Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Proselytize/evangelize

I disagree with changing the subhead "Proselytism" to "Evanglism". The Witnesses do avoid the use of "proselytize", which the dictionary defines as activity aimed at converting persons to a religion. Yet authors such as Holden and Penton prefer this word, which is more objective. What is the primary aim of the Witnesses' door-to-door activity if not to attract members — place literature, start Bible studies, attract persons to meetings, make them acceptable to God by means of baptism? "Evangelism" is defined as preaching the Gospel. I'm not sure that accurately defines what Witnesses do when they trudge around neighborhoods with the WT literature in hand. LTSally (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proselytism generally seems to include the provision of material benefits or services in order to induce a change of 'belief'. Evangelism seems to be a better fit, and its modern usage refers to attempts to convert a person to a religion rather than exclusively preaching the 'gospel' (literally 'good news').--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Proselytism generally seems to include the provision of material benefits or services in order to induce a change of 'belief'"? Where did you learn this? Online dictionaries such as [1] and [2] give no such suggestion. Russell's intention from the beginning to was to gather members of "the church" in a "harvest". Rutherford certainly wanted to boost membership. The basic aim was to win recruits, as the dictionary definition says. LTSally (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Those dictionaries both say that proselytizing means 'inducing' (that is, providing an inducement) rather than to convince prospective converts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're reading too much into it. Oxford and Macquarie dictionaries define proselytising only as converting a person from one belief to another, which is what Witnesses attempt to do. Theose dictionaries say that to "induce" is to persuade or prevail on someone. There is no overt suggestion that proselytising involves the provision of material benefits or services as you say, nor does inducing someone involve material gifts or benefits. LTSally (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Increasingly, there is. It's quite useful that so many languages have adapted terms etymologically related to "evangelize" and "proselytize", so that the terms have achieved a global connotation.

Since its ruling April 19, 1993, the European Court of Human Rights in the case Kokkinakis v. Greece, has been quoted in hundreds of additional cases even in non-European countries. It said:

"First of all, a distinction has to be made between bearing Christian witness and improper proselytism. The former corresponds to true evangelism, which a report drawn up in 1956 under the auspices of the World Council of Churches describes as an essential mission and a responsibility of every Christian and every Church. The latter represents a corruption or deformation of it. It may, according to the same report, take the form of activities offering material or social advantages with a view to gaining new members for a Church or exerting improper pressure on people in distress or in need; it may even entail the use of violence or brainwashing; more generally, it is not compatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others."

The case concerned a minister of JWs, and (relevant to this thread) the ECHR explicitly put the ministry of JWs into the "evangelism" category. --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in this: Evangelism#Evangelism_or_proselytism.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Evangelism#Evangelism_or_proselytism is not a well-researched article. No references, reads like opinion. Try Proselytism for a more succinct definition and better argued, though again without references. LTSally (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Proselytism" describes the "disciple-making" work that Jehovah's Witnesses engage in better than the more vague term, "evangelism."--Sungmanitu (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Witnesses widely use the term "disciple-making", which is more accurately defined as "proselytizing". It's about gaining recruits. Nowhere in the section under this heading is there a reference to evangelizing. The wording refers only to them "spreading their beliefs". LTSally (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Webster's dictionary defines Evangelize as:
transitive senses:

1. : to preach the gospel to
2. : to convert to Christianity

intransitive senses

1. : to preach the gospel

Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry has this double meaning.

*** w03 2/1 p. 22 par. 14 “Keep Bearing Much Fruit” ***
The first Kingdom proclaimer mentioned in the Gospels is John the Baptizer. (Matthew 3:1, 2; Luke 3:18) His primary purpose was “to bear witness,” and he did so with heartfelt faith and with the hope “that people of all sorts might believe.” (John 1:6, 7) Indeed, some to whom John preached became disciples of Christ. (John 1:35-37) Hence, John was a preacher as well as a disciple maker. Jesus too was a preacher and a teacher. (Matthew 4:23; 11:1) Not surprisingly, then, Jesus commanded his followers not only to preach the Kingdom message but also to help individuals who accept it to become his disciples. (Matthew 28:19, 20) Our work today is thus a combination of preaching and teaching.

*** w97 1/15 p. 23 pars. 1-2 Helping Others to Learn God’s Requirements ***

JEHOVAH has good news for mankind. He has a Kingdom, and he wants people everywhere to hear about it! Once we learn this good news, God requires that we share it with others. This is a twofold work. First, we must proclaim the good news of God’s Kingdom. In his prophecy about “the conclusion of the system of things,” Jesus said: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”—Matthew 24:3, 14.

2 The second aspect of this work involves teaching those who respond favorably to the Kingdom proclamation. After his resurrection, Jesus told a large group of his disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Matthew 28:19, 20) The ‘things Christ had commanded’ did not originate with him; he taught others to observe God’s commandments, or requirements. (John 14:23, 24; 15:10) Teaching others to ‘observe the things Christ has commanded’ thus involves helping them to learn God’s requirements. Honesthearted people must meet God’s requirements in order to become subjects of his Kingdom.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Try to change the Catholic prologue instead

Although the Church maintains that it is the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" founded by Jesus Christ where one can find the fullness of the means of salvation,[25][26] it also acknowledges that the Holy Spirit can make use of other Christian communities to bring people to salvation.[27][28] It believes that it is called by the Holy Spirit to work for unity among all Christians, a movement known as ecumenism.[28] Modern challenges facing the Church include the rise of secularism and opposition to its stances on abortion, euthanasia, and contraception.[29]

Very nice. The introduction informs us about the operation of the Holy Spirit on the Catholic Church and other Christian communities (maybe JWs?) and the only critical thing mentioned is the last sentence.

The case of the other major religions in Wikipedia can teach us a lot...

As one editor has expressed herself:

I like to look at other encyclopedias for guidance on this issue to see how they handle it. None of them deal with criticisms in the lead. The last sentence of our lead is wholly devoted to criticisms anyway. Considering the issues covered in the article topic, I think that is reasonable weight given to the subject which is also covered in an article entirely devoted to that topic. Criticism of the Catholic Church is listed as a main in the History section and in See Also. Each section of History deals with specific criticisms of the Church in the manner suggested by Jimbo Wales. I am not in favor of more space devoted to criticism in the lead as the lead is already a large one and already includes mention of major criticisms[3]. NancyHeise talk 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And thank you. You have made this point repeatedly. There is no need to repeat it on a daily basis. LTSally (talk)

I didn't merely repeat it. I gave a report of the results till now after the proposal of Richard.--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the lead to Roman Catholic Church, go bother the users at Talk:Roman Catholic Church, rather than here. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Vassilis78's point is that we cannot use different measures for the religious articles. The same measures that are used for describing/defining one religion must be used for the other as well. I don't think that his concern is to change the lead of the "Roman Catholic Church" article. -- pvasiliadis  08:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My proposal for the prologue

Bold are the letters added.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist,[1] millenarian[2] Christian religious movement.[3] They consider the Bible to be the supreme authority for their teachings and practices. The group emerged from the Bible Student movement,[4] founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the creation of the Watch Tower Society. It underwent significant organizational changes between 1917 and the 1940s, having its authority structure centralized and its preaching methods brought under greater regimentation.[5][6] The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in preaching in 236 countries;[7] they report annual convention and Memorial attendance between 12 and 18 million.[8][9] They are best known for their international missionary work, especially the door-to-door preaching, and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations.[10][11][12] The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service Especially their neutrality in military and political affairs has brought it into conflict with some governments thatconscript citizens for military service,[13][14] and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned or restricted in some countries.[15] Jehovah's Witnesses have had a major influence on US constitutional law concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service.[16] They endeavor to remain separate from secular society, which is regarded as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan the Devil, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses. The basic topic of their preaching is that the present world order is in its last days, and that God’s Kingdom, after destroying in Armageddon the present world order and its supporters, will transform earth into a global paradise where righteous people would have the chance to live forever. Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order.[18] In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years,[19] resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections.[5] The Watchtower later stated that it "regretted" the expectations that had been raised regarding 1975 by "persons having to do with the publication of the information".[20] Their belief system diverges greatly from traditional Christian theology, which has caused several major Christian denominations to denounce the group as either a cult or sect.[21] Studies of the religion have described it as authoritarian, claiming it demands unquestioning obedience from members,[22] with the consequence of expulsion and shunning facing those who oppose its doctrines.[23][24]

--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone does not understand why some words must be added or deleted, I am willing to explain.--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This lead is not acceptable under the policy of WP:LEAD - the lead must provide a concise overview of the article with proportional coverage of the article contents. Try making one that conforms to WP:LEAD then we can talk.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy says: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. Isn't this achieved by my proposal? What would you add? Or do you have something specific to suggest?--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot this part "...in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" This means that if the controversy surrounding JW is important enough to merit its own section in the article with four subsections then it should be given as much weight in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The hottest controversies on JWs are mentioned: door-to-door preaching, neutrality, blood transfusions. For these three subjects there are thousands of judicial battles, of academic papers, of news-paper articles. Can you prove me that the same occurs with the congregational discipline in JWs?--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus. The lead section does contain the basics of definition, membership, belief, history, achievements and pointer to why they are so often criticised. The deletion of material as suggested by Vassilis and replacement of wording straight out of the Watchtower detracts from the summary. LTSally (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus and LTSally. Wikipedia is not watchtower.org. --Sungmanitu (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither is it R.Franz & Co--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy someone offered something, but it needs more work. Too Witnessy--Soc8675309 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free and make your less or non Witnessy proposal. -- pvasiliadis  16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vassilis uses another straw man when he replies "Neither is it R.Franz & Co". Franz references appear twice only in the introduction. The first is when he quotes AH Macmillan's Faith on the March without inserting any opinion at all. The Franz reference can be deleted entirely and replaced by the Macmillan reference to verify the claim of the increasing role of Rutherford in the organizational direction of Bible Students. The second (with an incorrect page reference, my fault during to inexperience at the time) provides a source for the claim that members who oppose WT doctrines are liable for expulsion and shunning. Franz does verify this, as do other authors, as does WT literature itself. Discussion needs to focus on facts, not pointless generalisations. LTSally (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've no interest in either the lead or the article as a whole become a JW soapbox. The status quo is just fine. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Τhe term "authoritarian" is at the very least heavily disputed. As for the rest, we could point many things. For example, according to my search, the term "non-trinitarian" is even more of prime importance than "millenarian" (used at the very first sentence of the article!) as a description for JWs. -- pvasiliadis  08:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A shot at a lead by Maunus

Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement. The group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the creation of the Watch Tower Society. It underwent significant organizational changes between 1917 and the 1940s, centralizing its authority structure and bringing their methods of evangelization under centralized control. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelization; they report annual convention and Memorial attendance between 12 and 18 million. The Bible is the foundation for all teachings and practices and the Witnesses follow their own translation, which diverges from other translations on several points.

Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order after which the righeteous will enjoy eternal life either on a new and paradisical earth or in Heaven. In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years, resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections. The Watchtower Society have since changed their stance and teaches that it is impossible to know precisely when the Armageddon will come, instead exhorting witnesses to stay firm untill the end. In the last decades of the twentieth century Jehovah's Witnesses membership numbers have been steadily increasing particularly in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

They are best known to outsiders for their door-to-door preaching, and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations. Other important beliefs include the necessity of using the name Jehovah in adoration, the rejection of trinitarianism, the rejection of belief in a burning hell, and the rejection of all practices that are not directly sanctioned by their interpretation of the Bible - this includes celebrating Christmas, Birthdays and other secular hollidays. The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service and compulsory nationalist practices such as flag salutation has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service, and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned in some countries. Through legal processes Jehovah's Witnesses have had considerable influence on legislation and legal practice concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service in several countries including the US. Jehovah's Witnesses endeavour to remain separate from secular society, which they regard as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan the Devil, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses. The organization exacts strict control of the individual members' adherence to religious dogma and violation of rules of conduct are grounds for disciplinary action, the most severe being complete ostracision, known as "disfellowshipping".

My proposed changes to the lead mostly serve to bring the lead up to the standards of WP:LEAD. It includes in a concise way what I believe to be the most important information from each of the sections of the article. I have added mention of the New World translation taken from the section on publications, mention of rising membership numbers in third world countries which is in my view and that of Holden are important to present. I have globalized the mention of JW influence on civil rights since this is not at all specific for the US. I have added more of the basic beliefs from the section of beliefs and its subsections. Among these I have added the "eternal life" belief since this has been important since the organizations inception and probably is seen to be among their most important beliefs both by witnesses themselves and by those who are initially attracted to the religion. I have stated most of these beliefs as "rejection of X" which I admit may not be the most obvious way to express them, but I have done so to show that these beliefs are central in that they constitute what sociologists of religion call "secterian boundaries" - I would be open to rephrase these in to positive statements such as they. I have avoided the word authoritarian instead providing a brief overview of what can be found in the sections "Discipline" and "Social controversies". ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by LTSally

Very good. A few suggestions though: 1. Modify "The Bible is the foundation for all teachings and practices". Witnesses claim this, but several sources claim WT literature itself is equally (or more) important in estabishing doctrines. Example: One of the central WTS teachings is that of the "Faithful and discreet slave class." The "slave" is one figure within a parable. Witnesses have turned that character into a "class" of people". This is an interpretation only. Suggest return to wording similar to existing. 2. Suggest deletion of reference to Witnesses' own Bible. This is not a major point of distinction. 3. After sentence about 1914 etc, fix Watchtower to Watch Tower, plural pronouns to singular, then delete "exhorting witnesses to stay firm to the end." That last bit is not a new teaching. 4. Delete line about growth in some geographic areas. Growth of a religion is not notable or distinctive. 5. Insert the word "distinctive" in sentence beginning "Other important beliefs ..." There are many central WT beliefs relating to Jesus, for example, they hold in common with other denominations. Lead section need to identify distinctive beliefs and practices. 6. Delete "in adoration" in reference to Jehovah (not a term used, nor probably a Witness concept). 7. Flag salutation is more accurately "flag salute", but this may not be a major issue ... the issue (apart from conscientious objection) inviting conflict may be more compulsory political involvement (in some African countries). 8. Poor wording re "strict control": "exacts strict control" is the wrong phrase; the issue is more a requirement for members to obey religious doctrines and authority and avoid voicing dissent. Refs can be found in both WT and external sources to provide balance. I may suggest a reworded sentence on that point, but I agree it needs to be handled sensitively. LTSally (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1. My reason for inserting that the bible is the foundation is to avoid the word "fundamentalist" which I assumed would lead to problems. I could equally agree to "the religion is based on literalist interpretation of the Bible" or some such - I agree that it would be good to get a mention of the watchtower in there as well. 2. I think the witnesses own bible is notable and important - it is (like the watchtower) an important tool with which WTS "monopolizes truth" as Holden would have it. 3. I can agree to that. 4. I think the rather explosive growth in some areas of the world is notable and distinctive, especially for milenarian religions - Holden agrees with this as can be seen from his very first page. I was inclined to add that membership was stagnant or falling in Europe and North America as well. 5. Agree. 6. agree - insert better term than adoration. Worship? 7. agree. 8. I think organizational "control" is the correct sociological terminology which to my ear is the most neutral.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On doing a bit of research it it appears that I am wrong about the term ostracision being more correct in sociological use it seems that Shunning is indeed preferable.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

LTSally said: "Witnesses claim [that the Bible is the foundation for all teachings and practices], but several sources claim WT literature itself is equally (or more) important in estabishing doctrines".

• The bigger-sized Roman Catholic Church article says: "Catholic beliefs are based on the Bible and on Traditions handed down from the time of the Apostles, which are interpreted by a teaching authority.". All religions claim to have the best truth or interpretation of the truth, isn't it? So let's not make it more complicated in this point. The proposed wording is more precise than the existing one.

So the Catholic Church article states clearly that they base their teachings on the Bible and traditions. WT doctrines are based on the Bible and teachings of Russell, Rutherford etc that are not found explicitly in the Bible. Let's say so. LTSally (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

LTSally said: "One of the central WTS teachings is that of the "Faithful and discreet slave class." The "slave" is one figure within a parable. Witnesses have turned that character into a "class" of people". This is an interpretation only."

LTSally said: "Lead section need to identify distinctive beliefs and practices."

• The Roman Catholic Church article says: "The Church defines its mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity.[13] It operates social programs and institutions throughout the world, including schools, universities, hospitals, missions and shelters, as well as organizations such as Catholic Relief Services, Caritas Internationalis and Catholic Charities that help the poor, families, the elderly and the sick." This is true for the Eastern Orthodox Church and also for the main Protestant Churches. These statements are not really "distinctive".

LTSally said: "The issue is more a requirement for members to obey religious doctrines and authority and avoid voicing dissent".

• And this is an issue so important to be written at the lead of the article?

• In total, let us be more precise without colouring the words we will use at the lead and not to maximize doctrines/teachings or practices that in reality are common with other [Christian mainly] religions as well. -- pvasiliadis  12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The question "this is an issue so important to be written at the lead of the article?" Has been adressed several times - if it is important enough to merit TWO sections in the article body then it is also important enough to merit proportional attention in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Vasilis

1. The words “restorationist and millenarian” are not needed because the introduction below explains the same things with more words (reject trinity, bla bla bla)

2. They follow their own translation, which diverges from other translations on several points

Agree with LTSally. This statement can lead to false assumptions. NWT is not the solid basis of biblical exegesis, but the original texts of the Bible.

3. which diverges from other translations on several points:

Agree with LTSally. This statement doesn’t make sense. All the versions differ from each other. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any need for their existence. It should be erased.

4. Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order after which the righeteous will enjoy eternal life either on a new and paradisical earth or in Heaven.

Problems: Suddenly JWs disappear and WTS comes on the surface. Why? (I know why but I want you to give the answer.) I propose instead: The basic message they convey in their public preaching is that the present world order is in its last days, and that God’s Kingdom, after destroying in Armageddon the present world order, will transform earth into a global paradise where righteous people would have the chance to live forever.

5. In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years,

This statement can lead to false assumptions. Armageddon meant very different things in 1914 and in 1975. As for 1925, it was not Armageddon the expected thing, but resurrection.

Comment: Russell taught that Armageddon was the “battle of the great day of God Almighty,” and that it would culminate in 1914. Do you suggest in 1975 (or today) Watchtower teaches that Armageddon is something other than the “battle of the great day of God Almighty”? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

6. resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections.

What is the purpose of the statement? Please explain.

7. In the last decades of the twentieth century Jehovah's Witnesses membership numbers have been steadily increasing particularly in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Agree with Sally. What is the purpose of the statement? Please explain.

8. Other important beliefs include the necessity of using the name Jehovah in adoration, the rejection of trinitarianism, the rejection of belief in a burning hell, and the rejection of all practices that are not directly sanctioned by their interpretation of the Bible - this includes celebrating Christmas, Birthdays and other secular holidays.

The above can be expressed with more clarity and brevity: JWs consider vital the use of the biblical name of God, Jehovah, reject the traditional doctrines of Trinity, immortality of the soul and Hell tortures as non-biblical, and do not celebrate Christmas, Easter and Birthdays because of their having pagan elements.

9. The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service and compulsory nationalist practices such as flag salutation has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service, and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned in some countries.

Add to "Banned": or have some restrictions. P.e. in France and Russia there are some restrictions. In China we have total ban.

10. Jehovah's Witnesses endeavour to remain separate from secular society, which they regard as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan the Devil, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses.

Add: But they teach respect for the secular authorities.

11. The organization exacts strict control of the individual members' adherence to religious dogma and violation of rules of conduct are grounds for disciplinary action, the most severe being complete ostracision, known as "disfellowshipping".

This can lead to misconceptions. Disfellowshipping has to do with specific and severe sins. My proposal:

Jehovah’s Wintesses do not tolerate among their ranks the breaking of their basic biblical principles: these include robbery, murder, drunkenness, pre-marital sex, adultery, idolatry, use of tobacco and illegal drugs, occultism or even the promotion of doctrines not approved by the Governing Body. Persons who insist in doing such things are disfellowshiped.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I think those terms are important to highlight in the definition so that readers can quickly find a more detailed treatment of those vital characteristics. 2. & 3 Hmm that is not a bad objection because it is obviously true that the biblical texts are at the root of the translation - however the reason I want it in there is to show that quite a few of the doctrinal differences between JW and other denominations lie in differing translations of crucial concepts like Stavros, Sheol etc. Furthermore most other religions allow different translations of the original texts to be used by its members for private exegesis - JW do not. 4. I can agree with your wording I would just strike the somewhat wordy "have a chance to". 5. we could change Armageddon with "apocalypse" or "end of the world" 6. The purpose is to track JW history and to have the same elements of JW history in the lead that are in the body of the text. 7. The purpose is the same and to highlight the sociological facts of JW's current global project - as stated i also think the growth in these places is remarkable and notable. 8. I can agree to your wording with the exception of "as non-biblical"- and "because they have pagan elements" because these phrases take the Jw standpoint implicitly - not everyone thinks those things are non-biblical or have pagan elements. Also the word pagan is to biased to be used. 9 I can agree to that wording. 10. I would use "and" instead of "but" and "compliance with" instead of "respect for". 11. I cannot accept the listing of "crimes" that you propose and the phrasing "tolerate among their ranks" is also not good. And also you are incorrect that only specific severe sins as the ones you mention can lead to disfellowshipping - also simple non-compliance with advice given by elders can in some cases. Anyway the point of this information is to show the controversial use of strict organizational control (discipline) because this is an important topic in the body of the article not to give a list of sins (which the reader can then falsely infer applies to all disfellowshipped) . I also think that the word "ostracision" is important because this is the sociological term for the mechanism of shutting out in order to force compliance with social expectations.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Re: 11, well said. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro's lead and comments

(Numbers in text relate to comments below)

Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement. The group emerged from the Bible Students, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell. Following a schism in the Bible Student movement, the branch that maintained control of Russell's publishing corporation, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society(1), diverged from the other Bible Student groups, and its doctrinal positions underwent significant changes.
The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelizing(2); they report annual convention and Memorial attendance between 12 and 18 million.
They consider the Bible to be the basis for all their teachings and practices.(3) Distinctive beliefs(4) include emphasis of the name Jehovah, rejection of the doctrines of the Trinity and hellfire, and prohibition of celebrations such as Christmas, birthdays and other religious and secular holidays.(5)
They are best known for their door-to-door preaching(6), and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations.
The religion's stance of military and political neutrality has brought it into conflict with some governments, particular in regard to conscription and saluting national flags. Consequently, activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been banned or restricted in some countries. Jehovah's Witnesses have had considerable influence on legislation concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service in several countries including the United States.
Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society(7) as a place of moral contamination under the control of Satan the Devil, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses. They believe that the current world order is in its last days(8)(9), to be replaced by an earthly society ruled directly by the Kingdom of God in paradisaical conditions.
In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, Watch Tower publications raised expectations that Armageddon could occur in those years, which resulted in surges in membership and subsequent defections. Since then, Jehovah's Witnesses have maintained a stance that the timing of Armageddon cannot be predicted.
The religion requires strict obedience; members who violate its rules are subject to various forms of disciplinary action, including shunning.(10)

Comments regarding specific wording from proposed leads by Maunus (M) and Vassilis78 (V):

1. M It underwent significant organizational changes between 1917 - JWs didn't formally exist in 1917.
2. V 236 countries - Exact number of countries unnecessary - subject to frequent change and ambiguity of countries under ban. WP:MOS: “Avoid over-precise values where they are unlikely to be stable ... or where the precision is unnecessary in the context.”
3. M Witnesses follow their own translation... diverges from other translations... - this comment may imply that whole passages differ, whereas most differences are interpretations of single words.
4. M important beliefs - 'importance' of these beliefs is subjective.
5. M not directly sanctioned... - this includes celebrating - presentation may imply that these are things that should be celebrated, which is not neutral.
6. V best known for international missionary work - JWs are known for 'door knocking' but not particularly well known as 'international missionaries'.
7. M endevour to remain separate from secular society - this wording may imply that JWs live in communes or avoid even basic interaction with society.
8. V The basic topic of their preaching... (to end of sentence) - preachy wording
9. M Since its inception the Watch Tower Society - Inception of Watch Tower Society out of article scope.
10. M exacts strict control ... grounds for disciplinary action (including intervening) - wordiness.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC) (The wikilinked items in my proposed lead are not intended to be the only items linked, and are simply a result of copy/pastes between browser and word processor during editing.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments on Jeffro's proposal

1. he group emerged from the Bible Students, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell. Following a schism in the Bible Student movement, the branch that maintained control of Russell's publishing corporation, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society(1), diverged from the other Bible Student groups, and its doctrinal positions underwent significant changes

I haven't read a single encyclopedia until now that describes JWs as an offshoot, or branch, of the Bible Students movement:

1. "Jehovah's Witnesses trace the origin of their movement to Charles Taze Russell."—Encyclopedia of Religion (2005²), 7:4820.
2. "A Christian movement that began in the United States in the 1870s. [...] The movement began with a Bible study group organized by Charles Taze Russell in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, now part of Pittsburg, in 1872."—The Encyclopedia of World Religions (2007²), 235.
3. "Jehovah's Wintesses have taught and practiced an alternative version of Protestant Christianity for 125 years. Originating in the United States in the late nineteenth century as a small group of Bible students..."—Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America (2006), 2:62.
4. "A sect, originally called Russelites, founded in the early 1870s by Charled Taze Russell."—The New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003²), 7:751.
5. "Jehovah's Witness; an adherent of a millennialist sect that began in the United States in the 19th century and has since spread over much of the world; the group is an outgrowth of the International Bible Students Association founded in Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell."—Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD.

As for focus on the changes made during Rutherford's presidency, the approach is subjective. Big changes where made during Russell's presidency and Knorr's presidency as well. What's the difference? The thing that has been forgotten and must be mentioned is that the group took the name Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer we use the word 'sect' as stated by your Britannica reference? See also reply to AuthorityTam in 'Changes' section below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

JWs did not exist during Russell's presidency. The changes during Rutherford's presidency are specifically intrinsic to the formation of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro, you know very well that a personal interpretation of the facts is not enough. Do you have bibliopraphy of equal value that says that JWs began in 1917, 1931 or whenever?--Vassilis78 (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of record that the name, Jehovah's witnesses was chosen for the group by Rutherford in 1931. Although the term Jehovah's Witness had previously been used in an unrelated sense to refer to a pyramid, its unclear why you would actually ask your question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree that an "outgrowth" is an "offshoot"? Check your Britannica reference.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

1. At the beginning of the article Protestantism there is no reference to the plain reality that Protestantism was an offshoot of Roman Catholicism. I don't understand the reason to push it that way in this article.

2. Under the so-called Bible Students "movement" umbrella is tried to have groups packed that either have already ceased to exist or their minuscule number of members is diminishing, with indeed no or minimal credible information available about. Having this misty context I would not agree to include such a presumption in the very beginning of the article. In this I just see a try to diminish Jehovah's Witnesses and impoverish them to an "offshoot" of a notional "movement", which virtually is from its very beginning Jehovah's Witnesses themselves.

3. That the name "Jehovah's Witnesses/witnesses" was chosen for the group by the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society corporation, J. Rutherford, does not mean that this group was something else before that change of name. For example, the then so-called Russellites were not something different than the Bible Students. Αs a matter of fact, the -let's say- differences between Rutherford's era teachings compared to Russell's era are not as many to the differences between the Rutherford's era "Jehovah's Witnesses" and the "Jehovah's Witnesses" of our days. -- pvasiliadis  05:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rutherfords view diverged from those of others groups of Bible Students who wanted to maintain various views of Russell in 1917 and into the 1920s. If they hadn't diverged, they would still be part of the main Bible Student movement. This is not the same as an entire group gradually changing their views over time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are still Bible Students. They have pointedly retained the century-old corporation name "International Bible Students Association", and continue to refer to even long-baptized Witnesses as "Bible students". Adherents associated with IBSA and Watch Tower have never totaled less than a majority of the Bible Student movement.

The matters of supposed "divergence" were largely procedural and organizational rather than theological or doctrinal. JWs retain the central doctrines of the BSM.

Some would pretend that Jehovah's Witnesses popped into existence in 1931. In reality, IBSA Bible Students simply accepted a new name for the beliefs and practices they had embraced for years or decades already.--AuthorityTam (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is logically invalid to refer to a list that explicitly contains only doctrines that haven't changed to imply that JWs believe all or most of Russell's teachings. But how about returning to the same article and consider the doctrinal positions that were changed in 1920 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927 and 1928. In fact, these points show that, to wit, Rutherford's Witnesses, formed gradually from 1917, and any suggestion that JWs simply "popped into existence in 1931" is oversimplification.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki'ed list is not limited to unchanged doctrines. Depending on your web browser and screen size, you likely have to scroll up and down to see all of them.

Feel free to perform the analysis you suggest. JWs would likely note that the granularity of "developments" over the decades is in marked contrast with the significance of core doctrines that have been retained. You may be interested to contrast JW theology with that of other Bible Students. --AuthorityTam (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are now claiming that the list of "doctrines unchanged since 1879" you linked to "is not limited to unchanged doctrines". Oy vey!--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The "list" is not limited to unchanged doctrines. I may have linked below the lead to the first subtitle with listings, but the article was and is the same. Are you seriously arguing about this?--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL. You linked to the wrong thing, and then you get annoyed with me for assuming you meant what you said. Oy gevalt! In any case, the rest of the list (the changed doctrines) contradicts your argument that "The matters of supposed "divergence" were largely procedural and organizational rather than theological or doctrinal."--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Agree.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro, if you say that JWs were founded in 1917, then why do you refer in your prologue to the 1914 false prediction?--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, I do not say that JWs were founded in 1917, but that the Bible Students under Rutherford gradually diverged from Russell's views from around that time. But aside from that... you refer to the statement, In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, Watch Tower publications raised expectations. This is because the Watch Tower Society was involved in all of those predictions; I have not said JWs did anything in 1914. I then indicate that since the last time such expecations were raised (1975), Jehovah's Witnesses have stated that Armageddon's timing can't be predicted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the article of the Watchtower magazine, but of JWs. If JWs didn't exist in 1914, why should we refer to an older chronology? What is the logic behind that? Just to find more mistakes?--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention The Watchtower magazine. The Watch Tower Society was involved in publishing claims about the three cited years, control of that corporation was maintained by the group that became JWs, and JWs still regard 1914 as significant in their eschatology.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Authoritarian & authoritarianism

·Maunus·ƛ· said:

"Holden does not say that authoritarianism is bad or compare it to fascism - he just describes how the social organization functions. And fact is that witnessea are explicitly told through all of the literature of the watchtower corporation to obey the leaders because they are put in their places by Jehovah - children must obey their parents, wives their husband, men their congregation elders, the elders the supervisors, the supervisors the governing body etc. This is not a bad or a strange thing, it is natural that some organizations are hierarchically and authoritarian in their structure - an authoritarian is the neutral word to describe such structures in sociological literature and say NOTHING at all about Holden's own preferences."

But:

1. Is the term "authoritarian" a colourless sociological term?
2. What are the connotations attached to the term?
3. In which context is the term used by current reference works?

Let's see the use of the term at such sources and then you can make your comments:

>> The block of sources has been moved here. -- pvasiliadis  09:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This ponderous list of quotes doesn't really address the issue. LTSally provided several sources that consider JWs to be 'authoritarian', yet Holden is here singled out, and his particular usage is retorted with a stack of definitions that aren't necessary to read in their entirety. If the sources say JWs are authoritarian, the quote should be allowed to stand, with any necessary qualification of the context of 'authoritarian' supplied in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I put 3 questions concerning the sociological use of the terms "authoritarian" and "authoritarianism". Please, be specific in answering. -- pvasiliadis  11:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposal by Maunus above removes the word "authoritarian" from the article at that point. If there is agreement that this is acceptable, your questions and lengthy posting are rendered obsolete. LTSally (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You could have merely used this part of the quote: "If they obey because they believe they should, they are responding to authority. Authority is that subtype of power that is accepted as legitimate. Max Weber distinguished three different types of authority. Traditional authority involves an appeal to custom and ancient practice. Legal rational authority involves obedience to formal rules, which have been established by proper procedure" Which shows exactly why JW are authoritarian in a sociological sense of the word. But yes as LTSally says - you could have just adressed my proposal instead. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with removing the term "authoritarian" from the lead section. But it is also important to become clear that these terms carry heavily negative sociological (and not exclusively) connotations and are usually used for disgraceful political regimes. If this will become obvious concerning the use of such defamatory labels in the article, the list of quotes will have accomplished its object. -- pvasiliadis  12:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Answering your questions: The context is sociology - the study of different kinds of social organizations. I imagine that what you object to is how the word authoritarian seemingly links JW with fascism and totalitarian ideologies - but you must understand that when sociologists characterize these kinds of organizations they also do not judge them. Its use is not negative in it self - you feel it to be negative because you personally object to one or more of the ideologies that are also called by that term. You think that fascism is bad and don't like seeing JW mentioned in connection with it - but sociologist establish neutral criteria for classifying diiferent kinds of social organizations - it is not their fault that JW like fascism strongly stresses the aspect of obedience to the given authorities. But JW and fascism aren't the only authoritarian organizations and I am sure that you can find other organizations that you sympatize more with that are also within the sociological definition of authoritarian.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me say it in other words: if I presented 2 or 3 sociological surveys/studies that claim that Roman Catholic church is authoritarian, would you put it in the lead section of the corresponidng article? If I found 2 or 3 sociological surveys/studies that claim that the administration of China is authoritarian, would you include it in the lead section of the article? At least, would you create in the article "four subsections" for such an 'important controversy surrounding' Roman Catholicism or Chinese government? -- pvasiliadis  13:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the lead of "People's republic of China states that it is a constitutional dictatorship. I don' think you can find two reliable sources calling the catholic church of the twentyfirst century authoritarian but you are welcome to try. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not - Jehovah's witnesses is knnown to the outside world for their policy of congregational purity and it has attracted attention from many sides - JW is also controversial for other reasons which is why there IS a section of controversies with four subsections already in the article! just like the PRC article has section on (lack of) civil rights. And according to WP:LEAD if it has a section it must be represented in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to give a quick answer, because it is very late here in Greece and propably PVasiliadis is sleeping and dreaming now. Dear Maunus, since you want two I brougth only two examples:

One of the elements of the limited, pluralistic character of Franco's authoritarian regime is the considerable set of powers and social functions assigned to the Catholic Church. A series of agreements, culminating in the Concordat, gave public and juridical recognition to the Church's role in the regime. […] It can be said, however, that the greater part of the organized Church willingly cooperated with the Franco forces during the war and that, as an institution, it became a bulwark of the regime that emerged from the conflict. The victory of Franco and, by implication, the contribution of the Spanish Church to that victory, were sanctified by Pope Pius XII with these words: "Raising our hearts to God, we give sincere thanks to Your Excellency for the victory of Catholic Spain".—E. J. HEUBEL , “CHURCH AND STATE IN SPAIN: TRANSITION TOWARD INDEPENDENCE AND LIBERTY”, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Mar., 1977), p. 125-127.

In some ways, though, the Austrian educational reform differed significantly from the Nazi and Fascist programs, since the clerico-fascists made Catholicism a cornerstone of their ideology. The Catholic church bolstered the authoritarian state because it taught unquestioning faith and obedience to a great cause. Emphasizing universal Christian prin- ciples, however, the clerico-fascist ideology rejected the social Darwinism and glorification of violence that characterized other "fascist" move- ments. The clerico-fascists did introduce militarist elements into public education, but they did not propagate theories of racial superiority or programs of military conquest. In addition, the use of hypernationalism as the basis for loyalty to the state posed special problems for the Austrian government. While other fascist movements were able to build on an already existing national sentiment, the clerico-fascists found that they had to create this sentiment.— Carla Esden-Tempska, History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Summer, 1990), 189, 190.

Since the involvement of Papacy in political scandals and dictatorships is vast, I believe that I can bring hundreds of such statements. So, when I say that Holden's parallelism between JWs and the Papacy is ridiculous and stupid, I know very well what I am saying, and every sincere person that knows history understands what I mean. And I also know very well what I say when I insist that if we want to deal with all the religious articles of Wikipedia on the same conditions and terms, there are things that have to change. For I believe that as things are now, some "strain out the gnat and swallow the camel" (New American Bible).--Vassilis78 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be very considerate if whoever put that ginormous block of text at the beginning of this section please move it to their personal Talk page, replacing it with a Wiki here. Please? I've resolved to do better myself about lengthy comments here at article Talk.

It seems odd that sociology has become the end-all be-all for some of those interested in this article. I'll repeat what I wrote earlier today in another thread...

A Wikipedia article is not a sociology textbook. Frankly, it seems odd to insist upon so much "sociological" commentary in a main article on a religious denomination. Do most Wikipedia main articles on religious denominations explore a sociological analysis of its adherents? Shouldn't that be relegated to a new article such as Jehovah's Witnesses sociology? That would placate the professional and amateur sociologists without needlessly complicating things for the hoi paloi (that is, most of us).

A typical Wikipedia reader connotes "authoritarian" with despotic totalitarianism. If certain editors feel that the word "authoritarian" is indispensable and scientifically defensible, I'll suggest the reasonably modified term: "sociologically authoritarian". Or maybe just keep the word "authoritarian" in quotes all the time.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC), guessing about 160 words in this comment

AuthorityTam, researching a religion for purposes of presenting it is a sociological endeavor; hence how sociologist depict a religious group is relevant. If editors here do not look to the body of work already published by trained sociologists on the subject of a particular human social structure of religion when writing about that same religion, then what authoritative source should editors look to?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The label of "authoritarian" is totally subjective. As Holden himself admits:

"In a modern secular world in which all manner of life options are available, the Witnesses stand out as calculating, conservative and authoritarian. The movement’s demand of unquestioning loyalty means that those who violate its moral or doctrinal code risk disfellowship. To the sceptical outsider, this is a movement that bears all the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime".—Andrew Holden, "Doing Tolerance: How Jehovah's Witnesses Live with Unbelieving Relatives", published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster 2002.

So, it is from the standpoint of a liberal skeptic that JWs are called "authoritarian". On the other hand it is very interesting that in the arcticle of the New Catholic Encyclopedia about JWs we don't see such tedencies; even disfellowship is not even mentioned. Why? Because it would be rediculous for Catholics to call us "authoritarian" or "totalitarian". It self-evident that if Catholics had called us "totalitarian" because we keep biblical morals, then they would have invalidated themselves as a biblical religion.

The label of "authoritarian" is as subjective as the label "conservative". You see, for a sex liberal we are conservative, but for some Pentecostals who don't find acceptable their wifes to use make-up, we seem liberal. Which standpoint will Wikipedia take? Is it Wikipedia's role to take the standpoint of the anarchist, of the modernist, of the liberal or of the Taliban? I believe Wikipedia's role is not to take any standpoint. Subjective labels and characterisms must be avoided.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You are playing tricks here - holden writes that to the skeptic outsider it has all characteristics of a Totalitarian regime - No one has argued that "Authoritarian" and "totalitarian regime" are freely interchangeable terms. And while of course what one classifies as "Authoritarian" is of course relative to ones own viewpoint there can be no denying that JW is relatively more authoritarian than most or any other Christian movement of comparable size, and this is what prompts the sociologists classification of the religion as authoritarian rather than their personal viewpoints. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

According to your point of view, , "there can be no denying that Roman Catholic Church [with her centralized authority and structure] is relatively more authoritarian than Hinduism". It is true, isn't it? Let's make a corresponding section at the Roman Catholic Church article. -- pvasiliadis  08:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I will point out that when Maunus writes "No one has argued that "Authoritarian" and "totalitarian regime" are freely interchangeable terms" this includes author Holden. That is, what is cited by Holden does not suggest Holden uses the terms interchangably or that his readers would understand these terms as interchangable.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vassilis78, what term do you suggest to depict Watchtower’s doctrine of requiring members shun a fellow member for openly sharing a dissenting view on a significant subject regardless of the veracity of the view expressed? For most English speakers the term authoritarian captures the policy pretty well, and this is Holden’s point in his usage. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the English speaker is atheist, possibly. If the English speaker is a devout Catholic, maybe not. Of course the issue at stake is not what you suggest in behalf of the average English speaker, but what Wikipedia stands for.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Again Vassilis78, what term do you suggest to depict Watchtower’s doctrine of requiring members shun a fellow member for openly sharing a dissenting view on a significant subject regardless of the veracity of the view expressed? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Biblical and legal. And it is something made clear before the baptism. Whoever wants, he follows. Whoever doesn't like it, he doesn't follow. We don't force people to accept what we believe or to get baptized without knowing the responsibilities of being a Christian. But why should we try to find a term to characterise it? Isn't it better to describe it?--Vassilis78 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vassilis78, I'm not sure that you answered my question. If you do not see a term you would apply then how would you describe Watchtower’s doctrine of requiring members shun a fellow member for openly sharing a dissenting view on a significant subject regardless of the veracity of the view expressed, without just saying it in plain unwaxed language? We both know that Watchtower can change a doctrine overnight, hence it is false that people always have a choice prior to baptism. The active policy is authority over the membership. Watchtower sets doctrine and membership is restrained from openly voicing dissent under pain of organized communal shunning. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, who is insisting on the term "authoritarian"? I think I added the word to the article. I have twice now stated that the word can be removed if the issue of subjection to authority is discussed as per Maunus above. LTSally (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question, LTSally! This seems like a good opportunity for folks to declare. Consider voting.

Yes, I insist that JWs be identified explicitly as "authoritarian" or

Maybe, if "authoritarian" is in an attributed quote or is well-defined within a specific sociological context or

No, the article should avoid terms like "authoritarian" altogether.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe for me! --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but not in the lead, and only if part of a quoted source supplying context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Question. How wise or practical is it for current editors to vote on whether particular words should or should not be used in an article when authoritative sources use those very words applied to the subject? Who are we to decide what word can or cannot be used? A word is no issue. How an editor strings a word in a sentence is the issue. Am I wrong? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Well Wikipedia is NOT a democracy and votes here have only the weight of a direction towards a later consensus - However it is perfectly fine if editors express their opinions about what is a good solution and if they wish to do that by colored text votes that is fine I suppose. However we should rather focus on the issue of HOW to present the fact about Jehovah's Witnesses being among the most authoritarian christian movements. I have suggested that we simply state what they do which is to "strongly encourage subordination to authority and discourage disobedience by exacting disciplinay actions for expressing beliefs or presenting behaviour that go against the established doctrines". Also notice that for me, LTSally and Marvin Shilmer such a use is already a compromise since we all apparently feel that "authoritarian" is a more concise way to describe the same semantic content. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What about that: Jehovah’s Wintesses do not tolerate among their ranks the breaking of their basic biblical principles: these include robbery, murder, drunkenness, pre-marital sex, adultery, idolatry, spiritism or even the causing of divisions as regards doctrinal matters. Persons who insist in doing such things are disfellowshiped.--Vassilis78 (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment “Causing of divisions” is Watchtower-speak. Such a presentation does not express in language the common person would understand that Watchtower’s doctrine requires members to shun a fellow member for openly sharing a dissenting view on a significant subject regardless of the veracity of the view expressed.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Tommorow we can find something better. I am going to sleep now. It's 3 a.m. here.--Vassilis78 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer said "“Causing of divisions” is Watchtower-speak". This is not true. The Bible (KJV) says: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them". (Ro 16:17) It is Biblical-speak. If you'd like a more sophisticated term or an expression with expertise language we can discuss it further. -- pvasiliadis  10:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is "watchtower speak" because it implicitly takes the JW viewpoint - plus it doesn't actually explain what it is.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The point is that “causing of divisions” is Watchtowerese in that the average reader has no idea that the mere act of publicly voicing a dissenting view is reacted to by Watchtower as “causing a division.” Developed societies embrace public voicing of dissent generally as a healthy thing; something that helps society grow and flourish; not as divisive. Society at large views divisive behavior as the valueless last resort of desperate whiners, whereas Watchtower’s doctrine disallows any public dissent no matter the veracity of the dissent. Society does not view well articulate and sound dissent as divisive; it views it as healthy, and certainly not in the same category as unfaithfulness to marriage, murder etc. So, again, how would you depict this without just coming out and stating it rather than waxing over it?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeating only that the apostle's Paul expression "causing of divisions" "takes the JW viewpoint" and "is Watchtowerese" does not explain anything.

• Maunus, you say "it doesn't actually explain what it is". When you read the Bible what do you understand when you read: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them"? If you would prefer "dogmatic divisions" (as Paul also wrote), I would agree with you.
• Marvin Shilmer, you understand as well that "the average reader" would have problem with the Bible terminology and not particularly with JWs' dogmas. Right? So, it is clear that the -according to you- "divisive" Bible practice has to do with the basic structure of the Christian dogma (Ro 16:17) and not with JWs especially. Who is the one that puts the "divisive voices" in the same position with " in the same category as unfaithfulness to marriage, murder etc"? The Bible or Jehovah's Witness? If you have not searched this subject alredy, I could go into more details: what the Bible says, what the Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox believe as dogma and what exactly is the practice of Jehovah's Witnesses. -- pvasiliadis  13:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The problem occurs because the average person in developed society does not treat/view public sharing of a dissenting opinion by a member as divisiveness, whereas Watchtower teaching does treat/view public sharing of a dissenting opinion by a member as divisiveness. Hence the phrase “causing divisions” is peculiar in this context to Watchtower in relation to the developed world. This has already been explained and there is no reason to keep repeating it when it has not been refuted, or even disputed. In effect, the usage of “causing divisions” waxes over a reality by leveraging a phrase understood and applied one way by the general public that is applied very differently by Watchtower over its membership. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer said: "Hence the phrase “causing divisions” is peculiar in this context to Watchtower in relation to the developed world".

• Jehovah's Witnesses do live in the developed world. The depreciation you try to impose against Jehovah's Witnesses by repeating "in relation to the developed world" is offensive. Anyone could say the same concerning Pope's dogma on using condoms. So, please, stay to the facts.
• Whether you like it or not, the phrase "causing divisions" is found in the Bible. The handling of such conditions is also found in the Bible, it is a "Watchtower [sic!] teaching" as much it Biblical. -- pvasiliadis  14:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Of course Witnesses live in the developed world, and I have not suggested otherwise. But Witnesses also have language usage that means one thing to them and something else to the rest of the developed world. “Causing divisions” is one of those usages. Watchtower teaches it is “causing divisions” for a member to publicly offer a dissenting opinion on a significant teaching of its religion. The developed world does not view a member publicly offering a dissenting opinion on a significant issue as “causing division” (as divisive). Contrarily, as a general rule developed society sees this as a natural and healthy thing. You do not even address this disparity of usage and perspective. Why? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to confuse a religious Bible based practice with what happens generally in the secular societies. Please make this distinction in your mind: In all religious groups there are norms. Whoever wants to live in acceptance with them, he is free to do so; whoever does not want to do so, he is also free to become whatever he wants --an atheist, a Roman-Catholic, a Satanist or whatever. This has nothing to do with the freedom of speech. If Pope says that using condom is a sin, it is just so for all the Roman Catholics. They can discuss for it 24 hours a day but this will not change. Even more, officialy if a Roman Catholic disagrees and rejects this norm, he puts himself out of the Church body and should be excommunicated. This is the situation for the 1 billion people of the Roman Catholic "developed world".

"Causing divisions" is a Biblical term and its meaning is standard for the Bible reasearchers of the Christian Church of the 1st century. You could search, also, at a theological dictionary the term "apostasy" to see what exactly meant for the Christians and how did they respond to it. I think you will surprised. -- pvasiliadis  20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This article is written for all readers to comprehend. Hence the language usage must be something that communicated to all readers. “Causing divisions” does not mean the same thing to the common person as it does under Watchtower doctrine, and apparently to you. The average person in the developed world would be aghast at the notion that publicly voicing a dissenting opinion is an act “causing divisions”. I will not keep hammering this for your sake. Other editors around here seem to understand the problem with your preferential usage. As for Roman Catholics, I do not know a single one that feels they would face organized communal shunning for voicing a dissention opinion from the pope. Even among this population the notion that public voicing of dissent is “causing division” is absurd.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• That "the average person in the developed world would be aghast at the notion that publicly voicing a dissenting opinion is an act “causing divisions”" is your personal point of view. Please, discriminate for yourself and for the article's shake what is: a) an authorised and accepted religious practice exercised inside the cycle of its members, and b) a general, secular understanding of the rights that a person enjoys as a member of the society.
• You said that, "as for Roman Catholics, I do not know a single one that feels they would face organized communal shunning for voicing a dissention opinion from the pope". This is not true. Officialy if the one who sins belongs to the laity then he is excommunicated and if he is a bishop/priest then he is also dethroned/deposed. (Have a look at the top-of-all Church rules of the Ecumenical Synods' decretals. These rules are steadily apply to the Roman-Catholics adherents of both "developed" and underdeveloped (sic!) world. See examples here: some reason for excommunication, priests excommunicated cases [4], excommunication for attempting sacred ordination of a woman) Of course, if you have one priest for 2,500 believers or the church members do not have any connection with the active body of the church, you cannot manage the excommunication according to the established church rules. You can imagine what would happen if the Catholic Church tried to bring into effect her own well established rule of excommunicating the church memmbers that commit/practice fornication! And what about the Roman Catholics who commit abortion? The Church cannon says: "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication." So, let's be more realistic and put aside the prejudiced trivia. -- pvasiliadis  06:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It is not my personal point of view that the average person in the developed world would be aghast at the notion that publicly voicing a dissenting opinion is a “sin” of “causing divisions.” Judges issue dissenting views from the bench; they are not viewed as sinful or as “causing divisions.” Legislators caste dissenting votes in public sessions; they are not viewed as sinful or “causing divisions.” Individuals among Roman Catholics publicly express that birth control should be allowed; they are not treated as sinful or “causing divisions.” I could go on and on, by why? So far you have refused to listen or even respond to the point. “Causing divisions” is Watchtowerese for the “sin” of publicly voicing a dissenting opinion from some Watchtower doctrine. Average readers have no idea that such public voicing of a dissenting view is “causing division, let alone a “sin”. To them it is absurd. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your statements about Roman Catholic excommunication are misleading (at best). Catholics are only shunned if excommunicated vitandi (for extreme violations such trying to kill the Pope or destroying Christian relics etc, and not at all since 1983). Most Catholics who are excommunicated are excommunicated sententiae which is "what would happen if the Catholic Church tried to bring into effect her own well established rule of excommunicating the church memmbers that commit/practice fornication!" Catholics who are excommunicated sententiae may not partake of the sacrament, but are not shunned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: "At best." Indeed! I could not agree more.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For editors to do with as they please, the Oxford English dictionary attributes two short meanings. As an adjective it is used to mean “Favourable to the principle of authority as opposed to that of individual freedom.” As a noun it is used to mean “One who supports the principle of authority.” --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning authoritarianism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

• "Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church".
• "This College [of Bishops] has supreme and full authority over the universal Church".
• "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. [...] For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered".
• "As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff".

Keeping in mind the sources that Vasilis78 presented showing that the Roman Catholic Church is called "authoritarian", we should include at the lead section of the Roman Catholic Church lemma that she is a strictly hierarchical and explicitly authoritarian organisation. Right? If not, we should not do the same here as well. -- pvasiliadis  13:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Are you suggesting we need to achieve a consensus with editors working on the Roman Catholic Church article in order to make progress on the article about Jehovah’s Witnesses? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to treat the article equally with the other of its kind and not maximize points with no reason, as I already explained in details. -- pvasiliadis  13:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument of equality is invalid for several reasons: firstly articles are independent - because one article makes a mistake other related articles doesn't need to make it (this is described in the policy WP:OTHERSTUFF) secondly the roman catholic church and JW are different entities and the material that is important in relation to either is different. The leads reflect what is in the article body and the article body of RCC and JW is necessarily different so there is no basis on which to demand equal treatment.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1. So, you say that the Roman Catholic Church article makes a mistake in this point? This would be interesting to say! 2. All the articles refer to different entities: different articles, different entities/subjects. But, yes, I "demand equal treatment""! This is the right thing for us/everyone to do. One measure, one set of rules for everything/everyone. -- pvasiliadis  14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps we should have this article’s introductory language state that Watchtower’s governing body of nine men holds supreme authority in the religion. This is something Roman Catholics quite easily admit of their own religion, that is that the pope is their supreme leader on earth. But unlike the pope, the governing body of Watchtower reacts to members publicly voicing dissent with organized communal shunning of the member. Does this suggests the governing body of Watchtower is, as a controlling authority, more aggressive than the pope? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment (SAGE, 2002, p. 1512), "neither disassociation nor disfellowshipping [practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses] is shunning and both conform to practices in other religions". Apostates of the 1st-century Christianity turned against the body of the rest Christians, but this behaviour was according to freedom that Jesus taught and in accordance with the prototype that is found in the Hebrew Scriptures. As apostle Peter points, "there were also false prophets among the people [of Israel], just as there will be false teachers among you [Christians]" who "will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves." (2Pe 2:1) According to apostle Jude these ones "have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion". (Jude 11)

As for the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, it is obvious even to the naive that the smashing power of Pope today and all the previous centuries is incomparable in every possible way. Would you like to make a chart of comparisons? -- pvasiliadis  14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Watchtower’s own literature depicts as shunning the action taken toward disassociated or disfellowshipped members. Are you unaware of this? Do you disagree with this assessment by Watchtower? As for the rest of your statements, who exactly says publicly offering a dissenting opinion of a particular teaching of Watchtower constitutes “apostasy” or “false prophecy,” that is other than Watchtower? The rest of the developed world does not view the public offering of a dissenting view as either, or as divisive. So what is your point? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I presented a sociological source that explains that disfellowshipping is not "shunning" with the general meaning of the term. There are many kinds of social shunning, but "disfelloshipping" does not fall into that sociological category. Sources mention that the official "excommunication" of mainstream Christianities has the same characeristics with the "disfellowshipping" of Jehovah's Witnesses. The real difference is that the latter can manage to successfully impose these sanctions. -- pvasiliadis  20:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: You did not answer the question. Watchtower depicts the effect of disfellowshipping as shunning. Do you disagree with this depiction by Watchtower? If not, then what is your point? When Watchtower uses the term “shun” and “shunning” do you think it is making some unique usage of the term? If no, then again what is your point? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am personally in agreement with this suggestion and would like to see a mention of the supreme authority of the governing body introduced in the lead. Something like "The Governing Body of 9 men hold supreme authority on all matters of doctrine and biblical interpretation " ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If we added "according to the Biblical standard of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem", I would really aggree with this proposal. -- pvasiliadis  14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That addition doesn't really make sense and if anything it is watchtower speak and implies explicitly the jw viewpoint. However I think we could add a comment about how WTS explains the governing body's biblical basis in the article BODY but not in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It really makes sense. It is incomparably different the power that Pope exerts in comparison with the Governing Body (GB) of JWs: either in quality or quantity. If it is rational to put at the lead of Roman Catholic Church article the notion that Pope/Papacy has his/its own country, soldiers, banks, etc it would be logical to do the same here with GB. We will put down comparatively the whole range of information. -- pvasiliadis  14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Do you disagree that Watchtower’s governing body holds supreme authority in the religion in terms of setting doctrine and policy? If not then what is your point? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

All Christian denominations hold that their doctrines and policies are based on the Bible. But all of them, a) have their own interpretation of the Bible and b) have an hierarchical administration/decision-making system locally and universally.

So, I would say that comparativelly the Pope authority exerts a much greater power compared to that of Jehovah's Witnesses' GB. The status of infallibility that Pope enjoys is ex vi termnini an authoritarian one. Jehovah's Witnesses' GB does not hold such kind of secular and religious power over millions of people. The Governing Body is not imposed to anyone --as Pope (or Dalai Lama) is not imposed to Hinduists but is the head of his Church-- and as a result it does not exercise any kind of "authoritarianism". For Jehovah's Witnesses, the Governing Body is a central body of faithful elders who is accepted willifully by them as an authorised administering co-ordinator of all the congregations worldwide. Nothing more or nothing else than this. -- pvasiliadis  20:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Here is the question again: Do you disagree that Watchtower’s governing body holds supreme authority in the religion in terms of setting doctrine and policy? If not then what is your point? No one here suggests that the governing body and the pope are identical. The statement you keep stammering around only states that the governing body is the supreme authority in the religion in terms of setting doctrine and policy. Either you agree with this or not. Which is it? If you disagree then how do you explain that the governing body teaches Witnesses to respond to it as though the voice of God? How do you explain disfellowshipping for publicly offering a dissenting opinion from the governing body, that is if it does not view itself as the supreme authority in the religion in terms of setting doctrine and policy? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I made clear of what I mean in details at my previous comment. I disagree using the term "authoritarian" (furthermore, this is the subject of this section) for describing the religious activity of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. This assessing adjective would be extravagant and misleading to the readers. Pope is considered as "the voice of God" on earth. So what? I do not see to have been included at the lead of the Roman Catholic Church article such subjective judgements! -- pvasiliadis  06:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I am talking about your wording which doesn't make sense to anyone who is not a witness. E.g. "the biblical standard" assumes that one believes that there is such a standard. and "of apostles and elders in Jerusalem" doesn't provide lay readers with any information about the nature of the authority of the governing body.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Brevity

A short reminder here re Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. 1. Keep it brief - 100 words or less. 2. Avoid excessive markup including bold and capitals. 3 Keep discussions focused. 4. Make proposals. Let's not use this page for repeating lengthy chunks of books, periodicals or dictionaries. We're all just going to get worn out! LTSally (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good point. It is impossible to mention everything in the introduction. That is why I insist to remain only in the most important issues. If we imitate other encyclopedias, we will achieve that. My proposal of the introduction is considerably smaller than the existent one.--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And why should Wikipedia imitate other encyclopedias? I don't think that's the point of the project. LTSally (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The lonly thing we need to imitate regarding the lead is the relevant policy WP:LEAD which apparently you have still not taken the time to read inspite of being lead towards it now several times by yours truly.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it is very interesting to see how lemmas are developed when ex-JWs are not involved in the developement of the lemmas.--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you just point out where the lemmas are in the article? LTSally (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well respected secondary sources with rigorous vetting processes provide this in spades for editors to draw from.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The reminder is good to try to keep a comment here at 100 words. I'm going to do better on this too. If you have a long quote you wish to markup, you can create a section on your user page for that, and just Wiki to it, like this User_talk:AuthorityTam#Rambling_message.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it is we have a healhty mixture of pro's, con's and humanities scholars engaged in the debate at this point I think we'll be able to find something very close to neutrality.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Travel

I regret to say that I will be less wikipedia active in the coming week as I will be travelling. I will pop in when I can along my journey - but response time will be slow. I think we have come far towards building a consensus - please try to continue down that way. I think that if you build on the version of the lead that I have presented and modify it through due discussion you will be able to have a new consensus lead by the time the protection ends. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Communal lead sandbox

Below is a version of the led that everyone can freely edit the only requirement is that rationales for changes be given in the subsection "Changes" below:

Editable lead

Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism; they report convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual Memorial attendance of 17 million. They are directed by the Governing Body, a group of elders that exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters, based on their interpretations of the Bible, with preference given to their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

The group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the creation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society. Following a schism in the movement, the branch that maintained control of the Society underwent significant organizational changes, bringing its authority structure and methods of evangelism under centralized control. The name, Jehovah's witnesses, was adopted in 1931.

Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order after which the righteous will enjoy eternal life either on a new and paradisaical earth or, for 144,000 elect, in heaven. In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years, resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections. The Watch Tower Society has since changed its stance and teaches that it is impossible to know precisely when Armageddon will occur.

Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distribution of literature such as The Watchtower and Awake!, and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations. They consider use of the biblical name of God, Jehovah, vital to proper worship; they reject Trinitarianism, immortality of the soul, and hell, which they consider to be unscriptural; they do not celebrate religious or secular celebrations such as Christmas, Easter or Birthdays, which they consider to have pagan origins. Members commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the Truth", and once baptized are said to be "in the Truth".

The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service and compulsory nationalist practices such as saluting national flags has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service, and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned in some countries. Jehovah's Witnesses have had considerable influence on legislation and legal practice concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service in several countries including the United States.

Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses. The organization does not tolerate dissension from its doctrines or moral principles and violation of rules of conduct are grounds for disciplinary action, the most severe being a form of shunning they call "disfellowshipping".

changes

• I have changed the bible/foundation part to include the intepretation of the bible by wts. I have inserted vassilis wording of central beliefs except the non biblical and pagan part and his wording of the conflict/military service part.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have co-located the demographic statements because they belong together. I'm not convinced that the growth in certain areas is notable for the lead in this article though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Growth in membership in Africa, Latin America and Asia may not be notable at all if it coincides with a high rate of general population growth in those areas. The statement could therefore be misrepresentative, so this should be verified.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

From end of first paragraph, removed "In the last decades of the twentieth century Jehovah's Witnesses membership numbers have been steadily increasing particularly in Africa, Latin America and Asia."

Growth is somewhat irrelevant, and certainly not restricted to the late 20th century or to developing countries.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very happy with the lead as it is now after Jeffro's edits - I only wish that you would all reconsider the importance of the explosive growth of the religion in non western countries as I since it is sociologically important. This is a development that has taken pace in the last twenty and it is not an effect of general population increase as we are talking about new first generation converts in the majority of cases. I also think that the publications (watchtower and new world translation specifically) need to be mentioned because they have their own section in the body. oh, and a nother reason that mentioning the growth rate is important is to balance the statement about defections due to failed prohoecies - as it is now it might be inferred that the religion hasn't recovered from membership loss in 1914, 1925 and 1975 - this is not the case the organization has recovered fully and more. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In the last 35 years, the number of JWs has tripled globally, but it's also doubled domestically (that is, inside the USA). Even linearly, that's not an order-of-magnitude difference between global and domestic growth. And, since the difference is compounded annually, the difference is even less statistically significant.

Some of your ideas might fit somewhere at Jehovah's Witnesses by country or Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses. --AuthorityTam (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Though JW growth in some non-Western countries has been higher than average, I wouldn't call it "explosive". In countries where there aren't many JWs, even a small increase in the number of JWs represents a high growth rate, which can be misleading in real terms. According to JW 2008 statistics, in the United States, 1 out of every 8473 people were baptized as JWs in that year. Most countries in Asia have not seen substantial growth in terms of the number of JWs per country population - only Georgia and Armenia had a growth rate per population higher than that of the United States; Japan did not keep up with population growth rate, and Tajikistan had ceased reporting activity. Of the 48 reporting countries in Africa, 18 had a higher rate than the US, but 12 (including 4 of the 18) had a growth rate lower than the population growth rate. Most countries in South America did have a higher rate of baptisms per population than the United States, but 6 of the reporting countries had a growth rate less than population growth. Countries in Central America had growth rates better than the US.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• From middle of first paragraph, changed the last part of:

"They base their beliefs on the Bible and its interpretation by the organization's Governing Body, a group composed of 9 men who constitute the supreme authority on all doctrinal matters.", to

"They base their beliefs on the Bible and its interpretation by the organization's Governing Body, an elder group currently composed of nine members, which constitutes the supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters."

The word elder connotes some, and the wiki the rest (mature, male). The number is not fixed at 9, and has changed from 8 to 20 over the years. The MOS says spell small numbers. No individual member is a significant authority, but as a body they constitute one.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed my own typo.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed human authority. POV. No other form of authority is verifiable. Also uncap. 'heaven' and minor rewording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Most readers would understand the adjective "human" to mean the GB sees itself as unable to outvote the Bible, which while penned by humans is widely believed to be of divine inspiration. While JWs do not use the term, the concept is sometimes referred to as "sola scriptura". Additionally, the adjective "human" was added to clarify that JWs are not an episcopacy, and they reject the Catholic/Orthodox idea of "Sacred Tradition". Saying all that with one word seemed like a good idea. Might you reconsider your objection? --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The GB makes (some) decisions that have no specific scriptural basis (organ transplants etc), which are often given as 'rulings' that must be followed. The GB deciding what is or is not a 'conscience matter' is also relevant here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro77, are you arguing that even if other religions described their intended authority structure as "sola scriptura", JWs cannot? By way of explanation, in contrast with the governing bodies of other religions practicing episcopacy and "Sacred Tradition", the GBJW claims to lack the authority to contradict the Bible.

Interpreting a matter more strictly than what the Bible may explicitly say doesn't involve contradicting the Bible. If parents tell the babysitter, "no television for the kids", does the babysitter contradict parents by disallowing streaming internet programming from [Hulu.com]? I recommended language that didn't seek to laud JWs, but merely explain that the GBJW sees itself as the highest human authority in deference to the Bible. If there is another way to say it with different succinct language that's fine. It is not correct, however, to assert: The "Governing Body...exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters." per paragraph 1.

Do other feel this is unacceptable? --> "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters."

The alternative is that the GBJW recognizes no authority higher than themselves, which is wrong. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: That the “GBJW claims to lack the authority to contradict the Bible” is moot since it is also true that the GBJW claims authority to determine what the Bible teaches. The GBJW asks Witnesses to treat what it says as the voice of God. Are you unaware of this? Do you disagree the GBJW claims authority to determine what the Bible teaches? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Threadwise, Marvin Shilmer, are you arguing that it is unencyclopedic for any Christian religion to specify its intentions regarding "sola scriptura", episcopacy, and "Sacred Tradition"? Or that only specific terms should be used to describe those concepts? Is your issue with the exact choice of words?

It seems entirely encyclopedic to note that the GBJW acknowledges itself as the highest human authority (theologically). It's seems POV to hide the GBJW's intention to be subject to the Bible, and POV to pretend no one believes the Bible more than merely human. I suggested a succinct way to do that (eg "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters."), and haven't yet seen an alternate suggestion.

Regarding Marvin Shilmer's "voice of God" question... I'd guess maybe the RC Church uses the term "the voice of God" for its official communications. I seem to recall the Latin "Vox populi, vox Dei" and don't think botanists would use it. The GBJW doesn't call its communications "the voice of God" or pretend that they are on par with or superior to the Bible. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The statement "The Governing Body exercises supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters” is silly to the average reader because the average reader must assume the men on the governing body are, gasp, humans. It insults readers to have to be told this, which is why the language makes for a silly presentation. On the other hand, if the sentence is not trying to express that humans make up the governing body, then the sentence becomes a POV statement of doctrine rather than a statement of fact. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's productive to continue to criticize wording I've conceded is imperfect.

Please feel free to suggest an alternative that at least implies the fact that the GBJW claims to acknowledge a higher authority than itself.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: That Witnesses worship a God named Jehovah implies this perfectly well. This article is not about God. It is about a religion. The top authority for the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the Governing Body. It tells Witnesses what God’s word the Holy Bible means. It then enforces this doctrine among Witnesses under pain of organized communal shunning.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that JWs cannot use the term 'sola sciptura'; however, they do not use it. The bible can be largely interpreted to say pretty much whatever you want it to. If the GB told JWs they could murder non-Witnesses, a 'scriptural' precedent could be formed; similarly if they wanted to say JWs should build spaceships to go to 'heaven'. (These examples of hyperbole are demonstrative only, and specific analysis is unnecessary.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Presentation of "human authority" as contrasted with "sola scriptura" is unverified POV, as scripture was written by humans, and inspiration thereof is a theological opinion. As such, if scripture takes precedence, inclusion of "human" contradicts your point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This train is off the rails. My point is that, using some language, the article should communicate the point that the GBJW acknowledges no higher human authority, but they do defer (or claim to defer) to the Bible. Please feel free to suggest whatever wording floats your boat to do so.

The hypotheticals assume mindless participation by adherents, ironically, by adherents who have been told repeatedly for decades that the Bible is the highest authority. Please consider a parallel hypothetical: In the US government, the U.S. Supreme Court is the supreme human authority on matters of contention, but it defers to the US Constitution. As our friends have above, skeptics might argue, 'Since the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, it isn't really subject to it.' Others might hypothesize, "The Supreme Court could get Americans to commit murder or build spaceships just by claiming the Constitution says to." Americans and JWs are not mindless automatons, and each group recognizes a higher authority than the Supreme Court or the Governing Body.

Even if one rejects the notion of a Divine Author, the Bible is not a human authority in the manner that a committee of living humans might be a human authority. The Bible (like the US Constitution) is a document imbued with heritage and cross-generational consensus which transcends a human lifetime.

I'll mention again my suggested wording: "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters." When some insist on removing "human", the result is "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters" implying the GBJW does not believe itself under any additional authority such as from the Bible (or heaven, it could furthermore be argued). I'm not arguing that my suggestion is perfect, but that it is more accurate than the only alternative I've seen suggested. What's your suggestion? --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that JWs are Christian indicates they assign authority to the Bible. However, GB doctrine does indeed outrank the Bible when necessary, and although its straying out of scope, here is an example: Jeremiah 29:10 is used by JWs to assert that Jews would be "at Babylon" for seventy years. (The common cited issue with that verse is that most translations say "for Babylon", however that is moot.) The context of this passage is a letter sent by Jeremiah (while still in Jerusalem) in about 595BC (615 in JW time) to Jews who were exiled to Babylon in 598BC (618 JW), prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC (607 JW), where he tells them that they would not be released until after Babylon’s 70 years had ended. It makes no sense to tell those people that they would be in Babylon for 70 years starting from some point in the future, but the Governing Body's interpretation support its chronology, ignoring the context of the passage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from that, no non-human authority is verifiable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You write, "...Christian indicates they assign authority to the Bible".

Would that were true! However, the term "Christian" does not explicitly indicate that the self-described Christian religion (or governing body) teaches that its authority is subordinate to that of the Bible. You may be interested to learn that religions espousing episcopacy, and "Sacred Tradition" believe their leaders are authorized to supersede and contradict the Bible, at least to some extent. JWs do not claim that right.

It seems inadvisable to allow a remarkably granular point to distract from a rather overriding concept: should this article seek to hide that the GBJW considers itself subject to the authority of the Bible, a concept others have named "sola scriptura"? If yes, please create a separate section, because the conversation will be long and loud.

The wording I have proposed is: "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters." The argument to remove "human" seems to prefer "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters", but that wording implies the GBJW does not believe itself under any additional authority such as from the Bible (which might be called pan-human, if not divine). If my suggestion is unacceptable, please consider offering a suggestion which makes the points mentioned. Thanks! --AuthorityTam (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested wording does not "explicitly indicate that the self-described Christian religion (or governing body) teaches that its authority is subordinate to that of the Bible". I'm not sure what 'pan-human' might mean here (perhaps you're suggesting some personal opinion that the Bible has authority over all humans), nor how readers should determine from your wording that the inclusion of "human" indicates what biblical authority "might be called". If you believe the perceived authority of the GB should be clarified, do so in the relevant section, but it's not necessary in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The current suggested wording for the statement in question is They base their beliefs on the Bible and its interpretation by the organization's Governing Body, a group of elders currently comprising nine members, which exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters. It is not clear why you believe this does not adequately convey that the GB bases its doctrinal decisions on the Bible. I would like to note that I have no problem with dropping the word 'supreme', which is actually redundant (and a bit Diana Ross-ish).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for a Christian religion to claim the authority to contradict the Bible. The GBJW claims it does not have that authority. Feel free to suggestion wording of the matter. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the perceived authority of the GB should be clarified, do so in the relevant section, but it's not necessary in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed "constitutes the (supreme authority)" to "exercises". The group doesn't 'constitute' authority.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed currently 9 members (of GB). This exact number isn't particularly notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Removed 'to outsiders', as the distinction is inherent and implicit. They are obviously known more intimately by 'insiders'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• In third paragraph, change:

"reject the traditional doctrines of Trinity, immortality of the soul and a Hell tortures", to "reject Trinitarianism, immortality of the soul, and hellfire" What's the difference if someone views them as traditional? The beliefs/non-beliefs should be grouped better.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Added Following a schism in the Bible Student movement, the branch that maintained control of the Society, diverged from the other Bible Student groups. This is to clarify how and why the group that became JWs 'underwent changes'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There was not merely one schism. The matter lasted a decade or more.

Elsewhere, I've recently pointed out that no reference yet presented has pretended that the number of adherents associated with Watch Tower was ever less than a majority of the BSM (that is, the Bible Student movement) at any given time. The majority doesn't "diverge" from the minority, and the majority is not merely a "branch". Please reconsider your edit. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Statistics published by Watchtower show at one point that about 75 percent withdrew from Watchtower. From memory this tremendous withdrawal occured in the mid to late 20s.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are statistics for annual Memorial attendance published by Watch Tower; I've included every year I could readily find:

1917 21,274

1919 17,961

1924 65,105

1925 90,434

1927 88,544

1935 63,146

1938 73,420

It's theoretically possible to shoehorn in a 75% dip and immediate huge recovery between 1928 and 1934, but why don't you just share your reference showing the 75% figure? --AuthorityTam (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Shoehorn? Why the characterization? According to Penton, memorial attendance for 1928 was around 20,000. If true, what would this tell you? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can determine the 75% figure originated with William Schnell, the ex-Witness who wrote Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave. I don't have that book, but Alan Rogerson (p.52) writes: "Schnell claims that three-quarters of the Bible Students associating in 1921 had left by 1931. (italics mine). Rogerson makes no claim that that figure is reliable, but cites a statement by Rutherford (Jehovah, p. 277) in possible support of this (a link to that book is in the lead section of Bible Student movement). The Divine Purpose book (p. 73) uses the figures tabulated above to claim "far less than 4000" of the 21,000 associating in 1917 had walked out by 1919, which is a 16 per cent defection in two years. Penton (p. 68) says that while new converts were being made post-1917, "almost as many Bible Students were severing association with the society". He notes in the footnote that it is impossible to say how many Bible Students from CTR's day left, but he also turns to a statement by JFR in support of the clain that many did, citing the 1930 WT, page 342 (which I don't have) and Timothy White, pages 251-8 (which I don't yet have). Bottom line: many claims, but little proof. And using Penton's rationale, the rise in Memorial attenders post-1919 may hide the number of Russell-era Bible Students who abandoned the organization, so it is still possible (but not verifiable) that there was a significant churn post-1917, creating a new-look organization with new people to embrace its new teachings and control structure. LTSally (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The numbers I cite address a period restricted to Rutherford’s era or leadership. The massive exodus of Watchtower followers that occurred during the late 1920s was not necessarily Bible Students upset with Rutherford’s defection from Russell’s teaching, but rather disappointment/dissatisfaction with Rutherford’s leadership/teachings regardless of what Russell taught. It is probable the failure of Rutherford’s extravagant claims of 1925 played a significant role in this. In any event, it is not always the case that a majority of Watchtower followers remained after a schism. Memorial statistics of the late 20s demonstrate this.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would consider changing 'a schism' and 'branch', (maybe something like "After a series of disputes within the Bible Student movement, the group that maintained") but the idea in this sentence is important to explain how and why changes occurred.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When one thing moves away from several things (See Bible Student movement), it "diverges" from them, regardless of which is bigger.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are part of the Bible Student movement. They'd say they never left it; it seems difficult to argue with them since they still believe the central teachings. --AuthorityTam (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious comment. Have Jehovah's Witnesses ever stated that they are "part of the Bible Student movement" and have "never left it"? I'd be surprised if they today acknowledged there was such a movement and that it had any relevance to them. Still, you may have a reference. LTSally (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

JWs claim that they used to be known as Bible Students, but they do not state that they are part of the Bible Student movement, the ongoing existence of which they officially ignore.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no dispute in the context you're claiming. JWs are inherently connected to the Bible Student movement. However, they have clearly diverged from other Bible Student groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted "diverged from the other Bible Student groups". There's already a reference to a schism in the Bible Student movement and probably each of the strands of the movement — the Dawn Bible Students, Johnson's group, the Standfast movement etc — diverged from one another, otherwise they'd have remained united, so any doctrinal movement by Rutherford's group at that point is not notable. The adoption of the new name in 1931 and subsequent centralization are the major milestones at that point. LTSally (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reordered. 1) who they are 2) how they started 3) what they believe 4) why they're notable--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Removed "endeavour to remain separate from". This phrase suggests they live in communes and avoid 'outsiders' altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Removed "the Armageddon". Poor wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Grammar - separate run-ons with semicolons--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cite JW reason for not celebrating holidays.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Break up last paragraph.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Replaced flag salutation with saluting national flags. Have never heard anyone refer to 'flag salutation'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Split two figures to read: "they report annual convention and Memorial attendance of over 12 and 17 million, respectively." Wording can probably be further improved upon, but previous wording made the figures seem like one approximate estimate, whereas both figures are in reality very exact, and separate. 70.70.148.83 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have further split these. I wouldn't say that a headcount of large numbers of people who happen to be seated at a particular time is very exact, but it is certainly representative, and separating the two gatherings better makes the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Added adoption of name JW - This would seem to be a fairly fundamental point for the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Removed restating of 'Bible Student'. It is clear from previous sentence which 'movement' is referred to.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Removed incorrect use of the verb, exact, which means to demand or require (something) (often in reference to payment, respect etc). The leadership doesn't exact control, it exacts obedience, but including the word adds little value. Slight re-wording re 'shunning'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Replaced strictly controls individual members' adherence to religious dogma and with does not tolerate divisions as regards doctrine or the breaking of its. The second is much more accurate and does not lead to misconseptions. There is no human way to "control" what others believe.--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Avoid buzzword application of 'divisions'. Can't 'break' a moral 'principle'. People's beliefs can indeed be 'controlled' by making circumstances intolerable e.g. threat of shunning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Disagreements on minor things are allowed:

Consider another possibility involving the congregation. Suppose that a person finds a Scriptural teaching hard to understand and accept. He may have done research in the Bible and in publications available through the congregation and sought help from mature fellow Christians, even elders. Still, he has a hard time grasping or accepting the point. What can he do? Something similar developed about a year before Jesus died. He said that he was “the bread of life” and that to live forever a person had to “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood.” That shocked some of his disciples. Rather than seek an explanation or simply wait in faith, many disciples “would no longer walk with [Jesus].” (John 6:35, 41-66)

— *** w07 4/15 p. 28 par. 14 Let the Congregation Be Built Up ***

--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The import of the quote from The Watchtower is not It's OK to disagree, and the article does not support your claim. More specifically, instruction from The Watchtower is that members who have doubts about JW doctrines should 'shut up' about them, and 'remove their doubts' by 'deepening their appreciation for the JW organization' rather than maintaining their own opinions.

16 What if we are tempted to murmur because of having doubts about certain teachings that Jehovah’s people hold in common? Then let us not be impatient. The ‘faithful slave’ may eventually publish something that answers our questions and clears up our doubts. It is wise to seek the help of Christian elders. (Jude 22, 23) Prayer, personal study, and association with spiritually-minded fellow believers can also help to remove doubts and can deepen our appreciation for the faith-strengthening Bible truths we have learned through Jehovah’s channel of communication.

— The Watchtower 15 July 2006 p. 22

--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Causing of divisions is not allowed. This is different if someone's conclusion aren't the same with organization's as regards a specific subject of minor importance.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored again. The suggested wording has no bearing on your inference that members are free to have their own unstated disagreements with the religions doctrines on minor matters.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly relevant to the introduction, Vassilis. Those first-century disciples chose to quit association. In a well-publicised incident, a number of Witnesses in Brooklyn Bethel about 1980 proposed adjustments to WT teachings re the 144,000 and the "last days", among other points. Judicial committees were promptly formed to question them and their associates and they were disfellowshipped for apostasy, even though they all wishes to remain in fellowship with other Witnesses and the organization. The WTS did not tolerate dissent from official teachings. Nor, I'd suggest, would they have tolerated anyone suggesting the "generation of 1914" teaching at the time was wrong, even though it was later abandoned. LTSally (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In the 1980 incident there was an organized effort to cause divisions. It wasn't just misunderstanding of explanations of secondary things.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed again. The current wording gives the false impresion that every detail of the lives of JWs is determined by the organization. If it is to be again, there must be clarification. My view is that this is totally out of the scope of the prologue.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that to be the case re-word it, don't remove it. Disciplinary action of JWs is a notable issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Added as unscriptrural.--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

rephrased and fixed spelling.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Removed It underwent significant organizational changes in the early twentieth century, centralizing its authority structure and bringing their methods of evangelism under centralized control. POV since the organizationals changes neither started then nor finished then. It leads to focused misconseptions.--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reinstated sentence on organizational changes. The changes made in the early 1920s particularly altered the religion significantly. The concept of "theocractic government" was introduced, elective elders replaced, independence of local ecclesias dismantled, standardised teaching programs introduced, including service meeting standardized preaching processes introduced including the recorded sermons, reporting of preaching service to Brooklyn required. All in all, a comprehensive centralization of power from the independent ecclesia system that had grown under Rutherford. This is not a POV as claimed, but a record of significant change in the running of the religion. LTSally (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Remeoved again. At the beginning, Russell had no elders at all. Then he chanded that. Wasn't that a great difference? Also, the organizational stracture changed significally in early 1970s' also. Was that of minor importqance? And who are you to judge which specific period you will select to focus on? This is POV, the fact that isolate a specific period because of your views. BTW, this serves nothing the prologue. There is an article below to explain.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes under Rutherford from 1917 to 1931 relate to a period of development of Jehovah's Witnesses as they became distinct from (the rest of) the Bible Student movement, and is therefore significant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement restored with some modification and chronological order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Vassilis, that Russell made some changes in organization, and that there were more changes regarding committees, GB etc in the 1970s. These, in the scale of things, were minor. Until Rutherford's changes the group functioned as a collection of independent ecclesias, free to choose how they preached and conducted meetings. Once the centralization changes took place, they remained, allowing the organization to function on a global basis. This was a major reorganization. LTSally (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Added in 236 countries.--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. 1) The number is subject to change, and is trivial. 2) The statement is false. JWs report activity in 236 of what they call lands. For example, Hawaii is not a "country". Several of the islands they report separately are also not countries. See footnotes at Jehovah's Witnesses by country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: I think it is not good that the first paragraph mentions "Memorial attendance" whih the average reader will have no way to understand what is. I believe that 'Memorial attendance' should either be explained or moved into a note.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinked to JW Beliefs article for Memorial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Added reference to NWT (with slight rewording re GB), Watchtower, and Awake!, per Maunus' suggestion ("I also think that the publications (watchtower and new world translation specifically) need to be mentioned")--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any particular reason we need it to read "Satan the Devil"? Can't we strike out "the Devil"? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed "devil".·Maunus·ƛ· 00:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Added reference to 144,000. The Witnesses' use of the number is widely known, but in my experience is widely misunderstood. The wording previously said that believers hope to live in heaven or earth; this now indicates their belief that it's not a random option or matter of choice. "Elect" was Russell's term, as I recall, and should be widely understood, but there may be a better term. LTSally (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on wording/spelling: Jeff, what's your source for paradisaical and paradisiacal having different uses? I checked the OED, which gives them as precisely synonymous, redirecting paradisaical to paradisiacal. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I had never before seen paradisiacal (and apparently neither have the spellcheckers I have though they each recognise paradisaical.) The standard English suffix, '-ical' denotes 'pertaining to', and '-iacal' should be used only when the base noun already ends in '-iac', such as in the word maniacal. (The flawed etymology of the alternative base adjective paradisiac is likely influenced by aphrodisiac, derived from a Greek word with the suffix '-akos', whereas paradise is derived from a different Greek word with the suffix, '-eisos'.) The source for my cursory verification was Wiktionary, which probably isn't the best source, however etymologically, paradisaical is indeed the most correct form.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Move sentence about Governing Body lower than the second sentence. To any casual reader, there are more important facts (and their membership numbers is one of them) that are of more interest and importance than who directs them. LTSally (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with the phrasing "Jehovahs witnesses have had considerable influence on legislation..." - I think this formulation raises more questions than it answers. How did they do it? Through JW senators? Through lobbying? I think it should be clarified that they have only done it through trials within already existing legislation that has set precedence in civil rights cases.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Changed hellfire to hell; saw no reason not to. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is this sentence: "Members commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the Truth", and once baptized are said to be "in the Truth"." really so essential as to be in the lead? I suggest that it be stricken. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not need in the head.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase is dominant and distinctive among Witnesses. It is part of their distinctive, unique language that allows them to instantly identify Witnesses and outsiders. The phrase is so extensively used that for Witnesses it completely, unconsciously, substitutes for the phrase "in the religion" or "in the organization". Even ex-Witnesses who have consciously, deliberately left, slip back into usage of the phrase. LTSally (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Agree.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added heavy as regards violation of rules. It's an effort to clarify things.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Heavy" is completely the wrong word. LTSally (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Agree. The term is no clarification; it is waxing.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ι put They consider Bible as the authority of their teachings. Even thought personal and daily Bible study its strongly encouraged, the biblical exegesis is done under the supervision of the Governing Body, a group of elders that coordinates the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses world-wide. This exactly depicts the situation. The mention to NWT is irrelevant. Biblical exegisis doesn't depent on the NWT. The NWT is an important Bible study aid to those not aquinted with the biblical languages.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the very poor spelling, it fails to convey the broader message of control of doctrines and behaviour. The GB does not simply "coordinate" or "supervise". I will revert to the superior language that existed earlier. LTSally (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Agree. GB is the decision-making body. The GB tells Witnesses what the Bible says. It then enforces this view under pain of communal shunning for members voicing public dissent.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What you restored is not an accurate description of the case. It leads to false assumptions. GB is impossible to do control everything in 7,000,000 people. This is illogical to say. The local body of elders have considerable authority that is respected by the traveling overseers and the local branches. The routine of JWs had nothing directly to do with the GB but has to do with the local elders. Of course the guidelines are given by the GB but the application of the guidelines rests on the local bodies of elders. As regards Biblical exegesis, GB is responsible for the final decisions, but this doesn't mean that all the work or all the study or all the research is made by the GB. This is impossible. The writers of the articles and the specialists on some fields, as p.e. Biblical languages, are many, inside and outside the Bethel, the final work is supervised by the GB and the final decisions as regards what will be published rest on the GB. The translation work in some difficult languages is typically under the supervision of the Governing Body. I don't see how the GB could check one by one the decisions taken, for instance, in the Chinese New World Translation. The course in this case is this: GB supervises the Writing Department. WD supervises the Translation Services. TS supervise the local translation departments. So, the current version must be changed.--Vassilis78 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The GB enforces its doctrinal views by imposing organized communal shunning on Witnesses who publicly voice a dissenting view. Elders are appointed by instruments of the GB to oversee local application of this control over dissenting views expressed by members. As you say, and I agree, the GB makes the final decisions about doctrinal matters. But the control factor is there in terms of the “final decision” the GB has asserted that forbids public dissent, or else face disfellowshipping.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is little room for "false assumptions". The sentence says Witnesses are directed by the GB and that the GB exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters. There is nothing in that wording that suggests the GB has an active role in establishing meeting times for local congregations or the GB meets to edit the punctuation or check the scriptural references of translation accuracy of every Awake! article. You are taking that to a ridiculous extreme. The GB does decide what the doctrines are, establishes how the organization will function and how closely it will direct members of the religion in their activities. This is accurate. LTSally (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Comment: Regarding the organization’s exacting of control, disfellowshipping is not the only Watchtowerese applied in relation to individuals the religion enforces a shunning policy. For some “sins” Watchtower has elders deliberate to decide if a member should be disfellowshipped. (E.g., murder.) For other “sins” Watchtower has elders deliberate to decide if a member should be deemed to have disassociated. (E.g., accepting a blood transfusion.) In each case Watchtower enforces the same shunning. Accordingly, here is the language "known as disfellowshipping" really necessary? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not necessary to introduce the special term in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I think we need a seperate page for the introduction. This page is a mess.
2. I feel confused with the so many proposals, but I like Jeffro's system. Can we focus only to that, so that we can combine all the proposed ideas?

--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, I want your attention. Can we create a separate page and focus on one proposal, instead of giving comments here and there in this page, something which had made the discussion impossible to follow?--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This is the single talk page for the article in question. Additionally this talk page has an Editable Lead section precisely for the purpose you name. I am confused about what is confusing you. What do you ask that it not already at work? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)