Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:58, 11 August 2012

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jehovah's Witnesses at the Reference desk.

	Jehovah's Witnesses has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 11, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 31, 2011 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Witnesses Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance). Template:WP1.0

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Persecution reasons short note

We already examined reasons to persecution of JWs very much, so we don't need to resume that previous talk. Specifically, I remind expressions like "provocation theory", "masochists", "conspiracists" and "horny to self-martyrdom", what were considered to be a noted utterances. Archive is here. I came across Misplaced Pages and discovered some articles and essays which can be (=maybe it is not) relevant to reasons of JW' persecution in general. Unintended consequences ,, The road to hell is paved with good intentions ,, Side effect ,, Boomerang effect (psychology) ,, Relevance paradox. However, speculation about that is possibly WP:OR. --FakTNeviM (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be suggesting anything. But you're right, your implied leading question about the listed topics is indeed original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Are all Jehovah's Witnesses homophobic?

shunning

I edited the sentences in the criticism section regarding shunning by carefully differentiating the reason for shunning. A conscious objection to some teaching owes disfellowshipping only if such indicidual try to promote it to other members. Also persons who just leave the religion are NOT disfellowshipped, unless they formally write a letter or join another religion--Fazilfazil (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your objection to the wording, but you are incorrect. A person can be disfellowshipped for acting contrary to WTS doctrines without promoting their views. I know of someone who was disfellowshipped for posting on a blog photos of their children's birthday party. The elders' handbook allows for people to be disfellowshipped if they are known to celebrate Christmas. Both these things are decisions of conscience, but neither involves promoting their dissenting view. Someone who, as a matter of conscience, accepts a blood transfusion (even without disclosing or promoting this publicly) will effectively be disfellowshipped, though the WTS takes a legalistic approach and declares that such a person has automatically disassociated themselves by their action.

Similarly, Holden's observation about not being allowed a dignified exit follows comments in that chapter about multiple individuals who ceased association with the religion and were subsequently shunned by former friends. He does not limit his comment to those who are disfellowshipped or who formally disassociate. If I was a member of a sports club or stamp collecting club or Rotary club, for example, I could choose to end my membership, shake hands with the other members and continue to chat whenever I subsequently met them. I would leave with dignity. Those who choose to leave the JWs have few options. They can formally disassociate (and thus will suffer from a mandatory organizational shunning from friends and relatives) or they can "fade". This will probably involve receiving repeated calls from elders wanting to know why they left and if they still believe the core JW doctrines (if the defecting JW says they do not, they may then be told to appear before a judicial committee and subsequently disfellowshipped). They will almost certainly be shunned by former friends, who will treat them with suspicion and caution. They will also be under pressure to avoid demonstrating any behavior that conflicts with JW doctrine, i.e. they will be very cautious about celebrating birthdays or Christmas, buying lottery tickets, donating blood, voting or any other decision of Christian conscience. The defecting JW is then forced to hide their motives for leaving, refrain from acting according to conscience and will be shunned by former associates. Their decision to leave will not be respected or accepted, even though they wish to live a quiet life. They will thus not be allowed a dignified exit.

Holden's comment reflects that of Raymond Franz's in his In Search of Christian Freedom book (pg 358): "Those who think of 'quietly withdrawing' know that they have a gun at their heads, the weapon being the threat of official disfellowshipment (or that of being pronounced 'disassociated', which is the same weapon) .... Witnesses attempting to leave the organization for conscientious reasons can do so only at the risk of being labeled heretical, unfit for true Christians (other Jehovah's Witnesses) to associate with, someone that even family members should treat as an 'outcast'. The organizational policies allow no possible way to leave with honor."

I will revert your edit. I'll also take this opportunity to adjust the position of two references in that paragraph that support the use of the words "authoritarian" and "totalitarian"; the subsequent addition of other citations has pushed their placement far from the actual point they support. BlackCab (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The present wording is misleading and have a broad meaning. Writing a letter to "Governing Body" or talking with an elder regarding a disagreement on a particular teaching would not cause disciplinary action like shunning. Such individuals are encouraged to "wait for Jehovah", and are not shunned as long as they don't stumble others by their actions. By using the word 'Promoting' I mean to 'express' themselves either by their actions or speech that they no longer agree with the official teachings. A person who celebrated birthday and posted it online had definitely shown by his action that he no longer agree with the official teaching. Having different opinions but not expressing or persuading others to follow his opinion on a teaching would not make any disciplinary actions. Perhaps we both make some WP:OR here, but what I said is accurate. The present statement is quite inaccurate and portrays the fact in an extreme critical way. Also there are many former members around the globe who go inactive by not involving in any JW activity, but not shunned. Many of them later choose to become active. See official statement here under the heading "DO YOU SHUN FORMER MEMBERS?". In my knowledge such self-resignation is very rare, and I hence seriously doubt the need for highlighting that in the lede section as well. --Fazilfazil (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The current wording is contained in the "Criticisms" section and clearly and accurately reflects the views of critics, as expressed in reliable published sources. The article nowhere discusses the situation of a JW writing a letter to the Governing Body or discussing a disagreement on a teaching, so your objection is a straw man argument. BlackCab (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is then "formally" is given in the lede when disassociating is mentioned? We don't need to show double standards for lede and criticism section--Fazilfazil (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no double standard, Fazilfazil. Reference in the lead section to people formally leaving the religion is a summary of material contained at the Disciplinary action subsection of "Practices". I have already explained the context of Holden's comment in the "Criticisms" section, so your inclusion of the word "formally" in that sentence is a blatant misrepresentation. BlackCab (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea. Independent editors know who is "Blatant misrepresenting". Leaving it alone until I find a source, no use of talking--Fazilfazil (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Two disagreements have been bandied here. Firstly:
1.) User:BlackCab's preferred wording is this: "Critics have described the religion's...practice of expelling and shunning members who cannot conscientiously agree with all the religion's teachings."
2.) User:Fazilfazil's preferred wording is this: "Critics have described the religion's...practice of expelling and shunning members who promote their conscientious disagreement with any of the religion's teachings."
JWs do not disfellowship for mere thoughts. JWs disfellowship for apostasy when an adherent unrepentantly advocates some disagreement (so-called "conscientiousness" being immaterial) with his supposed faith's religious beliefs. I suggest the sentence be edited to:

• "Critics have described the religion's...practice of expelling and shunning members who advocate some disagreement with the religion's teachings."
  

Do the cited references contradict my suggestion? If so, please provide a quote. Moving on... Secondly:
The cited Holden reference is not to those who merely "fade". A so-called "fader" is by some definition, still an "inactive Jehovah's Witness". By no reasonable definition can such a "fader" be considered to have "formally" left the religion. The disagreement:
A.) BlackCab's preferred wording: "Holden says those who choose to leave the religion formally "are seldom allowed a dignified exit." ..."
B.) Fazilfazil's preferred wording: "Holden says those who choose to leave the religion formally "are seldom allowed a dignified exit."..."
Removing the "formal" tends to imply that merely "fading" can result in disfellowshipping, which is untrue. Holden's very next sentence makes it clear that the 'lack of dignity' applies to those whose leaving involves something for which JWs actually disfellowship, such as the promotion of doctrinal disagreements. IMHO, that's a lot closer to "formal" than it is to "informal". It seems best to sidestep the matter by using Holden's term (though it's not from the quoted sentence); I suggest the following wording:

• "Holden says " are seldom allowed a dignified exit."..."
  

Incidentally, Holden's chosen wording in that sentence seems startling (that is, "Those who do eventually break free..."). Would it be scholarly to refer to adherents who "break free" of some other denomination of Judaism or Islam or Christianity? Further, Holden includes unverified accusations which are shamefully unscholarly, including a hearsay anecdote about a disfellowshipped octogenarian JW who fell down the stairs and "knew she would be refused help from members of her congregation". --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So you've returned, AuthorityTam. I hope your conduct and attitude have improved since you were last reported to the Administrators' Noticeboard.

Your use of "defectors" is a reasonable compromise in referring to Holden's comments about those who voluntarily exit the religion.

However your other edit referring to "the practice of expelling and shunning members who advocate some disagreement with the religion's teachings" is unacceptable. Muramoto remains as the source cited for that statement, but although he does refer to "former JWs who voice disagreement with the leaders" being labelled as apostates, the thrust of that article and the others in his series of Journal of Medical Ethics articles is that disfellowshipping also results for "conscientious dissenters" who unrepentantly receive blood products. In that article he refers to judicial action being taken against patients whose acceptance of blood is confidential, but which then becomes known to other JWs and subsequently reported to elders. There is very clearly no advocacy of opinion about WTS doctrines in that case, yet organized shunning will still result, probably from an announcement of disassociation. In his later article in the same journal, "Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses" (6 January, 2001, pg 37) Muramoto notes that "a member may be automatically shunned if there is reason to believe that he or she has renounced a core tenet of the faith by some specific action". This would clearly include the acceptance of blood (even in secret) as well as the celebration of birthdays and Christmas or the regular attendance of another church, yet once again there is no requirement for evidence of advocacy for a judicial committee to decide the individual is to be shunned. Pages 65-66 of Shepherding the Flock of God make a clear distinction between "Celebrating false religious holidays" and "Deliberately spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses", both of which are viewed as acts of "apostasy" and "Offenses requiring judicial decisions". Muramoto's discussion of the issue clearly shows he is aware of the distinction as well, hence he makes repeated reference to the "coercion" of members to obey the blood ban by the ever-present threat of expulsion and shunning.

The paragraph of Ray Franz's In Search of Christian Freedom I quoted above in this thread refers explicitly to those who "quietly withdraw" from the religion for conscientious reasons. On that page of his book, Franz also refers to a letter to all circuit and district overseers dated September 1, 1980 (reproduced on pages 341-2 of Crisis of Conscience) that says: "Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views ... if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persists in believing other doctrines .... then he is apostasizing."

In an observation highly germane to the criticism of "Suppression of free speech and thought", Holden, on pages 151 and 155, writes: "People leave the Society of their own accord ... The Governing Body's strategies for dealing with those who question its teachings force some individuals to spend several years, even most of their lives, suppressing doubts about the legitimacy of certain doctrines before deciding to leave. Others who have lost faith completely might never be able to break free because of their affective bond with friends and relatives in the movement ... The people I interviewed offered accounts of how they were rejected by other family members who were equally disillusioned, but who were too afraid to voice their concerns for fear of estranging their families."

AuthorityTam's change to the wording is, then, quite wrong: it contradicts not only Muramoto, but also Franz, who is cited as a source in the next sentence. I will revert the previous wording, which accurately conveys the criticism of both Muramoto and Franz. BlackCab (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As I was reading through this section, I was going to say that I was happy with AT's second suggestion. However, in light of the letter to overseers quoted and reproduced by Franz, it is clear that it is not merely empirical or anecdotal that a person need not 'promote' other ideas to be considered 'apostate' (and therefore be formally expelled) according to JW definitions. Of course, the view that a person need not 'promote' anything to be considered an 'apostate' is closer to the actual ('undemonised') definition of the word apostate anyway, though this is not consistent with how 'apostates' are routinely described in JW literature for general members.

Regarding the first suggestion, I agree in principle, but it would be simpler and less weasely to state, "Critics have described the religion's...practice of expelling and shunning members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings." The allusion to "mere thought" is a red herring, as there obviously must be some expression of such thoughts for anyone else to know about them. However, such expression may refer to remarks to the elders (or others) with no intention of 'promoting' anything at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Openly disagree? That wording doesn't accurately convey the issue. If a JW accepts a blood transfusion, telling no one, but is later discovered to have done so, has he "openly" disagreed? If a JW fades from the religion, then a year or two later celebrates a birthday within the family and a relative reports that incident to elders, prompting a judicial committee, is that "openly" disagreeing if he has told no one? In neither case is the ex-JW advocating anything, he is just going about his own life, post-JW. User talk:Fazilfazil#Leaving Jehovah's Witnesses and 'formally say'This conversation takes the issue out of the realms of the hypothetical. The words "cannot conscientiously agree with all the religion's teachings" are key to the whole issue. BlackCab (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The concept of the examples you're raising about actions warrants an entirely separate sentence. "cannot conscientiously agree with" is a fairly ambiguous way of trying to wrap up explicit disputes about doctrine with other mundane actions that the organisation's leadership imagines are significant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Muramoto, though he is cited here as a source, in fact writes much more about quiet, conscientious dissent with WTS doctrines rather than "open disagreement". So, at the cited source that follows, does Franz. Several editors here seem to want to insert their own observation and then base it on sources that say something quite different. In such a compact summary, however, the issue of conscientious dissent can probably be left out. BlackCab (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

All I am suggesting is that the article should be more unambiguous about what the sources actually say rather than cramming two different concepts into an ambiguous statement. It could probably be stated in just an extra sentence. I agree that there isn't much benefit in providing wording like "conscientious dissent" in the article if elaboration isn't warranted. I don't have ready access to the actual.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Persecution and Legal Challenges

The following statements:

"Consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses have been persecuted and their activities are banned or restricted in some countries. Persistent legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses have influenced legislation related to civil rights in various countries."

sound heavily influenced (and probably written by) a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization and slightly slanted. "Persecution" is a JW buzz word and essential to their doctrines, primarily in regards to identifying themselves as 'Jehovah's organization' since Jesus said that his followers would be 'tortured and killed for the sake of his name.' Furthermore, Jehvoah's Witnesses believe that their court battles have advanced the interests of others when it comes to Civil Rights. While this is somewhat true, it is greatly exaggerated by the JW leadership. Another point that should be mentioned is that most of these court battles have taken place in the United States. It would be hard to say exactly what percentage without adequate data, but notwithstanding, this fact is well known within the movement. To say that their legal battles have "influenced legislation related to civil rights in various countries" sounds like a big self-pat on the back. The movement was fighting for their individual rights and whatever "influence" Jehovah's Witnesses have had on civil rights is an afterthought. I would like to see this worded differently.

I would like to see some references or citations to backup the claims of the statement. I'm not saying that it is totally false, but the wording is slightly slanted. There are rumors that a committee has been established at the Watchtower headquarters to oversee, edit, and otherwise administer these Misplaced Pages articles and similar sights. Therefore the neutrality of the articles should be regularly monitored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.69.251.49 (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement would seem to be a fair summary of the spinout article, Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country, where legal victories are listed for several countries. The sentence cites Shawn Francis Peters' book, Judging Jehovah's Witnesses, which I have. That book focuses on Watch Tower Society court challenges regarding US law only, and Peters does emphasise the benefits to civil liberties rights that resulted from those challenges. (Those wider benefits, it has to be said, were unintended, since, as Peters notes on page 14, the Witnesses were entirely interested only in their own welfare. Peters, as do several other authors, also notes the irony of the religion being credited with expanding civil liberties for religious minorities, while acting in a manner that crushes individual liberties and freedom of conscience within their ranks.) I will rewrite the sentence to clarify that Peters refers only to US challenges.

You may not be aware, but JW-related articles are the result of often heated disputes between JW sympathisers and JW critics about the issue of neutrality, so although it is possible the Watch Tower Society has delegated someone to edit here to defend and promote their religion, the articles (at least the main ones) certainly are not WTS vanity pieces. Thanks for your interest and please feel free to contribute to articles if you have something to contribute in line with Misplaced Pages policies on neutrality and verifiability. BlackCab (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• GA-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• Top-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• GA-Class New religious movements articles
• Top-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles