Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Article Bias(1)

This article discusses criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses. Nevertheless, Wikipedia must be sure that such an article as this does not become an excuse for bias or a person's pulpit for criticizing Jehovah's Witnesses. This article is NOT NEUTRAL and SHOULD be better examined in light of other religions and translations. I'm here disputing bias in statements in relation to the New World's Translation.

Further, i question whether such an article need even exist. These statements have been sprinkled throughout other articles and if feel that this is just another attempt by opponents to smear Jehovah's Witnesses' reputation. For example, what great effort has been put in place by Wikipedia to detailing all the positive elements of this religious organization? WHy is there a need to be severely neutral on these occasions but liberal when detailing negativity?

[edit] Translation committee The members of the committee that translated the New World Translation wished to remain anonymous, with the stated goal of ensuring that the glory goes to God and not to man.[21] This move has been criticized, as it is meant that the credentials of the translators could not be checked. In 1950 the New World Translation Committee said, "The true scholarship behind the New World Translation will make itself known, not by the disclosure of the names of the translating committee, but by the faithfulness of the translation to the Greek text and by the reliable help it gives toward understanding God's written revelation to men." [22] A former member of the Governing Body, Raymond Franz, has stated that the translation committee consisted of Frederick William Franz, George Gangas, Karl Klein, Nathan Knorr and Albert Schroeder.

Hasn't this been presented elsewhere? Since this article speaks of criticisms, should it also NOT discuss the VALIDITY of such criticisms? Since this is an encyclopedia and not a pulpit for personal disfavor. For example, the article could go on to list other translations that feel similarly and have not disclosed the members of their translation committees.

[edit] Theological bias The New World Translation has been criticized as either adding or selectively translating certain portions of the Bible so as to conform to Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. The criticism of "theological bias" concerns mostly matters of the divinity of Christ (i.e., that Jesus was God), but also concerns other matters such as the eternity of the soul or the return of Jesus to the earth. [23] Some scholars have defended the translation.[24]

Is it enough to simply say: "Some scholars have defended the translation?" Here is a whole paragraph criticizing the NW and only a simple sentence is supposed to make it UNBIASED? Do not all translations SELECTIVELY translate words? Every criticism is NOT A VALID ONE and need not be GIVEN VALIDITY AS IF IT WERE VALID. The NIV and TNIV and many paraphrased versions are GREAT examples of bibles that SELECT words based on their INTERPRETATION of the bible rather than the original text. Further, the NW does what is within the bounds of the the original words used. It is up to the translator how those words will be used. Another translator can't force anohter to translate a word a certain way just because that is the one he used or favored. As long as the variation is legal and has equal weight, what is there to dispute? The NIV and other translations clearly go beyond the scriptures and stretch words in regards to these same disputed topics!

Unless Wikipedia is going to do its own examination of the NW in comparison to other Bibles, it needs to shy away from making such bold and unfounded statements and criticisms. Just becuase a group is a minority doesn't make the Majority RIGHT!

The most frequently criticized rendering is that of the first verse of the Gospel of John:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Most English translations - e.g., KJV, NIV, NASB)

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT, emphasis added)

Stating what the literal Greek says here would put all questions to silence. The Greek clearly differientiates the two uses of God in the text. Thus making the distinction found in the NW LEGAL adn if anyone is biased, it is these other translations who REFUSE to show that John differientiated "The Word was with THE GOD, and god was THE WORD" making use of the DEFINITE article in all put one place in front of the last occurence of god as it refers to the WORD. IN any language, this would be a CLEAR distinction--using the definite article at first and then NOT using it. Showing what the Greek really says will alow people to come to a more balanced opinion!

The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society states that the latter rendering is the literal translation of the passage, and that the original language indicates not that Jesus ("the Word") is "God", but that he is "godlike" or "divine" or "a god".[25][26] Some scholars state that "a god" is a possible literal translation of the passage,[27] though not the one they would prefer to see.[28] Some scholars also state that a literal translation does not equate persons, but assigns a quality (godlike nature or essence) to Jesus.[29]

A large number of scholars, however, have disagreed with the Witnesses' translation of this passage,[30] describing the latter rendering as "a frightful mistranslation", "monstrous", "intellectually dishonest", "totally indefensible", and "evidence [of] an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar".[31]

OK, basically, the NW is portrayed in a negative light. Then to be UNBIAS we say "some" (like a few) say that it is POSSIBLE but not one they would like to see. YEAH! quite unbiased for a variation that is QUITE ACCURATE and EQUALLY PAUSIBLE if not more so.

But then "A LARGE NUMBER OF SCHOLARS... disagree." "Some" is no longer appropriate here. Unbiased indeed. Notice the list of direct and NEGATIVE quotes. Why weren't such quotes made in favor of the NW? Wikipedia should be skeptical of such articles as these.

"Other New World Translation renderings that form major points of contention include Jeremiah 29:10, Luke 23:43, John 8:58, Acts 20:28, Colossians 1:15-20, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8 and Revelation 3:14."

What is the basis for saying they form MAJOR forms of contention when other translations like the New American Standard Bible uses the same words almost verbatim! Do i need to list these examples? All one has to do is check the online bibles to see that the NASV, which endeavors to translate as accurately as possible the words in the Greek says almost the same thing in a number of places. Now are these MAJOR POINTS OF CONTENTION or is this just a MAJOR POINT of contention for the AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE???????

The New World Translation rendering of the Greek word proskuneo has also been a source of criticism. The word is rendered "worship" in almost all occurrences in the New World Translation. However, when the word is used in reference to Jesus, it is consistently translated "do obeisance".[32] The Watchtower Society has explained its renderings in the publication Insight on the Scriptures.[33]

Many words in Greek do not have a direct and precise translation in other languages. Thus the words can be broad in one language and more narrow in another. Almost ALL TRANSLATIONS SELECT different words for proskuneo to suit their believes based on the CONTEXT of the sentence. "DO obeisance" has been shown to be a VALID alternative in many cases since the Greek word could include homage, reverence, worship, etc. The EXTENT of adoration is the question! Just because a person pays homage does not mean they are WORSHIPPING IT. The NW simply shows that the word need not be translated WORSHIP. Other translations do the same at their own discretion.

[edit] Use of the name "Jehovah" Main article: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Jehovah in the New Testament The New World Translation contains the name "Jehovah" 237 times in the New Testament. The Greek manuscripts from which the New Testament is translated do not contain the name "Jehovah". (The NWT of the Old Testament also contains the name "Jehovah" 145 instances more than it is contained in the extant Hebrew manuscripts from which the Old Testament is translated.)

Other translations do this also. Most translations leave out the Divine Name some 6,000 times in the Old Testament, but no meantion of this fallacy here.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the justification for using the name "Jehovah" in the New Testament is that it existed in the original New Testament writings, but was subsequently replaced by the Greek words for "God" and "Lord" some time around or before the fourth century. The evidence for this is the subject of debate (see Tetragrammaton in the New Testament).

These weak statements used to make it appear to be objective and fair are weak and sound like mere unfounded excuses on the part of the Watchtower Society. This is UNFAIR. The criticisms are stated with authority, but the explanation is simply a rushed excused given at the end as if they lack foundation.

Nothing in this article educates the reader about the true complexity of the issues. Although one does not have to be a scholar to understand the arguments as presented here,they are overly simplified and a little more research put into this article could make it educational and really educate the public.

Wikipedia should be more vigilant about detecting malicious intent in articles biased toward minorities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.220.177.207 (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. If you feel that something is biased, you can change it. It is important to remember, though, that the purpose of the article is to present the controversy as it exists separate to the editors, and not to offer arguments on the relative validity of each statement. That is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

If you would like to see this article improved but don't want to edit directly, feel free to make suggestions about alternative wording and such. You will probably find, however, that the article has been through many revisions and debates with JW editors to the point where most parties are reasonably happy with the result. BenC7 06:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. You may find yourself getting listened to better without the CAPS LOCK on, and if you post more concisely.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenC7 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

BenC7 speaks right here. NPOV cannot be achieved through Wikipedia balancing any arguments for and against, that would result in Wikipedia taking an opinion. However: all arguments found in the surrounding world - by citations - are valid and can be inserted by any reader. That's the principles. Said: Rursus ☻ 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Bias(2)

In order to compare the compilation and editing of the articles about Jehovah's Witnesses with that of other religions, I have looked at the Wiki articles about other well-known religions. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has a thorough discourse about their history, beliefs and practices, and yet there seems to be nothing there about the controversies that surround that particular belief system! If we take the format of the R.C. article as a guide, then an article about JWs beliefs would be similarly presented. However, if the tone of the criticisms against JWs that are found in this article is the better model, perhaps someone should start inserting all appropriate negatives into the RC article! In reality, it would be extremely in appropriate and disrespectful to do so. Everyone should be treated with due dignity and honour. When I saw the various pages about JWs, I first thought that, at last, I would be reading a fair presentation of the beliefs and practices of this group, only to find that it was not to be so. Unfortunately, editing is a free-for-all, and in the case of JWs, it seems that many are jumping on the bandwagon of highlighting short-comings, real or imagined! Let's have some sensible and unbiased presentations of what people believe, and their form of worship. That's all I ask from an encyclopedia. If anyone has a grudge, for any reason, remember, this is not a chat room, but an encyclopedia! --JW-somewhere (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually comparing the JW controversies page with the main Catholic article?? Or are you unaware of the article Criticism of the Catholic Church.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia? If so, it would be worth mentioning under the Internet subheading of this article.--Jeffro77 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and furthermore there is tons of written warnings for JW's to either abstain from using the internet or to not read, engage in discussion, or write about the religion over the internet from the mid 90's to early 2000's. Justinmcl 199.243.211.114 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It has never been stated by the Watchtower Society that JWs are to "abstain from using the Internet".--Jeffro77 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No no printed encouragements to not use the internet were made, informal ones were. However "to not read, engage in discussion, or write about the religion over the internet from the mid 90's to early 2000's" was most certainly explicitly and repeatedly stated. Justinmcl 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Internet Use

I concur with Justinmc's comment in part, but I fail to see the notability of such as a Contraversy without context. This section is another one of those "See what I found them saying!" type arguments. If some written and verified work has made the connection (about this being contraversial) somewhere in a verified source, then I can see how this is appropriate (though context must still be provided). Does someone have such a source? If not, this factoid would better fit into another article, in my opinion. --Fcsuper (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Without further comment, I will remove this section within a couple of days for not being notable as an actual controversy. The section borders on Original Research in its used of JW references and the conclusions it reaches based on those references. Wikipedia is not used to argue conclusions, but to state verifiable facts that are noteworthy in within the context. --Fcsuper (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Without further comment, section is removed. I added the text here in case someone wished to add any of this detail to a Criticisms article. --Fcsuper (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet use

- The Watchtower Society has instructed Witnesses to be careful in the use of the Internet because of the availability of what Witnesses consider "harmful" information. This can include information that is objectionable on moral grounds such as pornography, but also information considered to be 'apostate'. The word 'apostate' is assigned special meaning by Witnesses, to refer to individuals who leave their religion over doctrinal matters rather than the broader sense of any person who changes religious or political alliance.

A 2000 issue of The Watchtower stated, "Some apostates are increasingly using the internet to spread false information about Jehovah's Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking." Witnesses teach that Scriptures such as 2 John 8-11 apply to such "apostates" and thus they must, "look out" for themselves and never "receive" such teachings in any form.

Critics have stated that this warning against Internet use is an example of "milieu control" in which the society controls its members by restricting negative information regarding the society. Jehovah's Witnesses respond to such criticism by stating that branch libraries, accessible by thousands of Witnesses and visitors, include books that speak negatively about Jehovah's Witnesses.

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)

I think I'll have to go option C, but it could turn into option a/b out of my control. It's terribly scary and awful and hurting me so much. I have almost no one to talk to about it. I love my family; they are really nice people, i just don't have the ability to force myself to believe it anymore. I don't know what to do and I'm scared. Im 19 and still living at home. help. please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonieymouse (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An elder told me a few years ago when I was still in that they used to go "looking for" people who'd drifted away and might be caught up in sin, but that these days they don't follow up on people (follow up on them for the purpose of discipline, that is) who aren't showing any interest in attending meetings etc. However, I don't know where such a viewpoint has been published. I do know that Andrew Holden's "Cavorting With the Devil" deals exactly with this subject. I don't know if it has been referenced yet for this section. I've just been reading the discussion page only. Mandmelon (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2008 (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, alifornia 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 [1] 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 [such as mind control and cults] 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)

• First neither I nor the article you have removed said what you claimed it said namely, “mind control theories have been and are still universally ...rejected.” I made the point quite clear that this is still a source of controversy. However, what has been presented and what has been stated is also clear, that the scientific community as a whole rejects this over and over again (consistently). That does not mean “universally” or “every one” but the weight of evidence rejects it. Gordon Melton MOLKO BRIEF However, not everyone agrees with what has been presented and thus we have people like you and others who force the issue. Thus a very small minority of North American scholars have recently tried to resurrect the dead horse of brainwashing. (Zablocki 1997; Kent & Hall 1997 ) It is of note that they rely on information that is almost exclusively on the testimony of disgruntled ex-members turned apostates. However only a small number of former members are apostates and the majority are not, yet their point is not considered. One report suggest that only 10% to a maximum of 20% are apostates. (see Bromley 1998) Claims resting mostly on apostates (10%-20%) of former members can hardly be regarded as true, at least so says most of the rest of the scholarly community.

One report stated, ““Mind control, or "brainwashing" as it's commonly referred to by the media, is often viewed by many psychologists as science fiction.”

It's awfully convenient to bandy around words like 'apostate'. Even using the normal definition of the word 'apostate', but especially with the 'demonized' view of the word that JWs apply to former members (as distinct from apostates from other religions who become JWs), it simply serves to make them look unfavourable without considering why they leave. Rather than pay attention to facts, such as why a person leaves the religion - often having detailed information that is not validly responded to by JWs, the situation is simply trivialized away as them being 'disgruntled apostates'. When 'mind control' is spoken of in this context, it is not some mysterious force of science fiction, but a much more mundane result of information control and group-think.--Jeffro77 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro- I was using the term in the secular way. please see under that term. [2] Besides this issue is not really about a religion, (JW's or any other)but about wheter "mind control" is valid.

Yes. I first referred to the "normal" definition of the word 'apostate', though I mentioned how it is also specifically used among JWs. Whether we're calling it 'mind control' or 'information control', the point is still the same. There is no paranormal form of direct control involved, but there is still control of information. The controversy about whether 'mind control' exists is more about semantics. Is it 'mind control' if someone goes racing for a Watchtower Index before making a major decision? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it mind control that Pavlov's dog salivates at the sound of a bell? If it's too controversial to call it mind control, then don't. But conditioning is still involved.--Jeffro77 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, In 1986, a group of psychologists formed a task force--Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC)--and submitted a report to APA condeming “mind control.” But the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology found the report "unacceptable," lacking in scientific evidence, relying too much on sensational anecdotes and providing insufficient information for APA to take a position on the issue.

The scientific community as a whole (NOT ALL) concluded that the "rejection of a committee report" was indeed the rejection of the brainwashing anticult consensus as it existed at that time (additionally, a key enclosure of the rejection document rejected the term "brainwashing" as well). [3]

Also at the link containing the MOLKO BRIEF the point is clear that APA once again rejected “mind control”. There you will find:

B. The Theory of Coercive Persuasion Plaintiffs Advance Is Not Accepted in the Scientific Community 1. The Conclusions of Drs. Singer and Benson Are Not Recognized As Scientific Conclusions in the Relevant Professional Communities 2. Plaintiffs' Theory of Coercive Persuasion Is Not Generally Accepted in the Relevant Professional Literature

Here is a nice modern (up to date) short article that shows why there are two sides.

[4] Johanneum 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Things have happened since 1987. Read the quotes I have pasted above. They came from articles more thoroughly researched than this one. If they present that there are two sides of a debate and that there is no consensus, there is no reason to say otherwise in this article. BenC7 04:32, 11 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)

If you feel that it is notable, you can put it back in. I don't think that it is really all that notable in and of itself, considering the significance and level-of-controversy of the other things in the article. BenC7 12:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfulfilled predictions

Johanneum, you will see from the sheer number of references that it would be impractical to quote directly. There is a link provided which has the quotes extensively listed. Unfortunately I cannot make the link go directly to the part of the page where the articles I have listed are quoted. Quoting will make the footnotes too long. The predictive nature is quite clear:

In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? The year 1975. (Awake, 8 Oct 66)

Interestingly, the autumn of the year 1975 marks the end of 6,000 years of human experience. (WT 1 May 67)

Another speaker, F. W. Franz, the Society's vice-president, forcefully impressed on the audience the urgency of the Christian preaching work. He stressed that, according to dependable Bible chronology, 6,000 years of human history will end this coming September according to the lunar calendar. (WT, 1 May 75)

And so on. BenC7 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben you really need to understand the JW's view (and issues involved) before you go and present it like you have. 1) They still do believe that 1975 is the end of 6,000 years of history. 2) Is that a prediction anyway? The prediction is what may have happen then, not how/why they came up with that date. Your little addition is misleading and incorrect. Perhaps in the future you can ask Jeffro for advise or understanding, since he does know JW's, before you post additions which seem like you either do not know, which I believe, or don't care about truth. Johanneum 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben you have had two days to try and correct it, I will go ahead and delete it for now. Please feel free to correct it and fit it in if you really think such is necessary. Johanneum 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, history and "man's existence" was still occurring. They were predictions - they said that such-and-such was going to happen. It belongs in that section because those predictions did not come to pass. Simple. BenC7 09:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben it seems that you are not making sense. What is the prediction? Please state the prediction.Johanneum 00:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. I think it would be almost faster to go to an RfC, rather than continue this pointless debate. This will be my last attempt before going to RfC. Take one of the quotes I posted above, which is a small selection of many:

Interestingly, the autumn of the year 1975 marks the end of 6,000 years of human experience. (WT 1 May 67)

This is a prediction. It was made before the event, saying that the end of 6000 years of human experience would happen in the future, and they set a specific date for this to occur. It DIDN'T HAPPEN! End of story. There is nothing that is difficult to understand about how this is a prediction. BenC7 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. That particular quote was saying that 6000 years of human history would be finished in 1975, not that human history will end in 1975. Aside from that fact that it year of human history will end after December 31. That being said, leaduing up to 1975, the isn't really true, it doesn't require a spectacular event, any more than saying that this Watchtower Society did make various comments in publications, and in talks, stating that it was very likely that Armageddon would occur in 1975, or a limited time thereafter. See The Watchtower, 15 March, 1980, page 17 para. 5-6.--Jeffro77 00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

JW's believe that the Bible teaches according to its chronology that Man has only lived for just over 6,000 years, they teach that Adam was created in the year 4026 BCE. Thus 6,000 years of human history(experience) DID end. I am sure that there is some point that you will agree that X-number of years of human history has ended or is over. HISTORY is over my friend and any number of years that are part of a given historical period are over too. Ben you are misinterpreting what they said and what they meant! It is becoming clear that you really do not know what they believe but are quick to quote someone else, who you view as an authority. It appears, to me, that you are not qualified to deal with these issues. The is no implication that "human experience" itself would end. Jw's do not and have not ever taught such an idea, they believe that human experience will continue forever. There is some much evidence to support what I am saying. For example, here is a fuller quote from above: "Interestingly, the autumn of the year 1975 marks the end of 6,000 years of human experience. This is ascertainable from reliable chronology preserved in the Bible itself. What will that year mean for humankind? Will it be the time when God executes the wicked and starts off the thousand-year reign of his Son Jesus Christ? It very well could, but we will have to wait to see." Need I say more? Johanneum 02:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly implied that the end of this 6,000 year period is of some significance, otherwise it would not have been extensively talked about in the various JW publications. E.g.:

"...shortly, according to reliable Bible chronology, 6,000 years of human history will come to an end.. After six thousand years of toil and bondage to sin, sickness, death and Satan, mankind is due to enjoy a rest and is in dire need of a rest." (Awake, 8 Oct 66)

"F. W. Franz, the Society's vice-president, forcefully impressed on the audience the urgency of the Christian preaching work. He stressed that, according to dependable Bible chronology, 6,000 years of human history will end this coming September according to the lunar calendar. This coincides with a time when "the human species [is] about to starve itself to death," as well as its being faced with poisoning by pollution and destruction by nuclear weapons. Franz added: 'There's no basis for believing that mankind, faced with what it now faces, can exist for the seventh thousand-year period" under the present system of things.'" (WT, I May 75)

It can also be seen from the Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years book, citation 63 in the article, that the thousand years of peace was expected to start immediately after the end of the 6,000 year period. The quote is a long one, so I will not post it here.

I have inserted a compromise which calls some of these "speculations", although it can be seen from at least the above three points that there is a predictive nature to at least some of them, and so it is appropriate to call them "predictions". BenC7 03:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben You are absolutely correct that "it [was] clearly implied that the end of this 6,000 year period[1975] is of some significance. However that point is already in the article. Note only was it stated as a possibility but even as a probability. However, the prediction is what would happen in 1975, and not that they believed that man has lived for 6,000 years. Yes there is a connetion, however the prediction is about Armagdon and not about the number of years of human HISTORY, which is not a prediction but a statement of their understanding of Scripture. PS I will delete inaccurate and misleading information which is not sutitable for Wiki. I do apperciate you working with this, and I will delete the ending of your sentence. You can still present your case for the inclusion, but the number of years that a person or persons have existed is not a prediction. Johanneum 03:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's true that Jehovah's Witnesses predicted Armageddon in 1914, this isn't unfulfilled at all. Many contend that the first World War was Armageddon. One can argue with the exact meaning, but this isn't really a good candidate for unfulfilled prophecy. Nor is the subsequent one. In 1918 millions of churchgoers WERE killed and churches (congregations) were destroyed wholesale by the Spanish Flu. Same goes for 1938 armageddon.

Actually, that is not correct. JWs predicted Armageddon in October of 1914, and inherent in that belief was that "woe" would follow that event. The unfolding events of WWI prior to the alleged fulfilment are actually diametrically opposed to stating that they correctly predicted anything for October of 1914. (Likely for this reason, they usually reference the year rather than focussing on the original specific claim.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being a cheerleader for the Witnesses or anything, but if you're going to criticise, those are rather weak points. 62.49.23.145 11:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I was an acting Jehovahs Witness in 1969 and it was made clear to us that getting married, having children or going on to further education was a waste of time because the 'end' was coming in 1975. Many friends gave up their jobs and homes so they could spend the 'end' preaching. To now discover that Witnesses pretend it never happened is both pathetic and sickening. I had an excuse for believing such stupidity. I was young. I am still embarrassed that I had anything to do with that 'prophecy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.218.29 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the tag of the Unfulfilled predictions section. Granted, the quotes are sourced (primary mostly), but whose place is to say the statements are prophesies at all, let along whether or not they were fulfilled. I would say the section should be at least relabelled to something less declarative. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 01:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Return of Christ

Ben the way you keep the article is misleading. Once again, you are not comparing apples to apples. Jw's do believe that there will YET be a future coming of Christ. For example, The March 15,2007 Watchtower makes that clear! IT states, after quoting Revelation 1:7 "This Coming refers to Jesus' appearing in the future to reward the just and punish the wicked. The big difference is that Witnesses teach this is a "seeing" or perceiving with the mind not the eyes. You are comparing oranges to apples. Witnesses do highlight the difference between presence and coming, which seems to cause you confusion. If you did read my last referenced statement you would have read, "At Matthew 24:37 the Greek word pa·rou·si′a is used. Literally it means a “being alongside.” Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, 1968) gives “presence, of persons,” as its first definition of pa·rou·si′a. The sense of the word is clearly indicated at Philippians 2:12, where Paul contrasts his presence (pa·rou·si′a) with his absence (a·pou·si′a). On the other hand, in Matthew 24:30, which tells of the “Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” as Jehovah’s executioner at the war of Armageddon, the Greek word er·kho′me·non is used. Some translators use ‘coming’ for both Greek words, but those that are more careful convey the difference between the two." Thus if you wish to bring this out, the article should state that JW's Believe that Christ Presence covers a length of period from 1914 to Jesus' coming at Armageddon.

Johanneum 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In the references that I have used, the JW publications explicitly use the word "coming", not "presence". It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to present here an argumentitive case about the meaning of words from the Greek etc. BenC7 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What they said should be explained by them and not by you. It can be and is, in this case, misleading. It is not comparing apples to apples. You are comparing apples to oranges while claiming its accuracy. Johanneum 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Association

In the article block: United Nations Association. We need to keep the wording within the full context of the application process. Before an NGO registers with the DPI it needs to be understood that the application does not incorporate them with the UN SYSTEM (UN SYSTEM IS MADE UP OF DIFFERENT SYSTEMATIC BODIES NOT MADE UP OF NGOs): “Please note that association of NGOs with DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status.” However lets keep it within the context of the application process, it is a TRUE FACT that NGOs direct association with the UN system is non-existence, THERE IS NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP, this statement is made very clear in the application and it should not be taken out of context. To state out of context would be a complete contradiction to Criteria for association with DPI. We need to understand this is an indirect association with the UN, and it is through the DPI and no ONE NGOs will get special treatment above the other NGOs just the chance to spread the word and meet various criteria as stated in the UN/DPI website: http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/about-ngo-assoc.asp Again I will back my statement: If we look at this faxed photo copy: http://www.unwatchtower.com/resources/unngo.jpg This is only one example of active NGOs support for the UN. On 28 January 1992, 37 non-govermental organizations (NGOs) seeking association with the Department of Public Information. 13 Out of the 37 applicants failed approval. Association of 14 active members was also terminated because they were inactive(Basically not actively participating). The NGOs officially recognized by DPI cooperate with the UNITED NATIONS TO HELP BUILD PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORT FOR UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMMES AND GOALS. One of the UN Programme is the World Health Organization. Providing support for this program is meeting the criteria set forth by the UN/DPI. Many other programmes also supports the UN. For instance look at this: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_BCT_01.03.pdf do a search of JW's. You will find the presence of JW's in this WORLD EVENT. I hate to say this but this next website is not a very reliable source, it is very biased: http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/pleasesignnowhere.html It states that the UN/DPI was not under the ECOSOC resolution which said NGOs should support the UN. That statement is explained backward, IT IS THE PROGRAMMES such as WHO that will act in conformity WITH ECOSOC in regards to relations with NGOs, again it is not to be taken out of context, IT IS NOT THE NGOs, IT IS THE UN PROGRAMME. I will prove my point lets look at the WHO criteria in regards to NGOs: http://www.who.int/civilsociety/relations/principles/en/ Take notice of 1.2 it states: 1.2 WHO should, in relation to NGOs, act in conformity with any relevant resolutions of the General Assembly or Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC). I advice you to read the whole page. If something is going to be written it should not be biased. REVO2 12:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It also important that it be kept in mind the attitude JWs (supposedly) have toward any kind of dealings with such an entity that they regard as "beastly". A member of the JW religion is looked down on, and can face religious sanctions, for performing even incidental work for a church. Surely, if there were no hypocrisy involved, members of the JW religion would not even enter a UN building at all let alone seek an associate status of any kind. Nitpicking about the semantics of the UN paperwork is therefore not the focus of this issue.--Jeffro77 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are being extreme Jeff. The UN is a political entity, not a religious one. JW's with cleaning contracts enter gov buildings all the time to do their work. They also must go to court or file papers. Gathering information which may be available at the local courthouse may also be necessary. The UN is much bigger but is basically the same thing. The only difference is the UN requires some kind of registration and apparently some action as well. The interpretation of these req's is up to the registering entity and the UN. When the interpretation became unacceptabel the WTS withdrew its membership status. Personally, I think it was a bad idea, but they say hindsight is 20/20.George 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not being extreme, however I am illustrating the extremeness, and the dichotomy, shown by the Witnesses (particularly by leadership). They do not view the UN as merely just another political body, but as an "image" that is idolized (Revelation Climax page 210 pa13), in close association with the "harlot"; it is explicitly defined as a specific "wild beast". True Peace and Security p. 123 par. 18 states: "So, to be among those hoping to survive when that Kingdom comes against all of its opponents, we need to recognize the hard fact that Satan dominates this world and its systems. That includes its political arrangements such as the United Nations. We need to keep free from all of these by our firm stand for Jehovah’s righteous government by Christ Jesus." JW interaction with governmental agencies for mandatory requirements has nothing to do with an optional action to get a 'library card' that they didn't need.--Jeffro77 22:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They obviously felt they were not supporting or joining the UN. That is the end of the matter. If a church as reference material (such as some have copies of ancient manuscripts) a JW would not be precluded from entering to use the material available. The same would logically follow for the UN. I still tink it was a bad idea because of the public nature of the association and the possibility of 'stumbling others'. It must have been because it was done away with. You know JW's - if they thoght it was not a problem they would have continued without a hitch. George 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

George, They obviously felt they were not supporting or joining the UN. I respectfully will have to disagree, all official documents and watchtower's own literature proves otherwise, If the case is as you stated then they should have no problems explaining the interpretation that became unacceptable, and that is a problem.REVO2 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your words reveal your incredible lack of balance. They did explain their thinking, why they retracted, and that they felt they were not supporting the UN. What documents could you possibly be referring to that say otherwise?George 07:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You stated the interpretation became unacceptable, please explain in what ways in this site, http://thetruthaboutthetruthaboutthetruth.blogspot.com/2005/08/is-watchtower-guilty-of-prostitution.html their are many JW's who are in need of that answer. Lets keep this site clean to serve its purpose.REVO2 10:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation: In the United Nations Association block I recommend an explaination to the United Nation System, it needs to be made clear that this system is not made up of NGOs. It is a made up of SYSTEMATIC BODIES. Should have a hyperlink to UNITED NATION SYSTEM. I took a glance at the one explained here in Wiki, should it be hyperlinked to the word UN SYSTEM? The reason why I make this request is because the way it is written can be misunderstood as if NGOs direct association with the UN System is possible, and that is not the case.REVO2 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The UN is a governing body of NATIONS wanting to establish itself as a political entity world wide, would be a better description then to say: The UN is a political entity.REVO2 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We can understand the points you make without the all caps please. George 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it made his point much easier to read. However, please continue to critique the way people conveys their thoughts, this is the internet after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.228.192.46 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

UNITED NATIONS is not the samething as UN/DPI, United Nations Department of Public Information is hyperlinked to the United Nations page. Should be hyperlinked to an UN/DPI page.REVO2 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_system and tell me if it's informative enough to be hyperlinked to the United Nations Association block. It would give the reader a clear picture why NGOs is not incorporated into the United Nations System.REVO2 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

They did not withdraw because the language of the contract became unaccpetable, they withdrew because their association was made public. This was something that probably 99%(my approximation) of witnesses would not have known of, as a sincere witness would not even visit the UN website or read UN material. As the great beast of babylon any and all association or ties to UN would have been abhored if the governing body stayed true to their own edicts. Justinmcl 199.243.211.114 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Justinmcl, I agree with you 100%, but that is not what they are claiming. What many refuse to see, before the storm took them by surprise, is that the Watchtower association with the UN/DPI was privilege information. It was also kept from the bethelites, they themselves did not know about this relationship during the 10yrs. And yes I also know if this relationship was not revealed then this knowledge would’ve still been kept on need to know basis, within the inner circle. REVO2 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly the case that every JW I know was disturbed about the association with the UN (and I was shocked), particularly my mother, and I remember from attending meetings as a child in the 70s and 80s that the UN was spoken of in the harshest of terms, and if I am not mistaken was tied up with the prophecies of 1914 (I think I learned about the League of Nations in JW meetings before I ever heard of it at school). I also remember some pretty wild drawings of the UN beast in the JW literature that caught my imagination as a child (along with a sultry whore of babylon). One has to go back to the original editions of the literature since the Witnesses have been (justifiably) accused of revising earlier publications when they are reprinted.Megabyxus (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)megabyxus

Use of the name Jehovah

Why does this article focus on the NT and say nothing about the OT? Very losided coverage. George 17:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Because that's where the controversy is. In any case, it does mention the OT. BenC7 06:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)