Talk:Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indisputable1922[edit]

The article says:

The organization's literature has included claims that its predictions about dates such as 1925 were "indisputable", "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct" and bearing "the stamp of approval of Almighty God", but the Governing Body says its teachings are neither infallibile nor divinely inspired.

That unhelpfully portrays JWs as schizophrenic, and ignores that 'indisputability' was last claimed more than 87 years ago. I edited to:

As recently as 1922, the organization's literature claimed its predictions about dates were "indisputable", "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct" and bearing "the stamp of approval of Almighty God", but in recent decades the Governing Body has explicitly said its writings are neither infallible nor divinely inspired.

My edit makes it clear that the obsolete position hasn't been maintained for 87 years, and that JW's have not schizophrenically advocated two contradicting positions simultaneously. The existing references support my edit. Yet... Twice, my edit has been reverted by the same editor. --Soc8675309 (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Watch Tower Society has always disavowed any claim to infallibility. Russell said so explicitly, so your edit that "in recent decades the Governing Body has explicitly said its writings are neither infallible nor divinely inspired" adds no value at all. That disavowal of infallibility, however, did not stop the society from publishing such dogmatic statements as the ones cited that contradict their insistence of fallibility. It's not for me or you to try to rationalise that contradiction or dismiss it as ancient history. The inclusion of the dogmatic statements of "indisputable" and "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct" in the article is fair and reasonable in the context of historic development of JW doctrines. And as a minor point, your use of the phrase "as recently as 1922" when trying to indicate that it is ancient history makes no sense. LTSally (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My edit doesn't rationalize or editorialize. Are you seriously suggesting that it's merely happenstance that it's been 87 years since JW literature last claimed to be "indisputable" and "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct"? Why hide the fact that only 87 year old "literature has included claims" such as are quoted in the article body? That is my primary interest: including the fact that such sensational claims were last made in 1922. As for the second part of the contested quote, it would be fine to clarify that infallibility has always been denied. Here you go:
As recently as 1922, the organization's literature claimed its predictions about dates were "indisputable", "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct" and bearing "the stamp of approval of Almighty God", but since its beginnings the Watch Tower and the Governing Body have explicitly said they are neither infallible nor divinely inspired.
Again, the article would be better if it didn't wrongly imply that the quoted claims were made in recent decades. The quotes are pushing a century old. --Soc8675309 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement quite clearly addresses what was specificially claimed to be "indisputable" (i.e. claims about 1925). It is inherently obvious that after 1925 came and went without anything occurring as predicted that the claims were indeed not "indisputable", so the statement does not need to be qualified further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't imply anything. In discussing the basis of their doctrines, it states that claims by the WTS about events predicted for 1925 were described as "absolutely correct" and having the "stamp of approval of Almighty God". It also states that the Governing Body (which came into existence almost 50 years after those claims) makes no claim to infallibility. LTSally (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellfire rejected in 1882???[edit]

1882: No hellfire. According to Russell, most references to "hell" in the New Testament were more accurately translated as "grave".[63][64]

Everybody knows that one of the first things Russell was taught by Second Adventists was that biblical soul is mortal and that biblical hell is a synomym to death and grave. This is in early 1870's and surely not in 1882.--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a check and "everybody knows" isn't listed as a reliable, verifiable source. The Adventists may have held that view and Russell may have concurred, but the timeline has to consist of published statements in which a doctrine is explicitly expressed. LTSally (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you understand that putting a date on the basis of your personal study consists original researh, doesnt'it? Or, can you show me where it is written that in 1882 Russell understood that there is no hellfire?--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references are in the article, Vassilis. LTSally (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living animal; [soul, in this text means person], the last Adam a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is animal; and afterwards that which is animal; and afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth earthy; the second man, the Lord from heaven.…Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:44-50). A spiritual body does not mean a soul without a body. Hence, in the state of death, man has no body; for it is only at the resurrection we get a spiritual body. And in 1 Cor. 15, Paul claims that if there be no resurrection "then they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.' ‘But some will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what bodies do they come"? Then he goes on to show that the dead in Christ are raised a spiritual body.—p.6

If the soul of the natural man is born of the flesh, it has no claim to a spiritual life. If it is born of the Spirit, it will "inherit the kingdom of God;" for there are but the two kinds of births. Hence, unless a man is born again, he can never become a spiritual being. And it is only spiritual beings who can materialize themselves; since all others area l ready materialized.—p.42

--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede your point that Russell briefly mentions his belief on man as souls. But I'd appreciate if you wouldn't continue to revert back to your mangling of the English language when listing these doctrines. I have rewritten these points for clarity. LTSally (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article format[edit]

Can more knowledgeable editors format the entries in the article to distinguish unchanged yet current doctrines introduced after 1879 (or perhaps after 1931 reflecting adoption of the Jehovah witness name) from doctrines that have changed constantly and/or abandoned?--Kencaesi (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about that too, and at one point was going to suggest that each current belief have its short-label be bolded. However, I believe somewhere there are rules about what you can and can't do and I think maybe they want us to use italics instead. The article would benefit from an editor who is more knowledgeable about such things. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to more clearly indicate which beliefs are still current. WP:MOSBOLD places quite specific restrictions on bold formatting, and also discourages underlining and coloured text as a means of emphasis. So italics may be the way to go. Alternatively, a separate section after the others could summarise the current beliefs, though I'm not entirely happy with the thought of such repetition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be an ugly combination of text in italics and non-italic. It might be better to list all current beliefs in a separate section, but then again isn't that just going to repeat the material at Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Beliefs? The link to that article already exists at the bottom: I say leave it as it is. BlackCab (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your concerns of what may seem to be arbitrary formatting within the existing sections, and some of the points don't really have a suitable short form. It would be nice to have some kind of summary indicating their current beliefs though, i.e., indicating to where their beliefs have developed. An alternative may be to separate the article into separate sections to more clearly show development in specific areas; e.g., Christ's presence, 'generation', blood and medicine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bible inerrant[edit]

The article states that Inerrancy of the Bible is a doctrine unchanged since 1879. However, The Watchtower, April 1, 1920, p. 103, stated, "That [Studies in the Scriptures] contains some mistakes is freely admitted. Even the Bible contains some." (formatting added), and The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126 stated, "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible and there has never been a book written yet that is perfect that has been written by any human hand." (formatting added) The statement therefore should not be included in the 'unchanged' doctrines section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical infallibility is different from Biblical inerrancy. The Watchtowers of April 1, 1920 and April 15, 1928 (quoted in the above comment) say this on their inside front covers: "This journal...urge[s] our readers to prove all its utterances by the infallible Word [of God]" and "This journal...confidently invites a careful examination of its utterances in the light of the infallible Word of God". The article now uses the proper term. --Soc8675309 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disfellowship1904[edit]

The article stated and states, "Responsibility for administering discipline, including disfellowshipping, of dissident members passed from entire congregation to congregational judicial committees." To the footnoted references, I added a quote from a 1904 publication which explicitly instructed that serious wrongdoing be handled with:
1) the formation of a "committee" and
2) "the facts being certified to the elders".
I left that article's previous first sentence intact, and after it wrote:
Russell had recommended in a 1904 publication that a "committee" (not necessarily including elders) investigate serious "error or sin" and "the facts being certified to the elders", the matter presented to "a general meeting of the [congregation], as a court", including whether "to withdraw from him its fellowship".
Another editor eventually replaced that with the following:
Russell had recommended in a 1904 publication that a "committee" of congregation members investigate serious "error or sin" but that if elders were included, "their eldership would add no force or authority". He also reportedly argued that the Bible "does not authorize any court of Elders, or anyone else, to become busybodies. ... going back to the practices of the Dark Ages during the inquisition;"
The last sentence (beginning "He also reportedly...") relies on poor excerpting, flawed interpretation, and a self-published work which explicitly identified the supposed quote as hearsay. Even if the quote involving "busybodies" is accurate, Russell plainly used that term in speaking of personal matters between individuals, for just a few sentences later, the same quotation continues thusly, "if the wrong-doer should persist in his wrongdoing and not repent, and if the matter be of sufficient importance, then we are to bring the matter to the attention of the Church for correction. ...In such event, it might be impossible to deal with the matter in an individual way. Then the Elders might constitute themselves into a Board or Committee, and get one of their number to look into the case". As it was hearsay, self-published, and misrepresents Russell's actual instructions, that last sentence and its source have been removed.
The fact is that for decades before 1944 the Bible Student movement was already utilizing what might be termed 'judicial committees' (with single quotes), and the fact is that the typical committeemen were already congregation elders. The primary change in 1944 was simply that the details of a congregant's so-called "serious sin" were no longer madatorily-aired before the entire congregation, and the vote on whether to disfellowship was now by the handful on the committee who already knew the details (theoretically). Thus, it seems best to remove the focus from "elders" and "eldership", and re-focus on the more significant change: a vote to disfellowship was henceforth by a small committee rather than by all congregants.
I've substituted the controversial wording with the following:
Russell had recommended in a 1904 publication that a congregation "committee" investigate a congregant's serious "error or sin", but the entire congregation voted whether "to withdraw from him its fellowship".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the reference you consider poor, but merely improved its presentation. The second reference is not essential.
The 1904 source is quite clear that elders were not considered necessary in 'judicial committees'. That position was later changed, and it's unclear why you don't want that information presented. If you have a source indicating that the change about a requirement for elders to form the committees happened prior to 1944, but some time after 1904, then include it in the right place.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I interpret the 1904 source differently, and I believe the preponderance of sources support my interpretation. The 1904 publication plainly expected that judicial committees would typically include elders, for it explicitly wrote of committeemen: "eldership would add no force or authority in the case except as [the elders'] judgment might be the riper and their influence the more potent." Furthermore, a judicial committee could not present its findings directly to the congregation, for the 1904 explicit direction was that "the facts being certified to the elders, it would be [the elders'] duty to call a general meeting of the [congregation] as a court". Lastly, in practice JWs have generally allowed a non-elder to sit on a judicial committee if there were insufficient numbers of local elders. So, the most significant change in the 1940s had far less to do with a new job for "elders" and far more to do with shifting a matter of "controversy and disruption" (see Watchtower excerpt below) from the entire congregation to only a committee.
The Watchtower, May 15, 1944
"The course outlined [in the Bible] is for the purpose of keeping peace and unity among the brethren, rather than stirring up discord by talebearing and whispering. In times past [the Scriptures] have been interpreted to this effect: That, where one member of the church sins against another, the matter is, after due process, to be brought before the whole congregation. There it should be discussed and argued out. Then a vote should be taken... [This] however, has served to cause more controversy and disruption among congregations in times past than almost any other thing. Undue heat of contrary opinions has been stirred up and undue measure of time and attention has been taken from the Lord's work of preaching the good news of the Kingdom. ...When methods produce the wrong results, then it is wise and timely to examine the methods hitherto used to determine whether such are Scriptural or not. ...According to this [new] procedure, the hearing of the case and the rendering of the decision should be confined to the representative brethren, as pictured by the [ancient Israelite] city elders, not elective elders as in religious organizations, but elders who are such due to Christian knowledge, growth and experience. ...After they render the decision, the congregation may hear about the matter and may concur in the decision and in the action due."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1904 source says: "Elders they may or may not be, but their eldership would add no force or authority in the case except as their judgment might be the riper and their influence the more potent." This suggests that committees could include elders and might benefit from their presence, but the ambivalence of "may or may not be" doesn't suggest that such committees would include elders. Also, it states that the facts determined by the committee would be "certified to the elders", suggesting that the elders were not on the committees themselves. If the shift from could to would for the specific use of elders in such committees happened some time prior to the 1940s, then that should be included separately in the list. (Is there a source for the suggestion that non-elders have been used in recent times in judicial committee meetings?)--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity?[edit]

Regarding concerns raised at Talk:Nontrinitarianism#Bible Students 2012 about whether Russell ever believed the Trinity, I agree that the sources are not completely clear that he personally ever believed the doctrine. It may be that only Barbour and Paton held those views. However, the sources do indicate that the idea was endorsed in early Zion's Watch Tower publications, and therefore seems appropriate to retain.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates[edit]

  • - The parable of the Talents (Ten Talents) (Matthew 25:14-30), the parable of the virigins, (the Ten Virgins), "Gog of Magog", Gog is understood to be “a coalition of nations” instead of Satan. Gog is spoken in fleshy and political terms (e.g., Ezekiel 39:11-17) and Satan the devil is a spirit creature. Anaccuratesource (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New sections go at the bottom of the Talk page.
The changed interpretation of 'Gog' is probably worthy of mention.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the JW website you've provided isn't specifically in reference to the information you've provided, and seems more like promoting the entire video series rather than providing a source for the points you've raised. That probably isn't appropriate. Which specific video is the source?? Ideally, provide a link to a transcript or article making the specific points.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/activities/events/annual-meeting-report-2014/. This article summarizes the Annual Meeting of 2014, in which updates in Bible understanding were discussed, as explained under "Types and Antitypes." and under "Who Will Soon Attack God's People?" This can be a source for the subsection "2010–2019".
—Wavelength (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC) and 01:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question "Who is Gog of Magog mentioned in the book of Ezekiel?" is discussed in the May 2015 Study Edition of The Watchtower at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015364, which can be an additional source for the subsection "2010–2019".
—Wavelength (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 2015 article doesn't represent a change in doctrine, as that change was already made in 2014. For the purpose of this article—a timeline of doctrinal changes—it is only necessary to provide a source indicating when the doctrine was changed. It isn't necessary to provide additional sources for the purpose of trying to explain or justify the change. The exception would be for a discussion of the subject in secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • - When was the Babylonian Exile (from Babylonian the Great)
  • - It began sometime during the 2nd Century C.E. until 1919 --Anaccuratesource (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

doctrines unchanged - anointed individuals[edit]

"anointed individuals are resurrected to heaven to heaven with spiritual bodies". The reference says "The resurrection of the restitution class, those who "shall stand upon the earth" in the latter day, in their flesh, and see God," is therefore not due until the day of wrath is passed , while the dead in Christ who are to be raised spiritual bodies, is due before the day of wrath." When are the anointed resurrected? At a certain date to come? Or have they (the dead ones) been resurrected already? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear whether you're suggesting a change to the article. The section you've quoted is about doctrines that have remained unchanged, and simply states that the JW belief that 'anointed' individuals are 'resurrected to heaven' has not changed since the time of Russell. It does not elaborate about who is supposed to go to heaven or when, because those details have since changed (more than once). Their current belief is somewhat vague, but the 'anointed' purportedly began to be resurrected (for those who had already died, not some 'rapture' type thing) some time before 1935 (because reasons) but no earlier than 1914 (because reasons), and that any 'anointed' who die more recently are 'resurrected' to heaven as soon as they die (notwithstanding pesky medical procedures that might interrupt the undefined process).
(This does not apply to those who they believe will be resurrected on earth, which is supposed to be after 'Armageddon').--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrines Unchanged - The Timing Can be Calculated Comment[edit]

Since Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christ's second coming occurred in 1914, (as noted in the 1910-1919 subsection), the statement that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the timing of Christ's second coming can be calculated, isn't even useful.

If someone meant to say that Jehovah's Witnesses still believe that the timing of Armageddon can be calculated, this is incorrect. The following WB&TS sources state that the timing of Armageddon CANNOT be calculated:

  • Watchtower 5/1/68, pp. 272-273
  • Awake! 10/8/68 p. 15
  • Watchtower 5/1/70, p. 273
  • Watchtower 1/1/75, pp. 9-10

These citations coincide with out-of-context quotations used by some to persuade one another to the contrary, because I'm referring to context that they leave out. They are sources I had easily at hand, and I haven't searched for earlier statements than these, so I don't know exactly when this change in belief occurred. However, since 1931, when some Bible students became Jehovah's Witnesses, they have made no attempt to predict a date for Armageddon, so the change may have been decades earlier than the articles I cite. Downstrike (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's debatable whether any unprovable religious idea is 'useful'. It isn't meant to be 'useful' in some vague sense of being 'predictive'. The section simply indicates doctrines that have not changed, because that is relevant to the context of the article. What matters here is whether the unchanged doctrines are supported by sources, particularly secondary sources. In this case it is.
JW beliefs about the supposed timing of 'Christ's return' are not the same as any supposed timing of 'Armageddon'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, instead of saying, "isn't even useful", I should have said, "is such a statement of the obvious, that it's an insult to the reader's intelligence". My apologies for trying to be polite about it.
JW beliefs about the Second Coming and Armageddon are indeed two different things. However, considering that someone went to the bother to include such a statement of the obvious, I question whether they understood that.
I'm not sure whether you're trying to say that secondary sources support that JWs believe that it's the timing of the Second Coming, or of Armageddon, that can be calculated. However, three of the five sources cited for that paragraph are far too old to speak to whether JWs currently believe in either, and another is of such a similar age to the primary sources I list, that if the source's content is about JWs' beliefs about Armageddon, the author, Rogerson, probably wrote it before having a chance to consider those primary sources. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a copy or quotation of what he wrote.
The Penton source, on the page cited, is about Nelson H. Barbour, so I don't see how it's relevant to this subject. Downstrike (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that it's 'obvious' is just as inapplicable as the claim that it 'isn't useful'. JWs believe that the timing of Jesus' '2nd coming' can be calculated, and that view hasn't changed (that is, the claim that his 'return' or 'presence' can be calculated from the Bible has not changed, even though the specific claims of how it is 'calculated' have changed). But it's not 'obvious' that it hasn't changed to someone who isn't familiar with the group. Just because the view hasn't changed, it's not implicitly 'obvious' whether it might have changed or whether it might change at some point. Your continued references to 'Armageddon' still have no relevance to the doctrine being discussed about Jesus' supposed 'invisible return in 1914'. (Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses have previously claimed that the timing of Armageddon could also be calculated, but that is not a belief that hasn't changed, and it isn't a current JW belief).
Your confusion seems to relate to the concept that JWs believe that Jesus 'returned' in 1914. Please note that it is not their beliefs about 1914 that have not changed since 1879. Russell taught that Jesus' 'presence' began in 1874 (a view that wasn't abandoned until 1933). The part that hasn't changed since 1879 is only the claim that Jesus' 'return' or 'presence' can be calculated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you and I actually agree about this, and have mostly been talking at cross purposes. Downstrike (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1920–1929; 1925: Michael Suggestion[edit]

The 1925 Watchtower citation is correct, but the Battle of Armageddon, written by Russell - not Rutherford - does not suggest that the Pope is Michael. Instead, it calls Michael, '"the Captain of our salvation,"'. I doubt that even Catholics would call the Pope, "the Captain of our salvation", but if someone does interpret it that way, that's their synthesis. I strongly doubt that any reputable source will be found, for that synthesis.

Therefore, I suggest that this item be removed. Downstrike (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That source is certainly ambiguous, but it was indeed claimed that 'Michael' was 'the Pope'. I will replace the existing reference. It's obvious that Rutherford didn't actually write the 1889 book, but that is now superfluous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think that citation is much more to the point. It actually was published, if not written, by Rutherford. Downstrike (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, The Finished Mystery was written by C. J. Woodworth and George Fisher, but it was authorised/commissioned by Rutherford. At least some of the content may have been based on notes left by Russell, but this is disputed and probably impossible to reliably confirm.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Decades from 1879 to 1929 really about Jehovah's Witnesses?[edit]

The WP article at Bible_Student_movement points out that 12 faith groups arose from the Bible Students movement founded by C.T. Russell, so much of this is the development of their groups as well.

However, I came to this article in my search for differences between the Bible Students movement and Jehovah's Witnesses, and I found the decade, 1920-1929, very useful for identifying some of the major differences that occurred, leading up to one of those faith groups becoming Jehovah's Witnesses, so that decade of changes may very well be about Jehovah's Witnesses, and not the other 11 faith groups. Downstrike (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The decades from 1879 to 1929 quite definitely pertain to the development of Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines. More than that, in 1917, Rutherford retained control of the Watch Tower Society, and it was essentially then that his distinct group really began; eventually leading up to the formal name of his own group, Jehovah's Witnesses.
Whether beliefs of other Bible Student groups after the schism coincide with Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs is probably out of scope of this article. It certainly can't be assumed that any particular doctrinal development during the 1920s automatically applies to other Bible Student groups, and it's obvious that some of the changes intrinsic to the various schisms definitely do not. But nor can it be said that the group that became Jehovah's Witnesses was the only one that underwent changes during the 1920s.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the other 11 groups are outside the scope of this article. That's why I initially questioned whether the first few decades were relevant. However, you are correct about those changes developing doctrines that became those of Jehovah's Witnesses. Downstrike (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the black people and justification of slavery[edit]

This independent source mentions the 24 July 1929 Watchtower magazine about the origin myth of the black people that would have resulted from the curse of Canaan.[1][2] 8 October Awake! magazine denounces this belief of some groups as non-scriptural, showing that it was no longer part of doctrine then (although it interestingly doesn't refer to their own old literature about it).[3] I'm not sure if this is important enough for an entry in this article or if there are better sources about it yet, so I'm posting it here for review and input. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I don't think it's all that important, but if it's sourced properly it might have a place. But on another note, I literally laughed out loud when I read your "interestingly doesn't refer to their own old literature about it" comment. Ask anyone who has studied the JW's at any length, and they'll tell you that they almost never do. The new teaching is almost always just given as if the old one never existed. Vyselink (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was never a central doctrinal point and instead reflected the general views at the time of similar Protestant/Adventist movements from which the Bible Students arose. However, if this doctrinal change were to be included in this article, it should be noted that the view that the 'curse of Canaan' applied to black people had already been abandoned by 1943 at the latest.[4][5]--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that it's not a vital doctrine, with current JW demographics very multiethnic, etc. It could even be considered the president's personal beliefs, although he was still writing it as "God's channel"... Good point about Ham, I now remember this, is it still current? I agree that if anything is added to the article, this would be important (and that the 1943 source would be better than the 1977 one). Without a second third party source we're probably still at WP:SYNTH at this point though? Maybe not a problem if uncontroversial and WP:DUE (still in question). Thanks for the comments, —PaleoNeonate – 15:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goldenberg, David M. (2017). "Black and Slave: The Origins and History of the Curse of Ham". Studies of the Bible and Its Reception (SBR). Vol. 10. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. p. 17. ISBN 9783110522471.
  2. ^ "Question from readers - Is there anything in the Bible that reveals the origin of the Negro?". The Golden Age. 24 July 1929. p. 702. It is generally believed that the curse which Noah pronounced upon Canaan was the origin of the Black race. Certain it is that when Noah said, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren," he pictured the future of the Colored race. They have been and are a race of servants, but now in the dawn of the twentieth century, we are all coming to see this matter of service in its true light and to find that the only real joy in life is in serving others; not bossing them. There is no servant in the world as good as a good Colored servant, and the joy that he gets from rendering faithful service is one of the purest joys there is in the world.
  3. ^ "Are Blacks Cursed by God?". Awake!. Watch Tower. 8 October 1977. pp. 28–29. Canaan was not black skinned, nor were his descendants who settled in the land that became known as Palestine. ... The curse thus had nothing to do with the black race.
  4. ^ The Truth Shall Make You Free. 1943. p. 157. The Ethiopians or Cushites are not Canaanites, but are offspring of Cush, the first listed son of Ham. There is no basis for the religious claim that the native inhabitants of Africa became black-skinned because of God's curse pronounced upon Canaan by Noah.
  5. ^ "Questions From Readers". The Watchtower. 1 August 1953. p. 478. Incidentally, when some try to say this curse caused some men to be black-skinned they show ignorance of the Bible record, for colored peoples did not descend from the cursed Canaan.

Shunning[edit]

I've seen conflicting information on when the policy began (the current article has some mentions). What confused me is this strange article condemning Catholic excommunication as a weapon of control.[1] Since it seems ironic (but [2]) my impression was that the Governing Body adopted it later on, but I see something about Russell in 1904, a mention for 1944, that perhaps may need review... Could an explanation be that the practice existed but was still obscure? Searching for third party sources is still on TODO. —PaleoNeonate – 15:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mention in one paragraph in the Watchtower issue from 1. June 1977,[3] that the actions against wrongdoers began to take place in 1952.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel.Goldenstein (talk • contribs)
It refers to the 1 March 1952 issue of The Watchtower, which describes the purported justification as well as the procedure, but it is not clear whether shunning was introduced at that time. Inclusion of that reference in this article would depend on whether there was actually a change in policy in 1952, or if the articles in that issue simply restated (or stated more publicly) the policy already in place in 1944 (though it does seem to contradict the way excommunication by other denominations was previously viewed).—Jeffro77 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Are you also excommunicated?". Awake!. Watch Tower. 8 January 1947. pp. 27–28 – via Internet Archive.
  2. ^ "Winning the Battle for Your Mind". The Watchtower (Study ed.). Watch Tower. July 2017.
  3. ^ "Mourning and Funerals—For Whom?". The Watchtower. Watch Tower. June 1977.

Bi-Sexual Adam[edit]

Was surprised WT statement that Adam was created bi-sexual didn't make the cool timeline - I actually don't know when they changed that thought:

Watchtower March 01, 1926, p 77, par 7

After this Adam was put into a deep sleep while God took from him that from which he could form an helpmeet for Adam. This means that Adam at the first was a bi-sexual creature, and that God took away from him that part which would make the female. God formed a woman and then brought her to Adam. When he beheld his counterpart, still more graceful than he, he named her isha (woman) ’because she was taken out of ish [man]". (Genesis 2: 23) The woman,then, with Adam,formed not of clay as Adam was, but from him and perfect like him, together with him enjoyed the garden and the blessings of God, and continued to learn more of their gracious Creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.224.44.7 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original source did not intend 'bisexual' as in 'attracted to men and women'. Rather, it was intended in the sense of 'hermaphroditic'. In any case, it seems to be a one-off comment in passing rather than a particularly notable belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018 King of the North[edit]

There is already an entry IRT the recent doctrinal change where Russia is assigned as the King of the North of Daniel. Apparently it was the USSR before the 70s then phased out in the 80s and once was Nazi Germany before that. Since this 2018 entry exists it might be a good idea to include older related doctrinal declarations. I didn't take the time to look for the relevant sources but it may also be something trivial for someone else, so leaving this post for now. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to this effect. Let me know if any concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Kings of the North and the South[edit]

I tried to enhance this text:

• "2020: The 'king of the north' of Daniel 11:25–26, previously identified as Aurelian, redefined as the German Empire. The 'king of the south' for the same verses, previously identified as Zenobia, redefined as "Britain".[284]".

I made 2 clarifications and added 1 doctrine change with 3 correct URLs (original text in square brackets):

• "[The … identified as Aurelian, redefined as the German Empire], and after WW2 the Soviet Union, followed by "Russia and its allies". [The … identified as Zenobia, redefined as Britain], and from WW1 onwards also the United States (forming together the Anglo-American World Power). So, no more speculation about who were kings of North and South “from sometime in the 2nd century to the second half of the 19th century"

1) A doctrine change: The Watchtower doesn't count any rulers from the time of c. 150- c. 1870 as the kings of the north and the south anymore. 2) clarification: Zenobia is Zenobia and not redefined as Britain. 3) clarification: The article's text leaves the impression that the German empire is the king of the north when actually there is a chain of rulership. Now Russia is that king.

So why my all text was deleted, Jeffro77? You explained: "Undo - the additional info isn't what was changed in 2020, and is already referenced correctly as a 2018 change". One must read the source URLs carefully before he makes quick deletions for a newcomer. So can you accept this new text, Jeff, before you hit delete once again? It has also 1 right URL:

• Zenobia and Aurelian rulers are no more counted as the kings of the south and the north, the same way as all other rulers are not counted “from sometime in the 2nd century to the second half of the 19th century"

Other Wikipedia writers: Is this the ritual for newcomers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2003:F64C:2800:4D97:B033:C67E:7C20 (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reference to Russia wasn't a 2020 change. The view that Russia is the 'king of the north' is already correctly shown as a 2018 change. Restating the 2018 view in 2020 was not a change in 2020. The point in question is clearly indicated as referring to the supposed identification of the kings in verses 25-26, which has nothing to do with their identification of the 'kings' for other verses. This should be quite obvious.
Also, the informal phrasing "So, no more speculation..." is not an improvement as the tone is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The suggested phrasing "Zenobia and Aurelian rulers are no more counted as the kings of the south and the north" also is not an improvement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though it was already implied by the replacement of Aurelian and Zenobia with the later powers that identification of intervening leaders were now omitted, I have added mention that the supposed identification of the 'kings' from the 2nd to early 19th centuries has been abandoned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong. I'm sorry, Jeff. You taught me an excellent lesson. 2001:2003:F64B:CA00:CD73:850B:9734:EBD (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary. On reflection, it is better with the added reference to the extended period for which they now no longer identify ‘kings’, so it is good that you raised that point.—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

Four Bibliography books could not be downloaded from strictlygenteel.co.uk (err 404): at hand, thy kingdom, light and divine plan. I switched to archive.org. I put the first version (1886) of The Divine Plan of the Ages (1886 as The Plan of the Ages, revised 1887, 1903, 1907, 1908, 1911, 1913). 2001:2003:F658:CC00:2824:9CED:A50C:F992 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rather brown-skinned book Three Worlds couldn’t be downloaded either (heraldmag.org), but now it can. 2001:2003:F658:CC00:2824:9CED:A50C:F992 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Development_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_doctrine&oldid=1201486098"