Jehovah's Witnesses is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 11, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Witnesses B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance). Religion: New religious movements B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Jehovahs witnesses are not Christians, by definition Christians believe in the Resurection of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.49.229 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That point has been vigorously discussed in the past and the use of term is the result of consensus based on verifiable sources. JWs, incidentally, do believe in the resurrection of Christ and it's unclear from your comment whose "definition" you refer to here. BlackCab (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I know, Trinity is not involved in any regular definition of Christianity. Are you for example "Cultural Christian", if you know something about chr. traditions or cogitations? Answer to both questions is: "No. You don´t." If you refer to any specifical definition, some unknown one to nowadays, you´re welcome to place it to talk here. However WP:NOTFORUM --FaktneviM (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah witnesses are not Christians. Christians believe in the Resurection of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Let us first look at the Ressurection: The Watchtower organization says that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body he died in (You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth, p. 143-44). Instead, it says that He rose as a spirit creature and that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father. Therefore, they deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this important? Most definitely!

1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." In other words, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time and we are then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of Christianity. But what of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are they accurate in their assessment of Jesus' resurrection in denying the bodily resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a definite, "No."It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead: "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body." They also do not believe in the Trinity which the Bible says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1. The Bible goes further to state Jesus is the word John 1:1,14.

Please remove the part about JW's being Christians because it is not factual. Hysteria2424 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hysteria2424, please stop your misrepresentation of the Bible verses and misrepresentation of the JW teaching with using trance sentence out of context and modify it to your own understanding. Please stop such despicable approaches. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your theological opinion is not important here. This issue has been discussed at length previously. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia says nontrinitarians are Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Heretical" Christians are still classifiable as "Christians" for secular purposes, such as Wikipedia. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're confused. Let them be confused by themselves. Everybody has a right to their opinion. You can tell by their lack of spelling and grammatical expertise that they're not very intelligent. Report them or not, but don't debate them. It's useless. Gets you nowhere. Update: some of that bad spelling was from a member of our own Wikiproject; but that's okay! He's on our side! They was robbed! Update of update: Oh, simplified English. I got ya.. Lighthead ^þ 22:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not on "your side". I´m not on side of any man. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity, pride and nasty behavior, which you have been shown are particularly clear proofs that you can´t be one of Jehovah´s Witnesses. Sorry for my sincere talk. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit some articles in Jehovah's Witnesses

Pinas2020 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many Brooklyn etc

• In various places, I replaced "most" with "many". Editors should feel free to provide references if they feel "most" is well-supported.
• In recent weeks, someone added the idea that the GBJW is "located in Brooklyn"; the article elsewhere states that Brooklyn is the current headquarters and the ref for this three-word addition is dated 1969. These three words have been removed.
• The article formerly stated, "They do not observe holiday celebrations..."; in recent weeks that was changed to "They do not observe celebrations...". The misconception that JWs do not celebrate ANYTHING could be reinforced by that edit, so the former wording has been reinstated ("They do not observe holiday celebrations...").
• I changed "about one in seven Bible Students had chosen to sever ties with the Society rather than accept Rutherford's leadership" to the less-speculative and better-supported "about one in seven Bible Students had ceased their association with the Society". The actual wording of the cited ref has now been quoted with the ref.
• In recent weeks, the section "Life after death" has become oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. The sentence: "Their hope for life after death involves being resurrected by God to a cleansed earth after Armageddon." has been changed to: "Aside from a "little flock" of a few thousand with a heavenly hope, Witnesses consider themselves among "other sheep" whose hope for life after death involves being resurrected by God to a cleansed earth after Armageddon."
• The article formerly stated that by their 1931 name change JW's would "distinguish themselves from other groups of Bible Students". In recent weeks someone changed that to the alliterative but unnecessary phrase "distinguish themselves from disassociated groups of dissenting Bible Students". The cited ref states explicitly, "to distinguish...from the other groups". I've reverted to the former neutral wording "other groups of Bible Students".

Also, I plainly have less time than others do to devote to Wikipedia, but it seems necessary to revisit the issues discussed here.
Contrast the discussion of Russell at 22:52, 11 February 2011 with the subsequent edit.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting the GB and the headquarters are somewhere other than Brooklyn? (The Watchtower 15 July 2006, p. 20: "The ‘faithful slave’ is represented by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a small group of spirit-anointed men serving at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York.")

Birthdays are not 'holiday celebrations', which sounds a little redundant anyway. I have simplified the statement in the lead regarding celebrations.

I've added a {{request quotation}} template "one in seven", which is not clearly supported by the source provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't meant to imply disbelief that the GBJW is based in Brooklyn (in 2011); I had removed the factoid only from the lede (leaving it intact in the body at Jehovah's_Witnesses#Organization) because it seems not lede-worthy and entirely superfluous in the lede. Stating world headquarters to be based in Brooklyn is one thing; insisting that the lede enumerate the location of the committee leading the world headquarters seems pedantic (IMHO). I still feel it's unnecessary to stuff the lede with such a detail, but feel it's unworthy of my time to argue the point.

I see my other edits above have essentially survived. I still hope to find time to address Jehovah's_Witnesses#Background (1870–1916), which still hides Russell's intentional establishment of a religious rather than merely publishing organization.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unrepentantly practice

About four months ago, an editor added this sentence:

"Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness"."

The quote from the cited ref shows several sentences (technically, two paragraphs though I've here removed both paragraph breaks) separating the loaded phrase "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" and 'disassociated or disfellowshipped ones':

"However, he [God] will reject those who unrepentantly practice lawlessness, saying: “Get away from me.” (Matt. 7:21-23) Why such a judgment? Because such individuals dishonor God and cause harm to others by their lawless practices. God’s Word commands that unrepentant sinners be removed from the congregation. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.) This is necessary for at least three reasons: (1) to keep Jehovah’s name free from reproach, (2) to protect the congregation from contamination, and (3) to help the sinner come to repentance if possible. Do we share Jesus’ view of those who have become set in their lawless course? We need to give thought to these questions: ‘Would I choose to associate regularly with someone who has been disfellowshipped or who has disassociated himself from the Christian congregation?"

A previous Talk discussion of the matter here focussed on whether disfellowshipped and disassociated could be lumped together, which was never my point. Instead, the newly-added idea is plainly WP:SYNTH because the references don't imply and JWs do not assume that an expelled person forever continues to "unrepentantly practice" sin (or sin's infrequent and loaded theological synonym "lawlessness"; incidentally, I couldn't find any JW publication which ever put "lawless-" in the same PARAGRAPH as "disassociat-"). The evidence is that JW publications explicitly note no human certainty regarding the condition of disfellowshipped or disassociated persons; note this:

The Watchtower, December 1, 2001, pages 30-31, "Does this mean that all who are expelled from the Christian congregation for sinning unrepentantly have committed sins that “incur death”...? This would not necessarily be the case because in some instances such transgressions are not sins that incur death. In fact, it is difficult to tell if they are. ...Thus, we should not jump to the conclusion that a person must be guilty of sin that incurs death solely because he is expelled from the congregation. It may take time for the true heart condition of the individual to be revealed. ...Since the [expelled] person is no longer in the congregation, any change in heart and attitude may be observed first by those close to him, such as a marriage mate or family members. Those observing such changes may conclude that the transgressor did not commit a sin that incurs death. ...While some may be in a position to observe sufficient evidence to believe that the sinner has repented, this may not be the case with the congregation in general."

Thus, the recently-inserted example of WP:SYNTH has been removed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of whether disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are deemed to be continuing forever to practise lawlessness or whether JWs think this merits their death is irrelevant. The paragraphs and the question, as discussed here, are plain enough and without synthesis. In the context of a tightly-focused discussion, paragraph 18 of the article reads: "By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or disassociated one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome." Review question for that paragraph reads: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" The descriptions are clearly synonymous. In the case of a person who has chosen to resign membership of the religion, it is their resignation that is deemed to be a sin, or act of lawlessness. There's no hint of any other reason to direct that JWs "hate" that decision and thus shun the person. At the end of that previous lengthy discussion there was no consensus to remove the statement. BlackCab (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be correct to say "Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals who have no intention to return to the congregation are considered to unrepentantly practice lawlessness". Also "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" may be applicable at the time of disfellowshipping. However as user:AuthorityTam pointed out JWs do not assume that an expelled person forever continues to "unrepentantly practice" sin. I think its a good practice to compare other publication of WT society when a single source is disputed for WP:SYNTH.--Fazilfazil (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fazilfazil, it is of no value to speculate about possible alternative meanings of a clear statement; what the WTS might have meant or how it might have expressed the view of the Governing Body. Neither the WT article nor the Wikipedia article deals with future, or long-term, treatment of people who are expelled from, or decide to resign from, the religion. The WT article simple uses synonyms to equate the behavior of a disfellowshipped or disassociated person with lawlessness. The Wikipedia article then states that published view. BlackCab (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed the case that individuals who are expelled are shunned unless eventually 'reinstated', suggesting that their 'practice of lawlessness'—by the very nature of having left—continues until such reinstatement, however the suggestion that such individuals 'continue' practicing lawlessness in the objection above is a red herring, because the article makes no such claim. The source material ('paragraph 18 and its review question') very clearly correlates "disfellowshipped and disassociated" with "practicer of lawlessness"; there is nothing ambiguous or 'synthesised' in regard to the connection. "whether disfellowshipped and disassociated could be lumped together" is also irrelevant because the source material explicitly refers to both.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am not endorsing nor opposing the statement.--Fazilfazil (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, JW publications explicitly state that a person must be repentant before he can be reinstated; ergo by definition some disfellowshipped/ disassociated persons are 'repentantly practicing non-lawlessness' (or specifically NOT "unrepentantly practicing lawlessness").
JWs do not shun a former member because they know him to be currently practicing lawlessless but because they know he was found to have unrepentantly sinned and has not yet been reinstated. At the time his disfellowshipping or disassociation is announced, he is considered (at that time, by JWs) to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". But—almost immediately thereafter—it becomes inappropriate to say that JWs believe a disfellowshipped/ disassociated person is (rather than was) "unrepentantly practic[ing] lawlessness". If the interpretation of BlackCab and Jeffro77 is so iron-clad, why is only one single solitary reference cited for this supposedly article-worthy belief? I have edited 'Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".' to read 'Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to have "unrepentantly practice[d] lawlessness".' --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we now agree that the WT article does dictate that a person who formally resigned from the religion is to be regarded as someone who committed a lawless act, and that unless they "repent" and return, shunning by their family, friends and former acquaintances is an appropriate response.

A complicating factor in your argument, though, is the subhead on Page 31 of the Feb 15, 2011 WT: "Adopt Jesus' view of those who love lawlessness." The use of present tense there indicates that the subsequent discussion of how to treat disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals is based on their current status and assumes the "attitudes and actions that led to that outcome" remain. In fact, in the case of a person who quit because they disagreed with a doctrine, they would be deemed to be still "practicing lawlessness" unless they "repented" and returned. Question 18,19 (a) also uses the present tense and could be deemed to assume that a person who resigned is still lawless: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" Though the use of past tense in the sentence you changed may be accurate in cases of disfellowshipping over dishonesty, immorality and certain other behaviors, it is wrong in the case of people who are disfellowshipped for apostasy (which will probably involve ongoing disagreement with a doctrine), and it is also wrong in the case of disassociated individuals. The writers of the Watchtower article know that, and therefore used the present tense in the relevant subhead. BlackCab (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"one single solitary"???—it's the holy redundant trinity! Anyway... JWs are shunned until their reinstatement, not at some arbitrary point prior to reinstatement; and they are reportedly shunned because JWs are supposedly to 'avoid lawlessness'. If those shunned are no longer 'unrepentantly practicing lawlessness', then there's no [JW] 'reason' to continue shunning them. If your position were correct, JWs would be 'allowed' to associate with those 'progressing' toward 'reinstatement'—if such is not the case, then your position is incorrect.

I did not add the phrase to the article, and I don't think it's absolutely essential to include it. But if it is in the article, I will certainly ensure that it is presented in a manner consistent with the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'practice' indicates ongoing action. It doesn't make sense to interpret the source article as meaning that the expelled person did 'practice' lawlessness in a single instance that resulted in their expulsion. The intent of the source material is clearly to indicate that expelled individuals continue to be 'practicers of lawlessness'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article have made a remarkable improvement since the last peer-review. I think it owes at least a good article status. What do other editors think about it? Between I don't know the procedure for nomination :)--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done nomination--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fazilfazil, I saw that and your suggestion is very kind. I have my own view on this propose, but wouldn´t like to prejudice reviewers result. No one of "WP:JW project members", who are "reviewers" concurrently should review this. (some of most active WP:JW members are reviewers) Wikipedia:Reviewing, Wikipedia:Peer review. Thx for an idea. --FaktneviM (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is indeed in better condition than I've ever seen in the past. For example, as some may recall, I once wasted a great deal of effort trying to find the original source of the 1975 prediction when it was already cited, because that most relevant citation in the whole paragraph was so corrupted with irrelevant information that I didn't recognize its relevance. When I discovered that, I got so fed up that I left it for someone else fix, for which I now apologize. I'm glad to see that someone has finally corrected that citation, and that the current statements about the 1975 issue are much more concise and coherent!

However, during my attempts to find the original source, what I found instead were several statements from the Watch Tower Society, from 1966 through 1975, that they did know when Armageddon would happen, and some statements forbidding the membership to predict anything would happen by 1975. (Disobedience to this prohibition appears to have been rampant, or at least received great publicity.) Complete absence of this information continues to give the paragraph about 1975 a biased POV. Is this a good time to correct this?

I also find it ironic that although the Wikipedia article on shunning observes that the word is a pejorative term, articles such as this seem to have no qualms about using this word almost exclusively in place of terms preferred by each religion to indicate its specific practices. However, I doubt that this irony isn't going to be resolved by work on this article, but would require considering Wikipedia's treatment of the word as a whole. Downstrike (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the draft version of edits to that section on your talk page is current, but I would offer two points of criticism if you are still working on it: (a) It is far too long for inclusion in the JW article (the 1975 embarrassment may actually warrant a Wikipedia article of its own where the issue could be explored in greater depth) and (b) your edit reads like an apologetic. It has a very defensive tone and therefore casts its own point of view. Your comments re shunning are interesting, but are based on an article written largely without sources cited. Jehovah's Witnesses are, without dispute, directed to shun certain individuals and the term is used by non-Witness authors. The JW publications may try to soften the blow with their own language "disfellowshipping", but the effect and intention of that practice is clear. BlackCab (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disfellowshipping means withdrawal of the community. An individual could be disfellowshipped from the community of coo-believers and from the church. This practice is really common in most of Christian churches, Judaism, Islam, many other religions, including dangerous sects or cults, in which shunning is practiced with much harder and cruel form, than in JW and other Christian churches. // Several other problems within JW related topics is perhaps due emotional interested editors to the topic. (for example bad experience like disfellowshipping took wiki-editors to write rather bad-biased sentences and searching exclusively for bad-sources and references which are rather critical. Despite good endurance are rather negative-biased articles here. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I abandoned that project in March 2010, and probably should have deleted it. However, I find myself wishing there was a way that I could memorialize it - and all the revisions I put it through and all the the critique that Jeffro contributed - as an example of wasted effort that can result when WP editors try to make sense of sloppy work done by previous editors.

The Shunning article is indeed another example of sloppy work - and at least 3 years of neglect. Even so, this article links to that one, and that article does explain some very different religious practices that are frequently stereotyped as "shunning", and identifies which religions practice them. I'm suggesting on its Talk page that it be merged into Excommunication, which article shows much better work.

Would you write anything less biased? Your tone is just as critical as mine was defensive. However, I was working in reaction to what appeared to be unsourced POV in the article, because up until my very last item of my research, everything I found showed the 1975 prediction to be a product of inept journalism by the news media. I did find enough sourced material that I could have written an entire article about the 1975 issue, but I'm trying to achieve NPOV, not to dig up the past or be critical of the news media. Downstrike (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Shun' is the correct generic term; it is used accurately in the article, it is used in other reliable sources, and the term is also occasionally used (in this context) in JW literature. Though the specific term used by the group should be (and is) provided in the article, there is no reason to exclusively employ the jargon term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term shunning means that someone is ignored, not spoken to. Disfellowshipped JW are treatet like that. The Witnesses do not greet them. BUT, if there would be any need for help, (nursing, feeding, help out with personal finance, or working as colleagues) than the Witnesses do talk to them, but just about the basic needs or about the job. That does not fall under the term Shunning.

Disfellowshiping means (At least on what the witnesses self understand) that do not socially gather, and talk with eachother in terms of friendship.

In all cases where someone gets disfellowshipped, witnesses will not greet them, sit down with them. If a DFS is in need, he/she approaches the elders, who can point out members to help, or family members can help out with some basic personal need (Finances, Health care, or in case of dissasters, building houses again, etc. Black Cab, being an EX-JW can vouch for this. I myself have worked along side with a DSF JW. We didn't lunch together, but we discussed our work on daily bases. That is allowed. But I would not greet him on the streets.

The reason is this.. The DSF JW has done something which was against the rules of the bible or the society. He therefore gets punished.

Like a child at school, who had to stand in the corner, faced to the wall. Why? Otherwise the others would get the Idea that it is okay to do something wrong. But when he falls, he would be helped up again. This is the principle which has been practised long before Jehovah's Witnesses existed.

Shunning is something else. A member of a community, who gets expelled, is neither helped, or spoken to. The community turns their back at this expelled person. The meaning of the word Shunning and Disfellowshipping are quite simular. Never the less, there are differences.

I leave it up to you, I am a witness, and therefore deemed to be POV, but I hope that my explanation gives a bit of the Nuance as I feel that shunning is not quite correct. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 09:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another special fact is that former JW could "come back". And, for those, who are recently disfellowshipped are no "hard restrictions". Disfelowshipped person still could attend to congregation meetings, read books and magazines in congregation´s library or visit congress, and etc. // The only restrictions for former members are forbid of "public" comments within regular congregation meetings, forbid of public preaching service (((together with other JW, //.... He/She could still preach alone without allowance from organization))). Disfellowshipping is rather term for "lost friends" and "lost of superb privileges". In sense of JW religion practice is disfellowshipping "only very little worse situation", than has non-believers. ((non-believers and purely new visitors could do their public comments in the JW attendance). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Rodejong's irrelevant apologetics regarding the JW implementation of shunning—and his no true Scotsman fallacy about his opinion of 'real' shunning— JW literature explicitly refers to their practice of "shunning".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute wording. I dispute definition and weasel words in relevant shunning articles. Disfellowshipping (or Shunning) is in the case of JW religion different. There is no kill. No forbid of all communication. No lost of all rights. JW shunning is not such asi it stated in relevant articles. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a distorted opinion about what 'shunning' is. JWs practice a form of shunning, and it is accurately described in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like those from me (in this talk section - about "what is shunning in reality") are not there. There is only information that difellowshipped person could come back to congregation if elders will see repentant. No other "positive", even "objective" information are there. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A person being required to 'repent' for a 'sin' (such as not accepting JW doctrines) so they can avoid being shunned by their family and 'friends' is little more than emotional blackmail. Your claim that 'JW shunning' is "only very little worse situation" is clearly not neutral. You are quite correct that your comments are not "objective". But you don't seem to be suggesting any actual change to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said that current state of sections about shunning (across whole Wikipedia) are not objective. Do not reverse sense of last response. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are disputing how the topic of shunning is covered at other articles, discuss at the relevant Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize again. I didn't mean to start an argument. After reading this one, I'm still sure that this issue won't be resolved by work on this article, or any other single article. The issue isn't about whether "shunning" is the correct word, or whether this religion or that one uses the word, but about how that word is perceived in popular usage, and the stereotyping for which it is manipulated by the same sort of propagandists who scold us for calling this religion or that one, "Christian", or simply vandalize articles with their opinion. Their purpose for the word "shunning", is to make sure that everyone "knows" that all minority religions:

• Require members of a family to alienate a shunned member, forcing him out of the home.
• Require members of a community to refuse to do business with a shunned member, depriving him of the means of life, forcing him out of the community.
• Shun members who did not join the religion of their own will, or join without first learning the religion's requirements or the consequences of failing to meet them.
• Shun members with no opportunity to appeal.
• Shun members who simply stop participating in that religion.

Does ANY religion practice ALL of that? I suppose; is Bigotry a religion? Downstrike (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All minority religions don't do those things. The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses, however, directs that members do many of those things. The article notes that "disfellowshipping" is the ultimate sanction for those who breach organisational and moral requirements, and it is indisputable that the intention of "disfellowshipping" is that members cease almost all contact with those individuals, not even greeting or acknowledging those people. That is, they shun them. The article also notes, with fairness and balance, that critics and sociologists have noted that in a religion that urges members to reduce their circle of friends to only other members, the consequences of being shunned by friends, acquaintances and (as much as it is possible) by family can be traumatic. The fear of being shunned then, serves as a powerful tool to ensure obedience and discourage defection. If you're suggesting a conspiracy by "propagandists" to taint Jehovah's Witnesses on this article because of their shunning policy, you'll have to come up with better evidence. This article discusses the disciplinary policies of only one religion and makes no comparison with other religions. BlackCab (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downstrike here uses an association fallacy to attempt to negatively characterise those who correctly employ the word 'shunning'. Whilst it is true that Wikipedia should avoid contentious terms ("unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"), the term shun is not only the correct term, but the term is also used in JW and third-party sources. Additionally, jargon terms such as 'disfellowship' should not be used exclusively because the term is then being used as a euphemism to avoid the more 'uncomfortable' word shun. The same Wikipedia page that says to avoid contentious terms also says to avoid euphemisms. It probably comforts those who shun former members of their religion to say that there are other groups (you know, those 'crazy' groups) who practice more extreme forms of shunning, because it minimises the perceived impact of their own behaviour.

To be clear on the JW attitude toward 'disfellowshipped'...

• The Watchtower 15 November 1952: "Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof."
• An article in the 15 April 1988 Watchtower (which deals specifically with JWs' legal right in the US of "shunning" former members) stated, "Cutting off from the Christian congregation does not involve immediate death, so family ties continue. Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped or who disassociates himself may still live at home with his Christian wife and faithful children. ... The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum".
• The Watchtower, 1 November 1994: "For a [JW] to “quit mixing in company” with a close friend or relative who has been disfellowshipped can be a real test. In such a case, it is important that one not give in to feelings of pity."

Ironically, the July 2009 Awake! stated, in an article about people who face family opposition for becoming JWs, that "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro, I have not, and will not suggest that an article on any religion exclusively use the term that religion prefers. What I find ironic is that such articles almost exclusively use a term, about which the WP article for that term observes that it is a pejorative term. Some kind of balance would be appropriate.

Considering that LDS, 7DA, Christadelphians, Churches of God, some Pentecostals, and various minority religions use "disfellowship", I'm not sure why you call it "jargon". Downstrike (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The jargon term disfellowship as used by LDS (and some of the others you've listed) is an entirely different meaning to the term used by JWs. They do not employ it to refer to systematic shunning, for which they use the term excommunication. The LDS jargon term disfellowship is similar to what JWs call restrictions. Such ambiguity demonstrates further that it is better to use the generic term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am not able to see any ´real´ difference in those terms. Shunning, Disfellowshiping, Excommunication, are clear synonyms in most of existing religions. Especially in sense of JW, all 3 terms lead members to same ´results´ in access to former-members. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just said above that the other religions mentioned above do not use the term "disfellowship" to refer to shunning. It is not possible to make it any clearer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. // Is there any reason have 3 wiki articles? How about merging? // Is there specific reason to use term "shunning" in case of JW, while disfellowshiping is more accurate and comprehensible? // Those terms simply mean all the same. = Dismissal of communion with coo-believers. That´s all. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the term disfellowship is used quite differently by other groups, it is clearly not more comprehensible to use that term in a general sense. Most religions that excommunicate don't shun. The context of communion is different among various religious groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the Shunning article that the term is used as a pejorative is unsourced, as is much of the article. Additionally, Wikipedia articles cannot be used a source for other Wikipedia articles. Much of the article you refer to needs to be rewritten and properly sourced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and you and I already discuss that on that article's talk page. Downstrike (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BlackCab, if I were suggesting that the use of "shunning" reflected a conspiracy in this article, I would stop saying that the issue isn't going to be resolved by work on this article. However, thank you for asserting that Jehovah's Witnesses practice many of the things I listed. Downstrike (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not suggesting a problem regarding the use of "shunning" in this article, then you are at the wrong Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still ironic, and could be relevant to whether this article obtains "Good" status. That's what this section is about. However, there may very well be considerable irrelevant discussion in this section. Downstrike (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not second-guess the reviewers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be alright to submit in chronological order the print by print verification from the source themselves perhaps from 1870's til' present all of which is in dispute? No one should dispute that it would be a tell all experience! --Newbndreamz (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of what? The article is already comprehensively sourced, so you'll have to explain more what your intention is. It's also unclear whether you're employing sarcasm in referring to "Jehovah's true words", but Watch Tower publications were all written by humans, without any evidence of divine inspiration. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as requesting whether or not it would be proper to give a chronological listing of the doctrinal contradictions and changes from the days of Russell to the present time. (e.g. a "truth" from 1917 was subsequently called "false doctrine" in 1935). I would suggest that this would not be proper because it would be highly subjective, and violate neutrality. We aren't trying to demonstrate whether JWs are a true or false religion, nor that their doctrines are valid or invalid. There are already articles on the development of their doctrines, and there is a detailed outline of the administrative and doctrinal changes instituted between 1917-1942 in the JFR article. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! ("truth" from 1917 was subsequently called "false doctrine" in 1935") Many times I read specific claims from "Bible Students´s era" and from "JW´s era", that believers recognize their beliefs as "present truth". (e.g. book "Jehovah´s Witnesses - Proclaimers of God´s Kingdom" explicitly cited some of such claims). Many knows that doctrines could changes in future. Those sincere ones did not apostate in hard times. Those lofty and foolish one rather fully stop their believe in God and Christ. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'sincere'? 'foolish'? All very subjective, and nothing to do with article content. This is not a forum!--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You react neither to Newbndreamz´s ask, nor mine and Pastorrussell´s confirmation about "present truth" views, Instead of it, you are feisty and react to less significant end of the sentence. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing what Newbndreamz is requesting, any discussion here is pointless. BlackCab (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newbndreamz´s request is very hard to understand. (Even for me!). Pastorrussell and me think he request chronological order of doctrine changes since the very early beginning to nowadays. Phrases like "present truth", "present light", "present understandings", which they changed over time specifically assume that no people (even with divine leading) can´t know right it all. Understandings is changing and is still better. But not perfect and probably contains some faults. Due this reason is chronology needed, because "previous truth" is not relevant to nowadays teaching. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that JWs' current teachings are 'better' than previous ones is subjective and irrelevant.

Chronological discussion of JW beliefs is dealt with at History of Jehovah's Witnesses, development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The request is simple. What did Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a period of time ?

Make a chronic time line with what doctrines changed through the years.

I suggest that it is written in a separate article, like Timeline of doctrine changes of the Jehovah's Witnesses or something similar. He want's to use the old publications as sources for that time line.--Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 01:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information is already contained in Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine#Timeline of doctrinal changes and the preceding section of that article dealing with Russell's initial millennialist teachings. BlackCab (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to read back the talk page.. How about quitting to batter your co-writers, and start talking friendly?

I gave my opinion in a friendly way, and although you may not agree with me, show some respect. I don't trash your comments in to the ground, and neither do I have to accept that my comments are treated the same way.

But it is very obvious that some people here like to set the moral standard, which I will label as Fanatic. It's often suggested that Jehovah's Witnesses are Fanatics, and that is everyone's good right, but when I read the messages here on this talk page, than I can only come to the conclusion that the Fanatics are those who keep battering others, with I am right, and You are wrong. Such a childish way to communicate.

I request a pause for all to settle down, and find a way to be friendly while disagreeing. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 01:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all you just described. However, your and mine request probably couldn´t be satisfied (at least fully) because of this 2 Cor 6:14-18. It does mean very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that. Some kind of balance, however, would be appropriate. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem which you described is perhaps more deep inside. Not only about content of discussion, but due the fact the major editor is fanatic non-believer and if we sometimes touch with some believer meaning (like argue with Bible verses or mentioning something about most important beliefs), he just kill the talk with saying that is "irrelevant" or "take you off" - mostly to other talk page. He, as an atheist, is very useful in most of cases (((and we are glad to have him in our project))), especially with editing controversial religious topics. When you want to have really good article, meaning fully objective (not rather negative-biased), however, this cause problem. Dominance and control over articles lead to sort of censorship with no chance to have better (less-biased) topics. I don´t know if other former JW editors have some rest of faith or not, but generally saying, disfellowshipping articles were written by disfellowshipped JW. That is surely not ideal. Jehovah´s witnesses outside of Wiki who read Wikipedia see this bad-biased situation here, but they can´t "break the wall" in our project to change it. // For easing of it read this. {{WP:HUMOR}} --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Love to all :)[reply]