Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:05, 10 February 2007

Christianity Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
June 2006 July 2006 Aug 2006-Jan 2007

JW editors

Is there any available appropriate source material for the recent claim that the Watchtower Society has 'advised' JWs not to edit JW-related articles on Misplaced Pages? If so, it would be worth mentioning under the Internet subheading of this article.--Jeffro77 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 edition of NWT

Jeffro the new edition is more than making it a softcover. For example, the single brackets are gone and cross references have changed. OF course there are more changes than that too. Johanneum 11:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. In that case, is there any resource available (or in progress) that documents the changes?--Jeffro77 12:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Disassociation section

Article now states: "However if a person has such feelings or now believes the doctrines to be incorrect and feels they cannot in good conscience remain members, they may freely leave the religion by not attending their services. Their are no sanctions for this and many freely leave the religion or choose to become inactive non-participants members."

Johanneum, while this is a marginal improvement in wording, it isn't entirely accurate for a couple of reasons. If someone does not feel comfortable being a member of the religion, their conscience is not necessarily allayed by merely not attending the religious services. Some feel that it is hypocritical to technically remain a member though they cannot sincerely accept their doctrines - and they sometimes reluctantly do so wholly because of the fear of losing friends and family by taking the action of formally disassociating. Additionally, inactive members still receive 'sheperding calls' which may be unwelcome if they don't really accept the doctrines - and repeatedly rejecting such 'encouragement', or explaining doctrinal concerns to the elders may result in an eventual announcement that they have 'disassociated' anyway. Additionally, social activity by congregation members with those who are 'inactive' is typically greatly reduced.--Jeffro77 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, the comment, "when people do not share the same goals, hopes, beleifs, they will not have the association or relationship as when they did share", while almost seeming to defend the JW approach to shunning is not reflective of people in general. Many people in the real world - even of completely discordant religious beliefs to one another - have very close friends who do not share their same "goals, hopes, beliefs", yet the close friendships are maintained.--Jeffro77 13:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro I do understand your point and it makes sense. I also appreciate that you discussed this before you changed it again. However, I still feel that the way it is is misleading. Why? Because it makes it appear to the reader that there are only two options. 1) stay due to fear 2) leave and be shunned. This is not true there is at least one other option that I am attempting to bring out. 3) to stop attending. It is also misleading to say, there are “no provision for conscientious objectors who freely leave to have any continued normal associations” . What does “provision” mean? What religion has a “provision” for objectors? Regardless many do find that option 3 above is a “provision”.

Option 3 is quite logical in a purely clinical way. But when real people are involved, it is not that simple. While some may have no trouble with the dichotomy (and they should not be judged for that), others experience a strong emotional conflict regarding such an option. The expression 'no provision for conscientious objectors' was added by Lucille S on 11 July 2006, so you will need to take that specific wording up with her. I haven't thought of better wording, but the point is that people who sincerely feel they are following the attitude of Acts 17:11, making sure "these things are so" - quite different from committing some 'gross sin' - are shunned; if you have better wording that conveys the correct idea, feel free.--Jeffro77 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also “lost sheep” can and do say no to elders who want to visit. A District Overseer, came to our house and he was not welcomed. So people do say they do not want a visit and it ends with that, no further sanctions! It happens all the time.

I said ' may.. result in eventual', not 'after rejecting a visit'.--Jeffro77 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If some feel “hypocritical to technically remain” then perhaps that could be brought out. However, that is like saying they want their cake and eat it too. It seems to be one way or the other. Either they are for the policy to Shun or they are against it. If they are against it, then their beliefs may be like Christendom that you should just stop attending church and no longer be a member of it. Just my two cents.

The 'want their cake and eat it too' reference implies that it is merely the beliefs regarding shunning itself that members might disagree with. But there are other doctrines that many have trouble with for which reason they do not want to remain members (or be implied to believe things they know to be untrue), such as the 607BC doctrine (which can be disproved using only the bible). However, there are such ones who feel emotionally bound to 'shut up' about it so their family and friends can still talk to them. (As a side point, using the term 'Christendom' as being distinct from and exclusive of 'Jehovah's Witnesses' implies ad hominem.)--Jeffro77 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Association: Yes it will be different, but they will not be shunned, which again shows another option. This whole thing should not be as it is presently implied either A or B with no allowance for C. Is there a way to bring this all out? Would it be better not to have this section? Just some ideas.Johanneum 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, for some it is an entirely unacceptable option. Additionally, it still indicates impinged freedom of association.--Jeffro77 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Organ transplantation

I see that the prohibition of organ transplants between 1967 and 1980 is not mentioned. There has been quite some controversy over the handling of this issue.

Mind control etc.

I have deleted this paragraph from the mind control section:

In 1987, the American Psychological Association determined that theories of coercive manipulation or "mind control" as applied to religious movements lacked any scientific foundation and should not be presented as scientific.(ref: Board of Ethical and Social Responsibility for Psychology Memo to Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion,on and Control Committee Washington: American Psychological Association, 1987 May 11) However GRIS a "religious association" questions the validity of this. They state, the "APA has never taken a clear and official stand on theories of thought reform and mind control as applied to New Religious Movements." (ref: http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Landmark/landmark-cherries.dir/grisroma/inglese/Apa_english.htm) Massimo Introvigne goes into great detail on explaining the controversy and states that the "APA thus declared not once but at least twice in 1987 that “the theory of coercive persuasion is not scientific” and that it “lacks scientific rigor”." (ref: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/gandow_eng.htm) Since that time "mind control" theories have been consistently rejected by scholars and courts of law in the United States and elsewhere.(ref: The modern anti—cult movement in historical perspective Santa Barbara, California Institute for Study of American Religion, 1995)

Saying that mind control theories have been and are still universally rejected is simply not true. See APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control and Brainwashing#Brainwashing controversy in new religious movements and cults. They make it quite clear that there is no consensus on this topic. BenC7 06:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

BEN this whole page is about controversy, and yes this too is a source of controversy, which can be brought out. Still the facts remain that APA and others have indicated that there is no scientific basis for "mind control". The Molko case also shows the APA did not support Mind control. Singer is still trying ( and thus it is controversial) however, what she put together to prove mind control in 1987 was tossed out because it lacked SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT and EVIDENCE. Please see this page that does have the attachments, which were missing (even the word attachmet) in the GRIS article you refer us to. Thus while the debate continues all the evidence that is presented to support mind control has been referred to as lacking EVIDENCE. Therefore that this is controversial can be brought out, but to hid the facts that have shown that there is not scientific evidence to support mind control, is to show poor editing and bias. Johanneum 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I referred you to some articles; it does not appear that you read the whole of them. So I will quote relevant sections here. I have highlighted some main points in bold for you. From the APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control article:

They quoted Benjamin Zablocki from a personal email: "In my opinion, the DIMPAC committee went too far in the other direction by asking the APA to affirm that brainwashing in religious cults was a proven psychological fact. It was for this that they were censured. It is not true that the APA affirmed the contrary, that brainwashing was disproved. Instead, the APA argued that it could not go along with EITHER SIDE in this matter. I would say that neither side got what it wanted from the APA. As an organization representing ALL psychologists in the USA, it took a proper agnostic position that no final decision could be given at this time".

In 2002, at the APA's 2002 Annual Convention in Chicago during the panel session "Cults of hatred", Alan W. Scheflin, professor of law at Santa Clara University, stated that "Extreme influence has remained dormant in the field of psychology". He went on to state that it is a legitimate field of study and that psychology needs an organized response to it, saying: "We need to stop this germ from spreading."

The panelists also called for the APA to form a new task force to "investigate mind control among destructive cults." Panelists included Deborah Layton, survivor of the People's Temple mass suicide/murder at Jonestown, Steven Hassan, Cynthia F. Hartley, Stephen J. Morgan, a faculty member with the American Management Association/Management Centre Europe in Brussels, Belgium, and then APA President Philip Zimbardo

These clearly indicate that there is no consensus in the scientific community, regardless of the acceptance or rejection of the Singer report.

From the Brainwashing#Brainwashing controversy in new religious movements and cults article section:

Benjamin Zablocki, professor of sociology and one of the reviewers of the rejected DIMPAC report, writes in 1997:

"Many people have been misled about the true position of the APA and the ASA with regard to brainwashing. Like so many other theories in the behavioral sciences, the jury is still out on this one. The APA and the ASA acknowledge that some scholars believe that brainwashing exists but others believe that it does not exist. The ASA and the APA acknowledge that nobody is currently in a position to make a Solomonic decision as to which group is right and which group is wrong. Instead they urge scholars to do further research to throw more light on this matter. I think this is a reasonable position to take."

In 2002, APA's then president, Philip Zimbardo wrote in Psychology Monitor:

"A body of social science evidence shows that when systematically practiced by state-sanctioned police, military or destructive cults, mind control can induce false confessions, create converts who willingly torture or kill "invented enemies," engage indoctrinated members to work tirelessly, give up their money--and even their lives--for "the cause." (Zimbardo, 2002)

On the other hand, several scholars in sociology and psychology have in recent years stated that there is among many scholars of NRMs a bias to deny any brainwashing possibility and to disregard actual evidence. (Zablocki 1997, Amitrani 1998, Kent 1998, Beit-Hallahmi 2001)

You will notice that most of these are recent quotes (from around the 2000s), not things from 20 years ago. Hopefully this should be sufficient. BenC7 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Payment of sales tax on literature

The section was removed from the article, citing shortening the article though the section wasn't very long. It should probably be in the article, though should be explained better than it was. It didn't properly explain why the issue is contraversial - that a method of tax evasion was employed, telling members an entirely different reason for the change, and not mentioning the real reason to them. The issue is related to concept of information control.--Jeffro77 08:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles