Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 9 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.

Progressive revelation

I notice that FaktneviM added a link to Progressive revelation (Christianity) (which was reverted). However, that concept is not the same as what JWs call progressive revelation. The more general term refers to the belief that the New Testament helps provide a fuller understanding of the Old Testament. Whilst JWs may indeed believe that the NT does help explain elements of the OT, their use of "progressive revelation" is not restricted to that. In JW usage, "progressive revelation" includes modern changes in JW doctrines. Regarding their own use of the term, the 1 March 1965 Watchtower claimed: "THAT God gives his people on earth a progressive revelation is a thought that has never occurred to most persons of Christendom." This clearly indicates that their use of the term is distinct, and it would therefore be misleading to link the JWs' belief about their 'Governing Body' providing 'clearer understandings' with the more general term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As to Jeffro77's objection here, ... “modern changes in JW doctrines” are based on “their current understanding of the Bible” . Nobody thinks that "truth" from 1880 was absolutely true, neither "truth" in 1950 was absolutely true, nor "truth" as of 2012 is absolutely true. It was true and sufficient too in that proper time it was. This is simply based on what they understand to be direction from Jehovah God. This is "JW views on progressive revelation". They do not believe that each statement or even sentence from "Faithful and Discreet slave" (neither from all anointed person, nor from Bethels' staff, nor from Governing Body's members) is inspired. Articles in the Watchtower etc. are considered to be "spiritual food" .... " by whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time " But that doesn't mean that each sentence and paragraph is inspired, though could be influenced by God's holy spirit. They don't think that their leaders have any special miraculous capabilities. They just scrutinized in the Bible. And that's it! There is several same-meaning statements what they believe on this in the Proclaimers book, Faith in Action 2-parts DVD, and surely some articles or notes in their other publications.

I think that I mixed Continuous revelation with Progressive revelation (Christianity) as I did in one edit and later I corrected it. But my point was Writing better articles - provide context for the reader. I recognize that secondary source claims only that short sentence, but there is a high possibility for readers to common misconception what JWs really believe. Meaning of my edit do not change meaning from that book! Only provide more clear context what is about. There is no need to strictly keep wording from source in this case. Whole suggested text is summarized in BlackCab's undone here.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The JW concept of 'progressive revelation' is indeed more similar to the concept of continuous revelation (you 'corrected it' to the less accurate term). The JW 'distinction' in their semantic jargon about not 'inspired' (an undefined unprovable process) versus their claims of being 'spirit directed' (an undefined unprovable process) is essentially meaningless. If it were really the case that "they don't think that their leaders have any special miraculous capabilities", then the same applies to any religion. However, JW leadership does explicitly claim that it—and it alone—is God's channel of communication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your citation of "God's alone organization" is not in dispute here. That "almost every religion claims some direct divine help" is also not important. That is why approach of Mormonism, Pentecostal movement, Bahai, etc. is precisely the same like in article "continuous revelation". These and many other religions really believe in personal divine inspiration of their hundreds of prophets. But the approach of Bible Student Movement and Jehovah's Witnesses were during history always the same: they simply scrutinizing the Bible (all scriptures covering certain specific topic) first! and were praying for improve understanding. There is no "something made from nothing" like shocking revelation as invented by Joseph Smith jr., Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, or by Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim. JWs approach have never been in similar way like with other named religions. --FakTNeviM (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You have either not understood, or chosen to distort, what I said. I did not say that other religions claim "direct divine help" (though some certainly do make such a claim). What I meant was that if it were the case that JWs didn't think their leaders have any special source of information from God (as you claimed), then they would be no different to other religions that also receive no special information from God. JWs specifically claim to be God's channel of communication, which specifically means they claim to receive some kind of specific direction from God. Of course, in reality, none of those groups you've named, including JWs, receive any special 'direction' from God, and so there is never any explanation in JW literature of just how they are 'God's channel of communication'. Just like the others, they're actually just 'making it up as they go along'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No! That is another misconception. Claiming "Receiving special information from God" is not prove of being inspired or have holy spirit. Most of "inspirations" in the world is supplied by daemons and Satan. I know that you are laughing from that at this moment, but that is not important. Miracles could be (and most of them, as I studied circumstances behind them) in fact false signs with aim to deceiving people. Rest of "inspirations" which are not from daemonic source are invention of man's mind or psychic illnesses. The point is that JWs do not claim that everything what they are writing is divinely inspired. Neither they claim any materialistic miracle. But in fact, fulfilling prophecies, like 1942 Knorr's call and fulfilment of many written prophecies in New and Old Testament during history and in modern times too (despite fulfilment of prophecy could be always disaffirmed because of specific manner of what prophecy is, = baffling for readers/hearers until time of fulfilment really came and event came to exist). ... Just another off-topic. ... I am still sure that JWs' do not claim "continuous revelation" in sense in which is covered in that Misplaced Pages article. Maybe Jehovah's Witnesses views on revelation and divine direction would be accurate. But in the terms of current Wiki article named "continuous revelation" is not possible to implicate it to JWs. They are guided through studying the Bible. There is no prophetic revelation similar like from Joseph Smith's and several other prophets. --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

FakTNeviM, it appears incongruent that independent thinking or good faith independent theological study is discouraged, potentially considered sectarian or even apostate, and that progression of knowledge is expected. If a view dispensed by the Discrete And Faithful Slave or Governing Body is considered erroneous or false, an individual attempting to "reason" may be considered an apostate. Thus, even if in theory the DaFS is not considered inspired, they must still have the last word on every matter, despite being uninspired, imperfect humans. This is a very specific type of (questionable) "Progressive Revelation"... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please take your discussion somewhere else? This is not the place to promote your religious views. BlackCab (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I already stated that I am not happy that we do not discuss my reason to this. It is appropriate to provide readers a context, as Misplaced Pages policy urges. --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Magical thinking about 'daemons' and 'inspiration' is not relevant. The specific mechanism by which the JW leadership claims to be 'spirit directed' is not stated (ostensibly, because it's made up). However, the fact remains that what JWs call 'progressive revelation' is not that which is described at progressive revelation (Christianity), though it would be accurate to described the claimed 'channel of communication' (by whatever supposed mechanism) as continuous revelation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I agree. Do you think that for wiki-readers would be fit to provide context of this religious group's beliefs and implicate my wording with the decommissioning of that progressive direction christianity wikilink? --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The only issue I see with the above proposed change, is the justification that "customs" must be considered of pagan origin to be rejected. There is a more general issue of segregation (not only of pagan-originated customs) which the previous wording makes clear. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I reread the current version of the "Separateness" section and it seems reasonable... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

FatkTNeviM's change to the lead section retained the citation of reliable sources but altered the meaning of (and in some cases contradicted) what those sources stated. The article must reflect the statements of reliable sources, not what some anonymous editor thinks. BlackCab (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change does not change meaning of author's view, but provide context for the readers. Otherwise would be right to keep it like before. I omitted two previous wikilinks. What about this:

„They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or whatever else they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Bible-based Christianity, what includes many religious as well as secular holidays and customs. Adherents commonly refer to the Bible as "the truth" and consider themselves to be "in the truth" with their body of beliefs, while "the present truth" constitutes current understanding of the Bible and continuous direction of God's will through the Faithful and discreet slave. Jehovah's Witnesses consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and partially limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses.”

As "76.10.128.192" wrote, it is covered in section separateness. This approach has huge effect on their views on beliefs and customs which they consider to be incompatible with Bible's early Christianity' pattern. However, original citation from Holden is unclear, sketchily short and ambiguous instead. I am not sure what is really objection on this. There is no major change, but is more understandable. --FakTNeviM (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No. All Christian groups base their beliefs on their own interpretations of the Bible. JWs refer to their (leadership's) interpretations of the Bible as 'the Truth'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And "partially limit" is redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If I consider this objection, we can write it like this:

„They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or whatever else they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Bible-based Christianity, what includes many religious as well as secular holidays and customs. Adherents commonly refer to the Bible as "the truth" and consider themselves to be "in the truth" with their organization's body of beliefs, while "the present truth" constitutes current understanding of the Bible and continuous direction of God's will through the Faithful and discreet slave. Jehovah's Witnesses consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses.”

Exactly. Every religion (not only those espousing themselves to Christendom) has its own interpretation of the Bible and thus it is not relevant argument. It is like inform reader that "red is colour" or even that "colour is colour". It is obvious. Nobody is surprised by that unnecessary info. --FakTNeviM (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, no. You've said the same thing again, and you are distorting what the sources actually say. It is JWs' beliefs and interpretations that they refer to as "the truth", not simply 'the Bible'. JWs do not "commonly refer to the Bible as "the truth"" in the sense discussed by the sources. JWs often refer to their beliefs about the Bible as "the truth". Though JWs do believe the Bible to be true, when they refer to "the truth" or "in the truth", they refer to the beliefs of JWs, not simply the Bible on its own. The rest of your suggested text doesn't say much different to what is already stated in the article, and the existing wording has better grammar.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No. They consider "to be in the truth" when they are part of WTBTS organization and believe in current understanding aka 'present truth', (check Watchtower Library for this concept). But "the truth" is different than "something being true at the specific time". .... "The truth" is absolute term and constitutes the Bible only (What they believe is inspired and inerrant word of living God). .... Different term: "Being in the truth" is by their believe simply "adhere their organization's body of beliefs at the specific time." (changing over time suggest that it is "relative truth", not absolute). ... citation: “Frequently they referred to their Scriptural beliefs as “present truth”—not with any idea that truth itself changes but rather with the thought that their understanding of it was progressive.”. For instance, C. J. Woodworth (member of organization who have been in prison with Rutherford and who also believed that in 1914 he will go to heaven, said that he is after all that still happy that he recognized the present truth and thus he does not leave from organization and stayed with Jehovah's Witnesses until his death). This example is clear how they recognize difference between "the absolute truth" and "the present truth". Although it could be the case that some of members are mixing it together. But that is not purpose of encyclopaedia to speculate about how many people are aware of this different reality. --FakTNeviM (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no source for your claim that JWs refer to 'the Bible' as "the truth" in this sense, and the current source doesn't support your view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? That was 2 citations from Proclaimers book. For example, their year's text is based on (John 17:17) what implicate that the truth is the Bible, and not organization itself alone. (many references in WLib, most current reference in publication "Study scriptures daily 2012 Yeartext") 2012 Yeartext + comments by their organization, pages 6-7. There their leaders making clear difference. See also their reference works in Watchtower Library also for “absolute truth“, “truth“, “true“, “relative truth“ etc. --FakTNeviM (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested change is badly written, wordy, ungrammatical and in parts simply wrong. The lead section correctly notes that JWs refer to the body of teachings as "the truth" and that a baptized Witness is "in the truth". I was a Witness for more than 20 years and know, as every Witness does (at least in English-speaking countries) that when one speaks routinely of being "in the truth" it is a reference to being part of the JW community and accepting those teachings. Some secondary sources that make this clear include:

• Holden (pg 64): :It is not uncommon for Witnesses to ask each other how long they have been in the truth or when they first began to study." (emphasis in original).
• Schmalz ("When Festinger Fails", Religion, 1994): "Witnesses describe their conversion as 'coming into the Truth' and use images of darkness and light to contrast their previous lives to their present membership."
• Singelenberg ("It Separated the Wheat from the Chaff", Sociological Analysis, 1989): "Doctrines used to be inflexible and legalistic (which, to be sure, could be modified at a later date), so no confusion among the adherents could arise as to how to interpret 'The Truth'." Singelenberg also quotes an elder who told him: "Those who left were the ones who were afraid of 1975. But they were never really in 'The Truth'." Singelenberg, in footnote 8, notes: "'The Truth' is Witnesses' jargon, meaning the Society's belief system."
• Stroup (The Jehovah's Witnesses, 1945, pg 90): "Some Witnesses take delight in displaying resentments toward those they consider to be inferior; thus church members and unbelievers are inferior because they do not accept 'the truth'." Stroup makes repeated reference throughout his book to the use of the phrase "the truth". He notes (pg 101): "Some of the word patterns have been employed since the movement's inception. One such is 'the truth' ... since that time (1895) most true believers have called their conversion their coming into 'the truth'. Today the phrase is heard among Witnesses more often than the word 'God'."
• Botting & Botting (The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses, pg 70): "They refer to their world view and organization as 'The Truth'; to be a Jehovah's Witness is to be 'in The Truth'; and Witnesses call their beliefs 'truths'."

Yes, Watch Tower Society publications do commonly refer to the Bible as being the truth, but the use of the term in the introductory section of this Misplaced Pages article identifies its peculiar use by members to refer to their religion's teachings and the community that binds them. The article cites one secondary source and I will add Singelenberg's quite unambiguous description of what that term means. In all ways the existing wording in the lead section is superior to yours. You might as well stop now. BlackCab (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The main point is, and I suppose that secondary sources and you and most of people do not understand the difference is that two different truths within WTBTS exist.

T1relative) They consider "to be in the truth" when they are part of WTBTS organization and believe in current understanding aka 'present truth', "Being in the truth" is by their believe simply "adhere their organization's body of beliefs at the specific time." (changing over time suggest that it is "relative truth", not absolute).

T2absolute) "The Truth" is different than "something being true at the specific time". "The truth" is absolute term and constitutes the Bible only (What they believe is inspired and inerrant word of living God, what is never changes).

Again: + you confirmed: Watch Tower Society publications refer to the Bible as the truth (I already presented 3+ primary sources, +there is surely 100+)

Again: Although it could be the case that some of members are mixing it together. But that is not purpose of encyclopaedia to speculate about how many people are aware of this different reality.

Again: Your last paragraph seems like deliberate denial of primary source, what is unacceptable for editors.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is factual: Witnesses do commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the truth" and consider themselves to be "in the truth". It's a curious and distinctive belief by this religion, part of their doctrine that only they, of all religions, understand the Bible properly and are therefore God's channel. Those secondary sources have therefore noted their use of this phrase. It is neither remarkable nor notable that a religion believes the Bible to be true and beyond that your discussion about relative truths and different realities is irrelevant and difficult to comprehend. BlackCab (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Here it is seemed like deliberately ignoring primary sources, especially in case, that primary sources deny secondary claims as incorrect and inaccurate understanding of what primary source (religious organization) really believe. Absurd situation, isn't it?

I realized that "Present Truth" is a concept, which is traced in very root of 'Bible Student Movement' as well as during whole existence of 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. There are claims from 1892, 1899, 1914, 1952, 1955, 1966, 1977, 1993, 2012. Perhaps more. Just few interesting citations here:

• It was first in 1895 that some friends of Zion’s Watch Tower suggested that this magazine is identified with “that slave”—“that servant.” (Matt. 24:46, Authorized Version) Enemies aroused violent opposition to this viewpoint of such friends, so that The Watch Tower of October 1, 1909, had this to say:

“Our friends insist that this Scripture indicates that in the end of this Gospel age the Lord would use not many channels for the dissemination of the Truth, but one channel . . . They hold that all of them received their knowledge of Present Truth directly from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society’s publications, or indirectly through those who have received their enlightenment through this channel. They are glad correspondingly to co-operate as ‘fellow-servants’ with the Society’s work, believing that thereby they are following the leadings of the Divine Providence, as well as the instructions of the Divine Word.”

• Ministers? No, say the world and the nominal church, only ours who wear “clerical” garments and preach from our pulpits are God’s ministers. Yes, says the Lord, my servants (ministers) they are because they serve me, dispensing present truth to my household. I have sent forth the message which they bear. He that despiseth them despiseth me, and he that receiveth the sealing in the forehead which I send by them will know the doctrine, that it is of me. “My sheep know my voice.”

(See also the issue of February 1, 1899, paragraphs 6 and 7, under the heading “Is Present Truth Unreasonable?”)

• C. J. Woodworth

To one who forsook Jehovah’s service because the anointed followers of Jesus Christ were not taken to heaven in 1914, C. J. Woodworth wrote as follows: “Twenty years ago you and I believed in infant baptism; in the Divine right of the clergy to administer that baptism; that baptism was necessary to escape eternal torment; that God is love; that God created and continues to create billions of beings in His likeness who will spend the countless ages of eternity in the strangling fumes of burning sulphur, pleading in vain for one drop of water to relieve their agonies . . . “We believed that after a man dies, he is alive; we believed that Jesus Christ never died; that He could not die; that no Ransom was ever paid or ever will be paid; that Jehovah God and Christ Jesus His Son are one and the same person; that Christ was His own Father; that Jesus was His own Son; that the Holy Spirit is a person; that one plus one, plus one, equal one; that when Jesus hung on the cross and said, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou Forsaken Me,’ He was merely talking to Himself; . . . that present kingdoms are part of Christ’s Kingdom; that the Devil has been away off somewhere in an unlocated Hell, instead of exercising dominion over the kingdoms of this earth . . . “I praise God for the day that brought Present Truth to my door. It was so wholesome, so refreshing to mind and heart, that I quickly left the humbug and claptrap of the past and was used of God to also open your blinded eyes. We rejoiced in the Truth together, working side by side for fifteen years. The Lord greatly honored you as a mouthpiece; I never knew anybody who could make the follies of Babylon look so ridiculous. In your letter you ask, ‘What next?’ Ah, now comes the pity of it! The next thing is that you permit your heart to become embittered against the one whose labors of love and whose blessing from on High brought the Truth to both our hearts. You went out, and took several of the sheep with you. . . . “Probably I look ridiculous to you because I did not go to Heaven, October 1st, 1914, but you don’t look ridiculous to me—oh no! “With ten of the greatest nations of earth writhing in their death agonies, it seems to me a particularly inopportune time to seek to ridicule the man, and the only man, who for forty years has taught that the Times of the Gentiles would end in 1914.” ---“Brother Woodworth’s faith was not shaken when the events of 1914 did not turn out as expected. He simply realized that there was more to learn. Because of his confidence in God’s purpose, he spent nine months in prison in 1918-19. Later he served as editor of the magazines “The Golden Age” and “Consolation.” He remained firm in faith and loyal to Jehovah’s organization right down till his death in 1951, at 81 years of age.---”

The article should reflect what JWs organization really believe in first place, more than what secondary source thinks JW believe.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There are many doctrines and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses that are not covered in this article because they haven't passed the notability test. Included among them are the Sparlock character and the recent announcement that elders and ministerial servants may be removed if they attend university. (See discussion here.) Such subjects require mentions in secondary sources. I am still unsure of the significance of the "present truth" doctrine you keep referring to, but in any case, there is no basis on which to include it at the moment, so further discussion seems redundant. BlackCab (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is lot of unresolved issues and ballast. // I read that letter when first leaked to internet. However, in that letter is nothing what suggest 'university-ban' for baptised and unbaptised publishers. There is only stated that elders are taught to be careful when someone is / or wants start studying higher education (what takes much focus, time, money, worldly-like people around you, alcohol, girls, false-religion' and secular-religion' customs, +you know = "student's lifestyle"). Elders should be careful for such prospective students if such people at the same time want to be regularly in public 'ministry', active in 'theocratic ministry school' or even be 'pioneers'. It is obvious that for most of people is not possible to get done all of that at the same time. However, in that letter is no general concept that everybody studying university cannot do that. Someone may be able to do it and stay active in JWs' activities as before attending university. It is not general deny of education. Just caution. An individual cases are individually different. --FakTNeviM (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The figurine of Sparlock magician as a toy in the video DVD 'is not changed approach' from WTBTS. JWs are very known that they 'deeply abhor with anything to do with' Spiritism, Nationalism, and 'Whore of Babylon-like' religions. It is long held approach that they deny all of that in every aspect of their lives. Even when is 'little touchable with subject of Spiritism itself'. Apostate websites are funny 'how they smearing every single mention with high-criticism-potential from WTBTS'. It is question if is it really encyclopaedicaly important that JWs were never been playing with toys significantly unchristian per Bible. Can you imagine that daughter of Apostle Paul in 1st Century (=He hadn't any children) is playing with symbol of goddess Artemis? I can't. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC) ..... I hope that you are now 'sure of the significance of the "present truth" doctrine I keep referring'. I am mentioning it, because secondary sources claims the term "the truth" only for "WTBTS itself" and for "WTBTS' Bible-based beliefs itself". For an unfamiliar reader, and for most of familiar with too, this would lead to misconception that "the truth" is synonym for "organization itself" only. Despite of common meaning (=using of this phrase) among members (((as Holden, Schmalz, and other refer = “It is common for Witnesses to ask each other how long they have been in the truth or when they first began to study.” / “Witnesses describe their conversion as coming into the Truth.”))), "the truth" is in Misplaced Pages article here described like "absolute truth" and about "present truth" is nothing there. Thus wiki-article not refer the fact that 'the Bible only' is by JWs members and JWs organization "only one absolute truth ever". (See primary sources, e.g. already mentioned: 'Scripture daily for 2012'). And that everything else (current understanding of the Bible = current doctrines = "Present Truth") is "relative". (=It is true teaching in particular time in history, but not absolutely true for whole history of mankind). Could you suggest better wording than my original edit in article? Otherwise I will do it again. Current information in article is incomplete. They refer to their beliefs as 'the truth' and 'to be in truth', but they know (someone from own first-hand experience) that it is 'relative' (present truth). Without this information is article incomplete and misleading to readers. --FakTNeviM (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The 'concept' of 'present truth' is merely an aspect of their belief that their current doctrines (at any particular time) constitute "the truth". This is already covered in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

'current doctrines' constitutes "The Present Truth" (They (WTBTS organization as publishing media of FaDS) believe "something being true at the specific time". Approach of Jehovah's Witnesses we can compare with science. Scientific knowledge in 15th Century were 'true during that specific time'. Since that time are many of that truths disproved and no longer held by 'most of scientific community'. Although, opinion held by 'most of community with some knowledge' 'is not prove itself that it is factual and true opinion'. In modern-day knowledge and science is the same phenomenon. Each year different 'scientific teams' present their "discoveries", (='points of view and opinions at the specific time in history'), which often differ than other scientists discoveries. Mainstream scientific theories are frequently changing and it is sad that most people believe that current scientific knowledge is absolutely true despite the willingly-hidden fact that is not absolute level of absolutely accurate knowledge. It is only true at this time, but could be changed and disproved maybe in next year. Truth held by scientist in 2000, 2010 and 2012 is changing and nobody is surprised. Some books written by 'religious studies' experts already recognized these "schools of thought" (Scientism, Atheism, Materialism, Capitalism, Communism is religion too.) as comparable to any other religious beliefs.' JWs have their "present truth", because everybody in the world who holds some opinions based on current knowledge of some specific subject has in fact "present truth". Everything is simply an opinion based on current knowledge. Human knowledge cannot be absolutely true in the specific time, because knowledge is changing. And viewpoint on specific information is changing over time too. --FakTNeviM (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for these rambling lectures. Without secondary sources to cite, there is nothing to write. BlackCab (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case, if the current, updated knowledge was of utmost importance, there'd be no point holding the superstitious views of millenary traditions along with their creation myths (i.e. see Scientific theory, Scientific method, Evidence of common descent, etc). I'm sorry to have to post this here rather than contributing to the article, but FakTNeviM's talk page seemed inhospitable and unidirectional... I'll stop this discussion here, though. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the introduction at the very top of this page) and Misplaced Pages Article Talk pages' guideline with some useful links like WP:civil, WP:personal. If you want to contribute to content next time, avoid evaluating of subject focused in articles at Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is allowed to hold some opinion, unnecessary irrelevant comments ... (= e.g. "Beliefs of subject covered in article are idiotic" = possible explanation of meaning of last 76.10.128.192's edit here.) ... should not be posted. That would be brilliant if you stop stating personal opinions and comments unrelated to subject of content. Concept of Present Truth kept by both, Jehovah's Witnesses, and science, and every other possible form of knowledge out there, is not dependant on how much conceivable is viewed by anyone of Misplaced Pages editors. --FakTNeviM (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In the previous posts above, scientific consensus is labeled as opinion, when it is actually backed up by evidence, as required by the scientific process. The argument that it is merely opinion was used as the basis to propose changes to the article (which are questioned by the other editors), on the topic of "progression of knowledge", which could be reformulated as "the present truth" or possibly "progressive revelation"). I do not think that the article is lacking on that subject as it stands, especially that we also have the detailed Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine article with references. It might have appeared personal because I expressed my feelings about the sentence I was "welcomed" with on the talk page when I felt that the thread should be pursued there instead of bloating this page further, as it was borderline off-topic. Sorry about that. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

// I do not saying that scientific consensus/rivalry is true or untrue. In any case, it is just present knowledge which actually can or cannot be absolutely true. Very likely it is not. It can be only agreed that it is 'present truth' = relatively true and relatively complete knowledge = absolute truth at particular time in history. Today's scientific' Absolute truth may be proclaimed relatively truthful and obsolete. That's it! Okay, we should finish with with this unsolvable off-topic talk.

// BlackCab welcomed you, not me.

// I have been and I still am glad that you enter with third opinion and viewpoint. Originally you supported some short addition which correct incomplete claim of secondary sources on what is "truth" by JW. I suggested two times different text, latest this quote:

„They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or whatever else they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Bible-based Christianity, what includes many religious as well as secular holidays and customs. Adherents commonly refer to the Bible as "the truth" and consider themselves to be "in the truth" with their organization's body of beliefs, while "the present truth" constitutes current understanding of the Bible and continuous direction of God's will through the Faithful and discreet slave. Jehovah's Witnesses consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses.”

, but BlackCab still believes that is "not worthy enough to include in article", while Jeffro77 believes that this important information "is already covered in the article". I disagree with this. There is nothing what constitutes "unchanging truth vs. changing truth" belief system of JWs in the article. Thus why books critical to JWs do not explain JW' beliefs correctly. It explains them only from one point of view. Neither article "Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine" provides sufficient context for readers. There is just phrase like "new light", "new understanding" ... with no explanation of influence on whole belief system in context to other changed beliefs throughout history. Just rubbish. As usually at Wiki.

// Sorry if you felt something by someone here unpleasant.

// --FakTNeviM (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

1. Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 0-415-26609-2.
2. Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 0-415-26609-2.
3. Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 0-415-26609-2.

• 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