Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Something is not right here

"A central teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the current world era, or "system of things", entered the "last days" in 1914 and faces imminent destruction through intervention by God and Jesus Christ, leading to deliverance for those who worship God acceptably"

While this is all somewhat accurate. It appears to be written with intentional malice. Perhaps this article need a bit of a clean up? At least this section does anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.210.9 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear how the accurate description of their end-times beliefs might be interpreted as "malicious". The belief could probably be interpreted as malicious, but Wikipedia isn't censored, so it's not necessary to tone down an accurate sourced description. How would you propose re-wording it?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty good explanation of the beliefs. I don't see any malice in that at all, it expresses the core doctrine of the religion. It's the only date other then Nisan 14th that I have seen them specifically use at their meetings. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If I were to rewrite major parts of the article in an unbiased fashion would you consider these for submission to the article? 79.140.210.9 (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC) I don't expect this to be perfect I have tried my best to rewrite a section as best I can. I have retained the entire body of information, removed jargon, made it easier to understand. Please let me know if you have any problems with what I have written and I will attempt to fix it. If it seems okay may I request it be added to the primary page?

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe their practices are similar to those of first-century Christianity.[124] Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body. Members of the body interpret and attempt to apply scripture.[46][125][126] The Watch Tower Society does not issue any single document of faith, but instead beliefs come from a collection of its publications and teachings.[127] Its publications teach that refinements in teaching result from a process of coming to new understandings , as God gradually reveals his will and purpose,[128][129][130][131] and that new knowledge 132] results from the application of reason and study,[133] the guidance of the holy spirit, and spiritual guidance.[134] The Society also teaches that members of the Governing Body are helped by the holy spirit to understand scripture, which are then considered by the Governing Body as a whole before final decision.[135] The religion's leadership, rejects direct divine inspiration and [136] Instead divine guidance comes from understanding God’s word. [137] [138][139]

The entire Protestant canon of scripture is considered the inspired, inerrant word of God.[140] Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Bible to be scientifically and historically compatible. [141] While accepting that some parts are literal while others parts as symbolic [142] The Bible is consider to be the foundation and structure for all their beliefs,[143] Sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible.[144] Regular personal Bible reading and self-education is frequently recommended; Witnesses are discouraged from formulating "private ideas" reached through Bible research contradictory to teachings of the Watch Tower’s publications, and are advised to avoid reading other potentially misleading religious material.[145][146][147] Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature, and "not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding."[148][149][150][151] The religion makes no provision for members to contribute or ratify primary teachings [152] and all Witnesses are asked to work with the organization rather than against.[153]"

79.140.210.9 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's no improvement and I'm always suspicious of an editor who aims to rewrite to remove supposed bias. Some of your proposed edits confirm my suspicions. BlackCab (TALK) 02:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Di you have specific objections? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The suggested wording isn't really an improvement. Some of the supposed 'jargon' that has been removed is informational rather than jargon 'just for the sake of jargon'. For example, referring to a restoration of first century Christian should probably be linked to Restorationism rather than dumbing down to a claim about practices being 'similar'. The 'jargon' that is used in the current version is explained where it is not the terminology used in mainstream Christianity. A person reading the article is most benefited if they end up with a better understanding of jargon terms that JWs might use. Terms such as "doctrine" are mainstream and do not need to be replaced. Some of the changes might be suitable for the simple English Wikipedia. Some of the language is more ambiguous, to the point of being entirely unhelpful (e.g. "divine guidance comes from understanding God's word"??). There is also a degree of introduced bias, such as the watering down of sourced statements about avoiding "independent thinking", implying that other literature may be 'misleading', and watering down the dictate that members are to accept what is taught as 'present truth' to merely a 'suggestion' that members are 'asked' to 'work with the organisation'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am going to be very bold here. Jeffro has many edits on this main page and is an active editor. His edits are primarily about sexual abuse cases and preserving the current state of the page. This is not a personal attack against Jeffro. I would like to point out he is not an unbiased editor himself. A quick look at his user boxes 'This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion.' 'This user has been touched by His Noodly Appendage.' 'This user feels that most of "life after death" bears an intriguing resemblance to compost.'. Users with hated toward religion are the primary contributors to this article. A majority of the bias is in use of language with negative connotations such as 'doctrine'. Over simplifying sections of the article such as 'Satan' making them appear as far fetched ramblings. Much of this article 30-40% deals with criticism of the religion. Almost none of the article is presenting the religion in a neutral light. Although some of the history of the article I think is fantastic.

This article is primarily contributed to by users with resentment of the religion. The majority of editors on this page are editing with a personal message. This is the bias I am talking about. Any attempt for me to put forward change will be automatically shot down.

I would like to meet half way with you guys. If you aren't happy with my proposed section please submit your own. Maybe we can make change together. 79.140.210.9 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The article underwent rigorous assessment to attain Good Article status. If you have specific objections to certain sections then raise them. The article should be judged on its merits, not on the basis of the beliefs of contributing editors unless they are introducing clear bias. Your initial post claimed a section was written with intentional malice, but it is perfectly fine. I have just reread the two-paragraph "Satan" section which you say reads like farfetched ramblings. Again, I see no problems: can you detail what the issue is there? BlackCab (TALK) 19:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that I am an atheist has no bearing on anything. If my User page said I were a Catholic, the IP editor would say that makes me biased against JWs. In fact, were I to have any perspective other than 'JW', the IP editor would probably claim some 'bias' (presumably with 'JW' being a 'neutral' perspective). Having a viewpoint does not automatically make an editor's contributions biased. (The IP editor is welcome to provide diffs for any edits where it is believed I have 'injected' atheism into articles.)

If the best example of alleged 'negative connotations' is use of the word 'doctrine', the article is doing very well indeed. The word doctrine is in standard usage for the description of religious beliefs. The IP editor's belief that doctrine is a 'negative' word could spring from the Watch Tower Society's frequent negative use of the term in their descriptions of the "hellfire doctrine" or the "Trinity doctrine". However, even Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson felt no qualms about the word doctrine in his description of the Governing Body at the Royal Commission: "a spiritual group of men who are the guardians of our doctrine, and as guardians of the doctrine, look at things that need to be decided based on our doctrines, which are based on the constitution of the Bible".

It is not clear what edit to the section about Satan that the IP editor claims to be an oversimplification, making it impossible to compare those 'oversimplifications' with the IP editor's own attempts to 'remove jargon'. Perhaps the IP editor will provide a diff...

As with articles about other religions, this article has a Criticism section proportional to the length of the article, and the section is based on sources rather than the alleged opinions of editors.

The claim that my edits are 'mainly about sexual abuse cases' is entirely false, although I have made recent edits about that subject because it has been specifically addressed recently by the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is quite telling that the IP editor immediately sought to make a personal attack on my alleged motives rather than responding to my comments about the proposed changes to content. The editor has still made no attempt to explain in what manner the quoted statement at the start of this section is supposedly "written with intentional malice", nor has the editor suggested alternative wording to that statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the IP editor's claim that "much of this article 30-40% deals with criticism of the religion", actually a word count of the article (excluding infoboxes, refs and table of contents and appendices) indicates that the entire sections of Sociological Analysis, Opposition and Criticism combined make up about a quarter of the article, and the Criticism section on its own is less than 15%. (These percentages are even lower if taking the excluded elements into account.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'l try and be more specific about my disagreements. The use of language and netural point of view. Lets start with the "Sources of doctrine" section. ' Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses' incorrect grammar missing and apostrophe. 'which assumes responsibility' Assumes is an expression of doubt and is not appropriate for this page. Assumes appears just a single time in the 12000 word Christianity article. 'inerrant word of god' This is also not a neutral word to use, it also appears once in the 12000 word Christianity article. 'Jehovah's Witnesses consider' consider implies doubt belief would be a better fit here. 'Bible to be scientifically and historically accurate and reliable' This sentence right away raises doubts about the historical accuracy scientific value and reliability of the 'doctrine' of Witnesses. The word consider also undermines what the previous sentence claims. 'They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs,' I disagree with the word authority here as it implies coercion. Also the Bible ins't the final authority the governing body is. It is only purported that the bible is the final authority. 'Adherents are' adherents of what? 'must abide' Abide implies coercion and does not appear a single time in the Christianity article for good reason. 'from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" ' Contradicting beliefs is a more accurate choice of words, the absolute denial is personal ideas is far from accurate.

I have not caught everything. I'm sure I have missed a lot. 79.140.210.9 (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

1. There is no grammatical error in the statement Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body. The compound noun doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses is in agreement with the verb are. No apostrophe is required, as the possessive is of the form A of B, not B's A. (Ironically, you have omitted an apostrophe from "let's" in your complaint about "missing and apostrophe".)
2. There is no evidence that the Governing Body has been bestowed with the "responsibility" of interpreting scriptures, so it is, naturally, an assumption. In the scope of religious belief, the claim that God has selected their organisation as his 'spokesperson' is certainly not trivial.
3. It's not clear what point you're making about a 12,000 word article only using the word assumes once. Are you suggesting that a shorter article should only use the word a fraction of once? (This article also uses assume in reference to the view of non-JWs, which presumably is not contested by the IP editor.)
4. JWs do believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and it is one of their fundamental beliefs. Not all Christians claim that the Bible is inerrant, so, again, the point of the comparison with another article is unclear. Watch Tower Society seldom uses the specific word inerrant in reference to the Bible, but when it does, it is usually to contrast their view with that of groups that do not consider the Bible to be inerrant. The Watchtower, 15 October 1998, page 5: "Some Protestant seminaries and colleges no longer teach that the Bible is inerrant." The Watchtower, 15 September 1985, page 13: "While Southern Baptists believe that the Bible is inspired, the more moderate among them, whom fundamentalists call liberals, do not believe that the Scriptures are necessarily inerrant."
5. Nitpicking about consider versus belief in the example given is not indicative of any difference in meaning or intent, and the term implies no more 'doubt' than would the term believe.
6. JW literature does claim that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, and there are significant discrepancies between the Bible and both science and history, particularly in parts of the Bible that JWs accept as literal, such as the 'flood' and the 'exodus'.
7. JWs do officially believe that the Bible is the final authority on their beliefs. The Watchtower, 15 February 2012, page 24: "The Bible, not our personal opinion, is our authority regarding what is right and what is wrong." Our Kingdom Ministry, September 2009, page 2: "What Makes Our Magazines Unique? ... They direct attention to the Bible as the final authority."
8. The context of the word adherents is unambiguous.
9. Abide is a suitable term in the context given, and the further comparison with the generic article about Christianity is meaningless. I have already cited an example above from Watch Tower Society literature that JW interpretations of the Bible are considered more important than "personal opinions". Additionally, The Watchtower, 1 August 2001, page 14: "a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and “the faithful and discreet slave.”"

None of the issues you have put forward are evidence of anything 'malicious', and you still have provided no basis at all for your original claim in this section. Nor have you apologised for your irrelevant personal attack.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You are overthinking it. You also need to buy a good dictionary and start with a word that begins with the letter "A". BlackCab (TALK) 10:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for my personal attack. I'd also like to say I am bias. I am in the wrong. I have raised no relevant points. I have attempted to dissect flaws from an almost immaculate article. Little to no improvement can be made here. I'd also like to point out it is a good thing this page is protected as I may have made a naive edit. The editors of this article are undeniably without reasonable error on the selection of content for this article. The language used in this article need not be changed as it is almost perfectly neutral. I would especially like to commend the finely nitpicked sources which convey a neutral viewpoint. I can't possibly add, remove or edit this article in any meaningful way. And as such I have decided I will leave it alone. I would like to thank you all for spending your time here helping me understand neutrality. Perhaps I can use what you have taught me in my field. 79.140.210.9 (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My sarcasm detector just broke. No one has claimed that the article 'cannot be improved'. Disingenuous as your comments above appear to be, it is true that you haven't raised any significant problems with the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Rutherford incited persecution

I would like to see the exact quotes from the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses incited persecution in Rutherfords period. Did a search on google and google scholar. None of them contains information similar to what is stated here. Surprisingly many result claim the opposite, that Rutherford supported antisemitism and Nazi-Germany. Mostly from ex-JW websites Roller958 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I trust you read the supplied source. Scr★pIron^IV 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't verify the source, especially I would like to see the catchy words provided. That's why I asked to quote. Do you have a quote? Please provide. Please be aware that an editor can ask for a quotation if he thinks its questionable or not available online. I am also wondering if Rutherford incited persecution, what is the basis? How did he incite persecution? By WTS publications or some other way. I want to make sure that this is not a fringe or conspiracy theory --Roller958 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Also note that this is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This claim is not found in any online encyclopedia that goes in detail about JWs or Holocaust. I could give numerous sources all would say that JWs were persecuted for their beliefs not that it was incited by their church leadership. Even worse theory "in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society, and to convince members that persecution from the outside world was evidence of the truth of their struggle to serve God." For exceptional claims we need exceptional sources, peer reviewed by Historians. Otherwise this is a conspiracy theory. I look forward to put notice on Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Roller958 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not for you to demand that sources are peer-reviewed by historians. The following books, cited as sources for the statement you claim to be a conspiracy or fringe theory, all meet the criteria of reliable sources.

• Shawn Francis Peters, Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution (pg 82, 116-119): "As was true with almost every account of the disorders, the Herald Tribune readily acknowledged that the victims were not entirely blameless. Its editorial noted that by so eagerly assailing other faiths and flaunting their opposition to the flag salute, the Witnesses 'have often gone out of their way to look for trouble'." "Yet Eastus, like many US attorneys, had become exasperated by the Witnesses' provocative behavior, and he contended that their own zest for conflict had bred many of their troubles ... Eastus declared in no uncertain terms that the Witnesses could expect little sympathy from federal or state authorities if they continued to engage in intentionally bothersome or even illegal behavior when they proselytized. 'I say, you subject yourself to arrest and prosecution,' he said directly to his Witness listeners in one radio address. 'This has been done in many instances, and you must stop it'." .... Eastus was by no means the only US attorney to be irked by the Witnesses' confrontational behavior. If the views expressed in late 1941 by Clinton Barry were typical, many US attorneys shied away from prosecuting Witness cases under federal civil rights laws because they felt that victims had gone out of their way to court trouble ... the Witnesses, many of whom were 'plainly imbued with a martyr complex', Barry alleged, almost seemed to invite violence and harassment ... they were openly antagonistic to the United States of America as a government ... they have adopted a policy of abuse and insult towards other denominations and their communicants."
• Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Visions of Glory (chapters 6, 7): "If ever a religion promised serenity, this is not it. The more trouble the outside world gave them, the more they made themselves the butt of opposition, the more secure they became in their beliefs. To be buffeted and racked by worldly forces, to choose martyrdom, to elicit the animosity of a crowd satisfied some hunger in them, gave them rest of a kind, rest from self-doubt. What was important was that something should always be happening. As we shall see, during the 1930s and 40s, a great deal did happen: they were the victims of mob violence; they were jailed, molested, tarred and feathered ... there is reason to believe that they were complicit in their own victimization -- manipulating national fears, milking national traumas to invite opposition, in order to enhance their self-esteem. In their persecution, they found a kind of peace." "... (their actions) could lead one to think that on some level they deliberately placed themselves in a position to invite persecution."
• William Whalen, Armageddon Around the Corner: A Report on Jehovah's Witnesses (pg.190): "The Witnesses wore the cloak of underdog with a measure of eagerness. In many cases the most sympathetic observer would have to admit that the Witnesses asked for it ... a fistfight or arrest put the Witnesses in the category of the persecuted while the provocation was forgotten. Drawing its new blood from those elements in society which made up the dispossessed and the proletariat, the Society could bring itself to their attention by such incidents."
• William Schnell, 30 Years a Watchtower Slave (pg 103-106): "It became evident that some sensational method was necessary to establish the new name of 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. In order to gain attention it was necessary to create a condition of war through the creation of issues, coupled with an appearance of being persecuted ... it now became the studied policy of the Watchtower Society to make Jehovah's Witnesses hated of all men -- by their way of preaching, by their methods of preaching and by what they preached. They hoped thus to put themselves in the position where they appeared to be martyrs for the sake of religion ... the Society realized that the longer this issue was kept alive, the more was to be gained in the end ... by their very audacity the Jehovah's Witnesses irritated the courts to a point where they gave them the desired martyrdom in the form of fines and jail sentences. In this way the Jehovah's Witnesses made it appear as if they were being arrested, tried and convicted for practicing their religion ... we knew all along that we had a right to distribute or books, booklets and pamphlets without censorship under the freedom of the press section of the Bill of Rights. We refrained from using it, because our present methods were drawing fire and were giving us the desired martyrdom. This had tremendous advertising value and was creating sympathy for us. These court battles accomplished everything desired of them. The constant jar of discrimination against a minority group slowly brought about the formation of a new group of people in the land who, upon hearing and reading about these battles, began to read the many books of Jehovah's Witnesses which they had purchased in former years."
• Alan Rogerson, Millions Now Living Will Never Die (pg 59): "Throughout the United States, for instance, arrests, trials and persecutions continued on a greater scale than that of 1918. Undoubtedly the Witnesses themselves contributed to these attacks by persistent provocation ... they regarded the persecution as further proof that they were the true servants of God in a hostile world."

The views of those authors are presented in the article fairly, accurately, clearly identifying them as opinion and also clearly identifying the authors who were ex-JWs. It is one sentence at the end of a section and is followed by a rebuttal of sorts by the Watch Tower Society, insincere and deceitful though it appears to be. BlackCab (TALK) 00:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of WP:Synth. You synthesized multiple sources some from ex-members and secular writers to come up with a new theory. Further notability is highly questionable because adherents never even heard about this rant and WTS never felt a need to rebut this conspiracy theory. This claim is surprising and not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Also these are claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the JWs community, contradicted by other claims by critics (Penton claims JWs supported Nazi Germany) or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions about JWs and Holocaust. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL

Questions for sources from non-Witnesses

• Shawn Francis Peters: Talks about incidents in United States which claims Witnesses were aggressive in fighting for their rights and in preaching boldly. They were instructed to subject to "arrests and prosecutions" (Not persecutions). He apparently misapply the instruction "subject to arrest and prosecution" to fight arrest. What does it have to do with Germany and WTS or Rutherford inciting persecution in Germany anyway?
• William Whalen: Claims Witnesses asked for arrest by provocation, so that the "Society" could be brought to attention. Which society is he talking about, public society or WTS? Where is the involvement of WTS in asking for provocation to "prove" they have "the truth"? Did he say that this was to attract "dispossessed members"?

Questions for sources from ex-Witnesses

• Barbara Grizzuti Harrison: She is the real source of your theory, yet even that fails to satisfy the entire claims. She makes up accusations against Witnesses in general, alleging that they themselves invited persecutions, not that their beliefs caused persecution. (not even mentions WTS). Where is the connection of WTS and Rutherford? BlackCab, If I did this I would have accused of slander, misquote and bias. Very nice Synthesis.
• Alan Rogerson: Claims that Witnesses were arrested for their provocative behavior in United States. Where is evidence of WTS causing provocation to "prove" witnesses have "the truth". Then at the end he says "they regarded the persecution as further proof that they were the true servants of God in a hostile world". We all know JWs believe persecution is a proof of them being God's servants. But where is the connection with WTS inciting persecution to "prove" they "have the truth" and then Germany and Rutherford?
• William Schnell: He is not even worth mentioning here, given the title of his book "30 years Watchtower slave". Bunch of rant against his former religion.

The statement is highly unreliable to be mentioned in this article, its a Synthesis of conspiracy theory written by ex-member Barbara Grizzuti Harrison. None of this claim is peer-reviewed by Historians to make this exempt from WP:EXCEPTIONAL. At the most the statement we can make is that some accuse "Witnesses provoked arrests and prosecutions" by them fighting for their freedom and rights. That has nothing to do with WTS or Rutherford or Germany. Even worse "to prove" they have "the truth" and to attract "dispossessed members" of society. This should be immediately removed. Roller958 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The one sentence to which you object is amply supported from the above statements. Your chief complaint is that because Jehovah's Witnesses haven;t been told about this, it is is not true. What rubbish. You really are too conflicted to continue this discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 03:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Its late night and I am making lot of grammatical mistakes, you can see in my edit history for "Shunning". I will reply tomorrow. Please review my questions in relation with Wiki guidelines, I will add this to noticeboard tomorrow. That is not my chief complaint its your Synthesis and then notability of this conspiracy theory Roller958 (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please not the posting on fringe noticeboard ----Roller958 (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I will clarify in the article that the statements of those authors relate to persecution in the United States in that era. Otherwise the sentence is accurate and properly based on those sources. BlackCab (TALK) 04:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Several other authors have written about the degree to which the Jehovah's Witnesses contributed to the level of persecution they received at the hands of the Nazis in Germany. I have nowhere read any suggestions that they were complicit in their persecution as it has been claimed about the JWs in the US. The discussion on their provocation of German authorities is at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany#Causes of persecution and Nazi motives. This, too, is material the Watch Tower Society has never covered in its publications for obvious reasons. BlackCab (TALK) 06:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Roller958's edit here completely distorts the statements of the authors it then cites. Those authors manifestly state that the JWs were goading authorities for a purpose. Roller958 again displays his pro-JW bias when he turns this into a claim that those authors "claimed that by (the JWs') aggressive preaching campaign members often provoked unwarranted opposition, arrests and even martyrdom." None of those authors called the response by police and governments "unwarranted" and nor did they even suggest that; their viewpoint was quite the opposite. BlackCab (TALK) 07:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

BlackCab, None of the authors mentions your hypothetical that the leadership planned and executed persecution, all of those sources accuse Witnesses provoked persecution. Much worse the claim, the leadership planned it to attract more members and to show it as a proof that they have God. In other words this suggests Rutherford orchestrated mass Killing of Witnesses. The source accuse "witnesses" did so, not its leadership. What a horrific lie? I can see why you personally believe so, if you look online you will find a lot of ex-JW sites that dissect every statement, every sentence, every letter send by JWs as a new evil plan for something. Some of them very funny. Also note that there are people who think man never went to moon even in 20th century. And they got a lot of followers some of them with high intellect. But the question is whether this conspiracy theory you mentioned is notable enough to be mentioned here? Hey if majority don't agree with me, I am not going to jump off a cliff. I'll add an Rfc in future as a last resort. Per recent suggestion from admin, I am going to stay away from editing anything controversial, but I'll do ref fixes and update on latest news and raise issues on talk without editing anything. Happy Roller958 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You were already told quite directly at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Church incited martyrdom that the content in question is not a 'fringe view' and is supported by the cited sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Today, Roller958 said: "WTS never felt a need to rebut this conspiracy theory".[1] But just 16 days ago, Fazilfazil (aka Roller958) said in the section Contact Authorities above: "[JWs] are specifically instructed to not do rebuttal for criticisms".[2] So in what manner is the absence of a rebuttal evidence of anything other than JWs doing as they are told??--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not representing WTS, the thing I talked about was a "branch manual", specifically instructing the branches. Yes generally speaking the WTS policy is to not do rebuttals, unless otherwise it would cause considerable noise in news media or hindering preaching activity. The more you do rebuttals the more attention the conspiracy theory will get. Its like if Barack Obama shake hand with Prime minister of UK that's not a big news, but if he came down and shake hands to an individual in a ghetto that individual will get free popularity. Other reason being Jesus mostly never did rebuttals. His focus was for people who were willing to listen to him, not pharisees or educated ones. Leadership is completely confident that none of these theories/criticism is going to change what God has in his mind. Same opinion I have. We are almost going off topic. Sorry. Roller958 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that you are "representing WTS". I indicated your two conflicting statements, both of which purported to indicate that the Watch Tower Society (not you) both would and would not make rebuttals to criticism. (And though you only mentioned the 'branch manual', Governing Body Member Anthony Morris III also stated in a recent 'JW Broadcasting' video that JWs don't make rebuttals to criticism.) Your continued attempt to liken the sourced content in question with 'conspiracy theories' is unhelpful, and you've already been told that the point in question is clearly not 'fringe'. Additionally, speculation about what Jesus might have done is baseless and irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The supposed rebuttal at the end of the brief "Persecution" section reads: "Watch Tower Society literature of the period directed Witnesses to 'avoid unnecessary opposition or prejudice', stating that their purpose is not to get arrested." That sentence cites as its source a 1939 WTS booklet, Advice for Kingdom Publishers. Despite the use of quotation marks in the sentence, that booklet in fact does not contain that phrase, nor does it contain that "direction". In fact it advises Witnesses to use sound cars despite local ordinances prohibiting them, advises Witnesses to keep on door-to-door peddling even when told to stop, advises on how to circumvent bans on "parades", how to use self-defence when attacked, advises that they instruct police that they will not accompany them to a police station unless they are first arrested ... and urges Witnesses who are arrested to "continue (witnessing) as though no case has been filed". The supposed rebuttal is a blatant misrepresentation of the source material because the booklet in fact encourages Witnesses of that era to conduct themselves in a manner that would invite arrest. The sentence should therefore be removed. BlackCab (TALK) 13:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the cited source, and replaced the false quote with one appearing in the source, along with some brief additional details.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit now looks better. Note that when I added that rebuttal my primary source was not the 1939 booklet. If editors here decide to keep the conspiracy theory I questioned, the wording in the present state regardless attributes all five authors to have a single coherent claim. Per source only ex-Witness sources took it to the extreme and makes a distinction between Witnesses "caused provocation" by their aggressive preaching work despite ban, and then connects it to an "evil scheme" of leadership (ie. to convince members have the truth, attract dispossessed members of society by inciting a planned martyrdom). Further "Rutherford's leadership" is not mentioned in the source, BlackCab added it later. Secular Sources claim "Witnesses caused provocation" by fighting for their legal rights, ex-Witnesses sources say "it was an evil plan of leadership for something else". Those are totally different claims, should not be attributed for all five sources Roller958 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The statements are clearly indicated to be the views of the cited authors. It is undisputed that Rutherford was the leader of the group during the period indicated. You have been told repeatedly by uninvolved editors that it is neither 'fringe' nor a 'conspiracy theory'. As Awake!, 22 June 2000, page 6 puts it: "Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked."--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be advisable to make more clear which elements are attributed to which authors by rewording as two or three separate sentences.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Did Jehovah's Witnesses leaders orchestrated Martyrdom?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the accusations about Jehovah's Witnesses' leaders orchestrating Martyrdom in 1930s from reliable source? Does the provided sources synthesized? Help us to reach a consensus. -- Roller958 (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For reference WTS is a short form for Watchtower Bible & Tract Soceity which was the leadership of JWs in 1930. Rutherford was its president at that time -- Roller958 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, My disputed edit, subsequent change an editor made -- Roller958 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The "subsequent change" was actually a revert to the previous version that had been in place for at least the last several months.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There already is a consensus. One editor does not seem to agree with it. This RFC is tendentious, and should be closed. This item has been reliably sourced - with four specific citations - and it still isn't enough? Please. Scr★pIron^IV 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your comment to close, sources accuse Witnesses provoked persecution by their conduct. But the conspiracy theory that "it was incited by the leadership" and it was to "attract dispossessed members" and to prove "they have the truth" is a tabloid analysis and synthesis of material from different sources. That's an extraordinary claim. My edit is more in line with the source. Roller958 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And there is the point. YOU don't agree, where the majority of other editors do - both on this page, and here[3] - in a discusion you started. There is consensus, and you just don't get that. It's how things work here. Scr★pIron^IV 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing hurts by asking an Rfc, I am not only claiming a notability issue but the Synthesis therein. Roller958 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Uninvolved editor who was brought here from Religion and Philosophy RfC board, I have read the previous discussion linked to above by User:ScrapIronIV and have looked through the relevant sources cited. They do certainly appear to be reliably sourced. And while I'm confident most people voting on this RfC will concur with this conclusion, even if they don't I'm not sure that their disagreement should override what is very obviously well-sourced and cited content that is certainly relevant to our readers. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 16:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The claim in the article is: "Authors including William Whalen, Shawn Francis Peters and former Witnesses Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Alan Rogerson and William Schnell, have claimed the religion incited opposition" and so on. There are no reasonable doubt the authors are claiming what the article states they are doing. I have no stand on whether it is worth including or not, but it is presented as a claim in the article, suggesting the credibility of the claim at best is not confirmed. Another twist in the article is the claim is only about Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States ("have claimed the religion incited opposition in the United States" (italics by me)). A rebuff for a more global stand could possible be found at George D. Chryssides' paper from the [CESNUR 2006 International Conference, where Chryssides states: "In conclusion, it can be said that there were strong elements of opportunism in Rutherford’s drafting of the Declaration of Facts. He no doubt hoped that the Bibelforscher might have persuaded Hitler to allow them the freedom to practise their faith, and — for reasons I have explored — saw little to be achieved by championing the cause of the Jews at this point." My comment and point for the quoute is, it would make no point for Rutherford to make any attempts to "persuade[...] Hitler to allow them the freedom to practise their faith" if Rutherford/the society simultaneously "pursued a course of martyrdom" during the 1930s. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Should be closed and Comment The RFC should be closed. The sources are reliable, the section is properly worded, and if every "claim" had to be definitively proven WP would be far smaller than it is. The Witnesses are now, and certainly were at the time, an American religion, so mention of their actions in the US, especially during this time period, is appropriate. As for Rutherford, he was undoubtedly an opportunist, and definitively believed in the greatness of martyrdom through jail time (see Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose Brooklyn, New York; Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1959, pg 42) but he was not a cruel man. He would have understood the danger that the Bibelforscher in Germany took regarding their lives and would have made every attempt to save them within what he saw as the bounds of his religion. But at the same time, there can be no doubt that in the US, where the punishment for their actions would have been jail time and not death, he pushed the Witnesses hard to preach, resulting in a drastic increase in arrests.(see William Shepard McAninch “A CATALYST FOR THE EVOLUTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE SUPREME COURT” University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 55 Issue 4, 1987 pg 1013). Thus the apparent dichotomy of his actions was actually yet another aspect of his opportunist streak. Vyselink (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Vyselink, I think you're a bit too generous with Rutherford over his dealings with the German Bibelforscher. As the Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany article shows, in 1934 he had decided there would be no more tiptoeing around Hitler and threatened that he would be destroyed by God at Armageddon. Early that year the German branch president Paul Balzereit decided prudence was the best policy and ordered a halt to public preaching to avoid needless provocation of Hitler, but in September Rutherford spoke at the "Fear Them Not" convention of Switzerland and overturned that decision: he told the the German JWs to resume witnessing and adopt an even higher profile. And just to heighten the danger to their lives, Rutherford organised an international campaign to swamp the German chancellery with telegrams and letters of complaint. It is shocking to think that Rutherford, safe and comfortable in Beth Sarim in sunny San Diego, was sending the JWs back to the frontlines while deliberately stirring up their enemies. He was well aware of Hitler's psychopathic nature, but evidently decided any subsequent suffering by his loyal Bibelforscher would just be collateral damage. It's also worth noting Dietrich Hellmund's description of their "incredible public militancy" and his comment that "No movement can constantly heap insults on all other religions, the business community and national governments in the way that the Bible Student-Jehovah's Witnesses did from 1918 onward without provoking a reaction." All this came from the top. BlackCab (TALK) 07:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rodney Stark requested quote

A quote has been requested for a statement in the "Criticism" section about enforcement tending to be informal. Stark's comment was in the context of a discussion about the legitimacy of elders' authority within the "theocracy". He wrote: "A second factor influencing a sense of empowerment is that, although Witnesses are expected to conform to rather strict standards, enforcement tends to be very informal, sustained by the close bonds of friendship within the group. That is, while Witness elders can impose rather severe sanctions (such as expulsion and shunning) on deviant members, they seldom need to do so and when they do, the reasons for their actions will be widely-known and understood within the group." Frankly, I think Stark was basing his comments on some pretty unreliable evidence, probably provided by the JWs themselves about their "loving arrangement". The statement from Stark was added by a JW editor as a rebuttal to the accusations of totalitarianism. BlackCab (TALK) 08:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

In (stark) contrast to that researcher's rose-tinted view of JW discipline is William Shepard McAninch's observation in his paper "A catalyst for the evolution of constitutional law" cited above by another Wikipedia editor. McAninch wrote that: "The decision to disfellowship a Witness is made by a committee of elders of the congregation appointed by higher authority and must be accepted by the congregation even though the latter may be unaware of the nature of the charges against the former member." (italics mine). McAninch's comments are also pertinent to the section of this article containing Stark's rebuttal. He wrote: "Becoming a Witness involves acceptance of the authority of the church over one's individual life and a concomitant relinquishment of independence of both action and thought. Just as, according to the Witnesses, Eve's downfall resulted from her desire to make independent moral judgments, a similar fate awaits the like-minded Witness ... The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society provides the Witnesses with the views of God, who supposedly is affronted by independent reasoning and autonomous thought." BlackCab (TALK) 09:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Eschatology - Sequence Needs Correction.

The first paragraph states:

"At the end of the thousand years, a final test will take place when Satan is released to mislead perfect mankind. Those who fail will be destroyed, along with Satan and his demons. The end result will be a fully tested, glorified human race. Christ will then hand all authority back to God."

The actual teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses is that Christ will hand over all authority before the final test. Therefore, the text should be re-arranged, such as:

At the end of the thousand years, Christ will hand all authority back to God. Then a final test will take place when Satan is released to mislead perfect mankind. Those who fail will be destroyed, along with Satan and his demons. The end result will be a fully tested, glorified human race.

References:

The Watchtower, November 1, 1952, Page 670, Questions From Readers.

The Watchtower, September 15, 2014, Page 26, Paragraphs 15-17.

71.165.150.47 (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

71.165.150.47 (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Child abuse rebuttal

Sorry for forcing me to comeback here. User:ChercheTrouve desperately trying to find ways to remove sourced rebuttals as if he knows the policy better. Its a professed policy worldwide, elders won't report unless required by law. Parents have the absolute right to report. Period. I ask him to stop POV pushing. A blog would be a better place to write one sided information. Roller958 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a written policy also in the elders' handbook? BlackCab (TALK) 13:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are saying both GB member and Service department elder lied. And there is no written statement. Okay. But it doesn't matter if they lied or not, for the benefit of Wikipedia readers, its useful to include that in rebuttal from two top executives of JWs. Remember an observation from one editor above for the claim above Rutherford inciting persecution? As per your logic I recommend to remove the commissions claim completely, since its an oral claim not a written finding yet. If you think JWs do not allow parents to go to police, can you show me that in elders manual? Show me in elders manual where its says elders shouldn't report when there is a legal obligation.

Further User:BlackCab, You accused me of an SPA recently, but have a blind eye on User:ChercheTrouve? Checkout his edit history. And you went ahead with a lengthy discussion on Australian Royal Commission inquiry, but remarkably one-sided! Understandable that my edits in past have watered down your painful edits and research, don't get offended. See WP:NPOV. That's how Wikipedia works Roller958 (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am simply asking if there is something written that would support this? It was a genuine question with no ulterior motive. BlackCab (TALK) 21:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but any elder's statement, true or false, should not be put as a conclusion here, as well as any accusation from ex-members should not conclude either. Only a neutral source can be used for a conclusion. Because of this, I'll move the "pro-JW" statement in the opening of the paragraph. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no conclusion whatsoever. Its a rebuttal to the claim therein, stop moving things just because you don't want to see it. As one IP mentioned above this article contains 30-40% criticism, injected without any more further space for it. Still not happy? Yes its also an official policy that pedophiles or even ex-murderers can be appointed as elders, if they have passed a considerable amount time and he have now a good standing in community. Church is a place where forgiveness applies equally to everyone. And media a neutral source? It doesn't take rocket science to understand that media business runs on sensationalizing. Having said that provide the source from which the report makes that claim. I couldn't find in the commissions transcript that known Pedophiles were repeatedly assigned to positions of trust. If only one witness exist for an allegation, according to church policy he/she may be appointed, because he is not a known pedophile. Secular authorities may consider them as pedophile, but its up to the parents to report to police if they don't want an unverified pedophile to be in position of authority. Roller958 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Because this section is presented as a summary of the main article, Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse, it would be better to thrash these issues out on that page rather than introduce new material here and then seek to add rebuttals. The section will just grow to an unnecessary length without adding any clarity. Here's an example: material newly added as the final sentence in this section reads: "An individual who denies accusation of child abuse, never reported to secular authorities and lacking a second witness, is allowed to be in positions of authority". This is rather confusing. I don't see from the source material that a decision to allow an accused paedophile to remain as an elder depends on whether the police were informed. In any case, that policy information should be rolled into the opening wording that establishes what the JW policy is. The criticism (because this is a criticism section) should then follow.

Roller958 questions the accuracy of the Sydney Daily Telegraph story headed "Paedophiles repeatedly promoted to positions of authority ..." This is evidently based on evidence given on day 147; that information is contained on page 15146 (lines 18 to 29) of the day 147 transcript and it is fair and accurate coverage of that quite significant point. Roller may view this as sensationalism, but in the context of a religion being investigated by a judicial body over its handling of past sex abuse cases in its ranks it is highly relevant. BlackCab (TALK) 04:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is if the matter reached authorities, he is now a known molester which would automatically disqualify. Could be worded better. Roller958 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your other comment, yes media often don't state the full story. They use catchy statements, without mentioning the context or details or why it was so Roller958 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The source material doesn't say that however. What is your source for the statement that a man would be disqualified if an accusation reached authorities? BlackCab (TALK) 05:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Its an issue of "freeness of speech". However I made it clear with my latest edit. A convicted man is a "known molester" Roller958 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The information here should be presented in a neutral way. Putting JW's conclusion at the end is not neutral. It would give the false idea that there is finally no problem with their policy. The policy doesn't give the parents or victims total liberty to do what they want. When faced with pedophilia within the congregation, no one is lead to secular authorities, as the Australian report clearly shows. They are supposed to meet the elders instead. This is the main problem. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

More issues from the "Handling of sexual abuse cases"-section

There are several issues from the section. 1) According to the article, "The elders don't report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law". I have not seen it is stated in a direct manner that Jehovah's Witnesses do not report unless requiered by law. The sources is a) from a hearing, were the article is concluding from individuals statements during the hearing, and b) from Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, witch according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_119#.22Pay_Attention_to_Yourselves_and_to_All_the_Flock.22_used_as_source the RS noticeboard is concidered not available through a reliable publisher, and thus shoud not be used for referencing a claim. 2) "The ongoing Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse received case files relating to '1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse identified by the Jehovah's Witness Church since 1950,' of which 'not one was reported by the church to secular authorities.'" According to one of the interviewed during the hearing, "almost 400 of those have been dealt with by the authorities, of which less than half have resulted in convictions (...) Those 1,000 cases, as the Commission is aware, 199 of those relate to individuals (...) that were either not Jehovah's Witnesses or likely may not have been Jehovah's Witnesses at the time. (...) [W]ell over half of the allegations - are familial, and in the context with no comparison, where we're looking at ministers, clergy, those allegations include everyone who has ever walked into a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses; every individual who has ever studied the Bible with us in prison; every person out of the community that associates with us where we've become aware that there is a child abuse allegation, we have followed it up, recorded it and that's the reason there are those numbers." I don't know if I wan't to interpretate the number, or the information given through the hearing. It is more like raw material for experts, rather than finished outcome ready to be used as a reference for sensational claims. 3) From the wikipedia article: "According to The Daily Telegraph, some of these paedophiles promoted to position of authority in the church." According to the newspaper article used as refernce for the statement, "[i]n the same time, 28 alleged abusers were appointed to positions of authority and of 127 alleged abusers deleted as church leaders, 16 were reappointed." I just have to comment this one as well. First, an abuser is not necessarily the same as a paedophile. Secondly, it is clearly stated in the newspaper article it is about alleged abusers. Most places in modern society individuials are concidered innocent until evidence for the opposite is found. It is not given than any alleged abusers are abusers. Given the numbers of elders in Australia, I don't even see why a claim about alleged abuser is listed in this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding older material

As beliefs change through reaching 'new understandings' and 'enlightenment' citation listed should be from more recent Watch Tower publications; rather than ones dating back 10, 20, 50 years. There is an abundance of modern relevant material which can be used. Many (not all) of these articles are dated and may not have precedence today. 79.140.210.9 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that some references are relatively old doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. The JWs have no document that lists their articles of faith, so cataloging their doctrines does sometimes require delving into their past. If however you can identify any old references you believe are now outdated and wrongly represent their beliefs or practices please do so. If you can provide more recent references that would help. BlackCab (TALK) 20:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)