with "great suddenness" according to the Watchtower. Nothing of what they predicted happened, and they almost always point to the year of 1914 now without 'October' because something happened in that 1914, but not in October.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad, I wasnt more clear on my statement there. What I am referring to is that Witnesses believe that biblical prophecy had been fulfilled that year. Specifically that the End of the Gentile Times and the Enthronement of Christ. As for predictions of Armageddon and the 'heavenly ascention' of the Bible Students, yes it is absolutely unfulfilled. So with that in mind, I still think we cant say that the year 1914 was completely unfulfilled simply because Jehovah's Witnesses do in fact hold that something was fulfilled. Brocknroll81 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any 'unseen' fulfilments are inherently unproved and unprovable, and can only be stated as a belief, not as something that was or might have been fulfilled. None of the visible fulfilments they expected to occur in 1914 ever eventuated, and they are the only things we can speak about in the article with any certainty.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha I see the point and it makes absolute sense. So really it only belongs in the beliefs section concerning 1914. I agree. Brocknroll81 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

1925- This date seems to be the only date of the three the Witnesses believe to be a huge mistake. The expectation of this date stemmed from a publication entitled "Millions Now Living Will Never Die". The booklet stated, "We may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return [from the dead] of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old...to the condition of human perfection." (Proclaimers pg 78) A. D. Schroeder states: “It was thought that then the remnant of Christ’s anointed followers would go to heaven to be part of the Kingdom and that the faithful men of old, such as Abraham, David and others, would be resurrected as princes to take over the government of the earth as part of God’s kingdom.” (1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses Part 2 United States of America p 146) The Watchtower Society released the January 1, 1925 Watchtower which contained the following statement/disclaimer:

''“The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during the year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his own people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire during this year that they would fail to joyfully do what the Lord would have them to do.”'' (1987 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses Switzerland and Liechtenstein p 131-132)

The implications of the "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" were pretty much that Armageddon was to occur. This caused many to disassociate with the Witnesses. “1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed. They had hoped to see some of the ‘ancient worthies’ [men of old like Abraham] resurrected. Instead of its being considered a ‘probability,’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty,’ and some prepared for their own loved ones with expectancy of their resurrection..." recalls one Witness. (1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses Part 2 United States of America p 146)

Proposed action for 1925: This we can still definitely state as an unfulfilled prediction with current citations plus the publications cited here.

1975- As with 1925, this started with a publication. The August 15, 1966 Watchtower speaks of the release of a publication entitled 'Life Everlasting- In Freedom of the Sons of God'. This publication contains a chart on page 31 which contains chronology that marks 1975 as the 6,000 year of Man's Existence. Frederick Franz then addressed the book and its chart and in this address he explains that he has already been asked about the what 1975 means if anything. Franz describes all the possiblilites that 1975 could imply but concludes that "it could" mean those things but that they "are not saying". He also proceeds to tell the crowd "And don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975." He concludes that everyone should just continue on and just keep in mind that "time is short." (Watchtower Magazine August 15, 1968)

In the Proclaimers book the reason for the anxiety of the 6,000 year mark was explained when they disclosed that Witnesses had long shared the belief that the Thousand Year Reign of Christ would follow after 6,000 years of human history. (Proclaimers pg 104) So naturally, the chart contained in the publication sparked yet another expectation of Armageddon.

Proposed action for 1975: Still can remain as unfulfilled, however, this date is different from 1925 in that the Governing Body was careful in not directly making the prediction and printing it and even cautioned other Witnesses from putting too much stock in it. Not sure exactly how to approach presenting this date with that in mind...I will offer any suggestions if and when they come to me. Let's brainstorm. Brocknroll81 (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Watchtower did admit a degree of responsibility for the claims about 1975 in the 15 March 1980 issue, (pages 17-18): ... considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated. ... In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.
 * Also, the May 1974 Kingdom Ministry stated: "Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end." Given that the Watchtower Society explicitly indicates its part in building hopes for 1975 (though they don't draw much attention to that admission), as well as endorsing the views of 1975 held by its members, we can't say the leadership didn't make any specific suggestions about 1975. (Italics theirs)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording is fair and accurate. The Watchower's claims and predictions are spelled out in more detail at History of Jehovah's Witnesses and Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. You'll note that the predictions for 1914 were quite explicit that man-made rule would end then and Armageddon would take place shortly thereafter. Those predictions were wrong. You argue that there is a case to argue the predictions were accurate because "there is plenty of evidence that shows that Jehovah's Witnesses believe it to have been fulfilled." That doesn't make sense and fails to meet the requirements of a secular encyclopedia. The world simply didn't end then.


 * Unfortunately using Watchtower Society publications as your primary source isn't much help: though the original predictions were patently false, subsequent statements by the society, particularly regarding 1914, changed the goalposts by ignoring the parts of the prophecies that failed and claiming only that Russell's predictions centered on 1914 and therefore were correct. Effectively they are trying to rewrite history. Russell believed the "last days" would end in 1914, the WT view now is that they began in 1914. The fact they still hold 1914 as a critical date, despite all secular evidence that proves the pivotal 607BC date (that points to 1914) is wrong, is neither here nor there. The bottom line is they made predictions that failed.


 * Similarly your argument re 1975 doesn't stand up. The information at the History article provides abundant evidence that they built up expectations with statements for which they later (five years later) apologised. LTSally (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, noticing you are claiming I am arguing. I am not arguing anything here. I am just presenting information that might help with the article. Discussion is a better term for this.
 * I have been trying to find articles or published proof that Russell predicted Armageddon in 1914. I have been able to find printed and published statements that they claimed that the "annointed" would be heaven bound that year, but that is not the same as saying Armageddon though some may argue the implication is there possibly leading some Bible Students to feel that also meant Armageddon but we need proof like, Watchtowers or Golden Dawn publications that specifically state Armageddon was to occur. I will keep searching to see what I can find on 1914 but so far all I see are predictions of "heavenly reward" for the annointed, which of course, was not completely fulfilled.


 * Could you possibly tell me the pages in the History of Jehovah's Witnesses where 1914 is detailed? I cannot seem to find it cited in the article...


 * As for 1975, I found the information where they later apologized for 1975. But we have to be careful about jumping to a possible biased conclusion just because someone apologized. I found many Watchtower articles that I can list for you all that shows that there was plenty of published cautioning from 1966-1974 against making set predictions concerning 1975. Many of them referring the readers repeatedly to Matthew 24:36 which pretty much stated that only God knows when Armageddon will occur either by directly citing that scripture or referring them to the 1963 publication of "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial". Now I am not saying that such information justifies the issue.


 * The controversy still remains in the doctrines. I just think the article currently doesnt express or present it accurately. It does express the controversy accurately to critics but that is not what the article should be doing. Brocknroll81 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no argument that 1914 had some failed predictions and expectations. What I am getting down to, LT Sally, is that, as a secular non-biased article, it cannot simply state that 1914 was completely unfulfilled due to the fact that the Witnesses still hold that something was fulfilled that year. Whether they changed their way of viewing it or not, the fact remains they believe something was fulfilled therefore, simply stating it was completely unfulfilled would be stating they are wrong, which is a biased statement. Brocknroll81 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You misread my motives in suggesting the article "does express the controversy accurately to critics". I want to ensure the article is accurate, period. Jehovah's Witnesses, of all people, are the most ignorant of the history of their own religion, and in many cases this is because the WT Society repeatedly engages in efforts to erase the embarrassing facts from their history and present a distorted, whitewashed "truth". Edmond C. Gross, in "Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation" (1972) points out that in the 1889 book, "The Time is at Hand", Russell wrote: "Be not surprised then when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in 1878 and that the battle of the great day of God Almighty, which will end in 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." (pg 101). The book was reprinted in 1915, with the text "1914" changed to "1915". There's an explicit prophecy right there, and a superb example of the Society denying a failed prophecy.


 * The problem with text is that it is easy to misinterpret someone's tone or meaning (Which I could be doing even now, :/ ). I apologize if I insulted you, LTSally, as I have stated before, I have no doubt as to your motive to ensure an accurate article. That is also my motive. Brocknroll81 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The suggestion that anything was fulfilled in 1914 is spurious. The WT Society made explicit prophecies that Armageddon would take place in 1914, the last days would conclude in 1914, the anointed would be carried to heaven in 1914 and that mankind would descend into anarchy in 1914. When life just carried on as normal the WT Society seized on World War I and said, "See? Something significant did happen! Told you!" They abandoned their predictions for 1914, pretended they'd never said a thing, and decided that something had happened, but ... invisibly! You now are suggesting that because a religion teaches that something happened in heaven, invisibly, it should be accepted by an encyclopedia as a proven fact.
 * I am suggesting not that an encyclopedia accept a religious teaching as a proven fact, but rather that an encyclopedia accepts it as part of that religious teaching and therefore should be presented. Brocknroll81 (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Other points: The references to 1914 are in the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses article; the 1975 and 1925 references are in the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article. Re the 1975 prophecies: the wording throughout the article makes it clear the Witnesses were provided with unambigious information from their leadership that built up expectations for Armageddon to take place in 1975, with such wording that it would "appropriate for God to act" in that year. Publications "cautioned" that no one knows the date or the hour, yet went on to imply that they had a pretty good idea ... based, in this case, on an entirely unreliable chronology that set the date of Adam's creation in 4026BC. As Gruss explains in his book, setting a date for Adam's creation is a problem that has stumped the greatest academic minds. The WT Society, with what was evidently the scantiest research, picked a date and ran with it. LTSally (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of great bits of information you just provided that can be used, however, the only caution I would offer is to avoid talk that Witnesses are wrong. That's bias, which everyone is entitled to but we have to check our biases at the door when approaching this project. I am not implying I know your bias or that you are acting bias. My point still remains that we cant blanket condemn the 1914 date due to the fact that the date remains as "something happening" to the Witnesses. I recommend a balance such as "Though the Jehovah's Witnesses still hold 1914 as an important date concerning the End of the Gentile Times, the Enthronement of Christ, and the Beginning of the Time of the End; the lack of fulfillment of the original predictions including Armageddon, the Bible Students' ascension to heaven, and the start of Christ's Millennial Reign sparked controversy amongst the Bible Students and fueled criticisms from others."


 * Concerning 1975, I see that exact thing occurring that you have presented even in just reading the publications by Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, in the Proclaimers book it states that it had been a long held belief of the Witnesses that Christ's Millennial Reign would follow the 6,000 year of mankind's existence. Since the Millennial Reign cannot occur until after Armageddon, it should come to no surprise that, even with caution and warning, when the chart was released in Life Everlasting showing 1975 to mark the 6,000 years of mankind's existence pretty much all the Witnesses expected Armageddon to occur that same year. Brocknroll81 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Doctrinal Controversies: Ok, I would like to present an edit for the Doctrinal Controversy section to read as follows:

''Since the 1870s, the Watchtower Society has published numerous predictions they hold as supported by Biblical chronology surrounding the years of 1914, 1925, and 1975. Unfulfillment in part or whole of such predictions led to many disassociating from the Witnesses and invited numerous criticisms. [144]''

''The Bible Students (As Jehovah's Witnesses where known as pre-1931) long held that 1914 was to be a year of great significance. Predictions and expectations for 1914 included the Bible Students ascension to heaven, the End of the Gentile Times, Christ's Enthronement, and the start of Armageddon and Christ's Millennial reign. Though the Jehovah's Witnesses still hold 1914 as an important date concerning the End of the Gentile Times, the Enthronement of Christ, and the Beginning of the Time of the End; the lack of fulfillment of the original predictions including Armageddon, the Bible Students' ascension to heaven, and the start of Christ's Millennial Reign sparked controversy amongst the Bible Students and fueled criticisms from others.''

''In 1920, a book titled "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" was published and distributed by the Bible Students worldwide. The publication stated that 1925 was to bring about the resurrection of biblical prophets and faithfuls such as Abraham, Isaac, David, etc.(Proclaimers pg 78) Along with this prediction came another expectation of Armageddon and the heavenly ascension of the Bible Students. (1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses Part 2 United States of America p 146). 1925 proved completely false, causing a significant decline in the Bible Students.''

''It had been a long held and shared belief among Jehovah's Witnesses that the year marking 6,000 years of mankind's existence would mark the first year of Christ's Millennial Reign. (Proclaimers p 104) So when the publication 'Life Everlasting-in Freedom of the Sons of God' by Jehovah's Witnesses was released in 1966 containing a chart that showed 1975 to be 6,000th year, (Watchtower October 15, 1966) it came to reason that Jehovah's Witnesses expected Armageddon to occur that same year. 1975 came and went unfulfilled leaving many questions and criticisms.''

''Subsequently, the Watchtower Society has been accused of making false claims to act as a prophet in making predictions about the future. [145][146] Its publications have made the explicit claim that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses as a prophet[147][148] and urged members of the religion to place unwavering trust in those predictions,[149] but has condemned others for making false predictions about the future.[150]''

The Watchtower Society claims that Jehovah's Witnesses alone practise true Christianity[151] and that the religion's Governing Body is the sole "channel" of communication between God and man pertaining to Bible prophecies and understanding.[152][153] It has claimed God used "invisible deputies" and "invisible angels" to pass his "messages" to the Watchtower.[154][155] The Watchtower Society has claimed the Bible cannot be properly understood "without Jehovah's visible organization in mind"[156] and warned that individual interpretation of the Bible is dangerous and foolish.[157]

The Watchtower Society has substantially altered doctrines since its inception and abandoned core teachings, many involving Bible chronology, it had earlier claimed as beyond question.[158][159][160][161]

Brocknroll81 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No. This section is a short summary of the splitoff article. The very lengthy material you are presenting would be better suited to that article, but for the fact that it reads more like an apologia for the religion. Let the facts speak for themselves. The doctrinal controversy referring to their series of predictions is sufficient information for the summary. The religion's teachings on the significance of 1914 are already contained in the Salvation section under Beliefs and Practices, the Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses article and Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses. LTSally (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Was unaware that this section was only to present a summary of another article...what stops us from upgrading this section from a summary to a concise presentation I am wondering? I am not seeing how this comes off as an apologia for the religion though, I dont even present their defense of the issues, nor was I intending to defend the religion. Brocknroll81 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brocknroll81, I see his input as a fresh perspective and shoudl be encouraged. At no point have I viewed his contributions as bias. Whereas on the other hand I think it is very clear that LTSally has an agenda against Jehovah's Witnesses. Unfortunately I feel she is attempting to move the article away from the neutral standpoint it has achieved over the years. The community should be watchful. Jamie (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've generally seen LTSally's edits to be well sourced, and not blatantly POV. Instead of making general accusations, please provide examples of what you believe to not be neutral, and suggest improvements. WP:AGF-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In hindsight I see my comment may of been inappropriate. It really is a personal opinion I have formed from the tone of her comments and responses. Jamie (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words
I quote from the article: Since 1876, adherents have believed that they are living in the last days of the present world.

Does anyone else think that (although both true) this article seems to be speaking in a condescending manner about Jehovah's Witnesses' practices by placing these two facts next to each other?

(i.e., implying it's a load of crap...excuse my french) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.41.173 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be changed to say they've been taught that rather than they believe it. In any case, it's not really 'weasel words'. It does accurately represent the religion's teachings over the period of time stated.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are Penton's words and they're factually correct. I don't see the phrase as condescending. Russell believed it from 1876 until he died and Watchtower literature from 1879 to the present day has claimed the same thing. Bible Students and Witnesses have been taught it consistently, but that belief is also a requirement of membership. I take it you think the statement that the group (in its various forms) has held that belief for more than 130 years makes them look foolish, but I doubt that many Witnesses would feel that way. Most would probably be proud of the fact. LTSally (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, there's really no problem here. It is a simple statement of fact, and does not have a poor wording; I for one don't read it as condescending. Moreover, it is not at all an issue of weasel words. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * LTSally is correct. In their publication "Proclaimers" the Watchtower Society speaks of the history of the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses and there is no shame in the belief of living in the last days. They admit to all the previously printed false dates that they explain as a result of "anxious ones" who placed dates prematurely but do not ever retract from the sense of urgency throughout the entire century. Especially since the sentiment as far back as the days of the prophet Joel (roughly 3000 years ago) they mentioned the "Lord's Day" coming soon and swiftly. The quoted statement is accurate and fair. Brocknroll81 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It does not sound condescending when you consider how short a hundred or so years is in the span of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.205.164 (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)