Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses practices/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls

I have edited this section as follows:

The Conventions are not referred to as "Assemblies," in practice. I have never heard of a District Convention being held in an Assembly Hall, but that doesn't mean it has never happened. There has never been an International Convention held in an Assembly Hall. I edited to show that is not the norm and to segregate the larger Conventions from those events that would normally be held in an Assembly Hall.

I think that either the title of the section should be modified to include "Other Facilities," or the Conventions should be left out of the discussion unless someone can source when an International Convention/District Convention was held in an Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.

If we are actually talking about the practice of assembling, the title needs to reflect that instead of referncing the buildings such gathering are held in.

I also removed the word "exclusively" from the following sentence as unsourced (and patently untrue): The needed finances come from voluntary contributions made exclusively by Jehovah's Witness members according to each one's means and inclination.

I trust no one has objection to these edits. Can we discuss how to change the title to more accurately reflect the nature of the subheading? Respectfully, Evident 13:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if this fits the definition of Assembly Hall or not, but the Witnesses in Ft. Lauderdale or so bought some stadium or something like that from the government, and supposedly use it for district conventions. I've never been there, and I don't know if a source for this could be found, but I have been told the story of how the purchase went down in pretty good detail, by an elder in the same state.Tommstein 13:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Having just perused the section in question, the title depends on what we want to talk about there. If the goal is the physical buildings, then the current title works, but we will have to remove at least the mention of international conventions, unless someone shows that they are sometimes used for that. If the goal is to talk about the actual gatherings, then the body isn't so bad, but we'd need to change the title instead. Ideally, I think we should have a section talking about the physical buildings, and a different section talking about the actual gatherings (perhaps under the meetings section, or maybe in its own new section). That way we get to talk about both things, more easily and in whatever depth we want.Tommstein 13:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The statements made above are partially semantic, and partially false. I think the use of the term "assembly" is dependant upon geography and local uses. At least in Western Canada, the term "Assembly" is commonly used by many Jehovah's Witnesses to refer to both the smaller "Circuit Conventions" as well as the larger "District Conventions". In Calgary, Alberta where a Jehovah's Witness Assembly Hall is located, Circuit Conventions are regularly held at this facility, whereas District Conventions are more frequently held in the Calgary Saddledome (home of the Calgary Flames hockey club). It should be also noted that the term "Assembly" was used official to refer to these conventions in the past (as recently *at least* as the 1980s). It certainly does appear that "Convention" is now the current official name of these gatherings.--Nicodemus75 11:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

So noted, and thank you for the clarification. However, that does not address the concern that the topic header is "Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls" and the fact is that larger events cannot use these facilities. If the larger events are to be discussed under this topic, it seems the topic header needs to change for accuracy. I have no problem with changing the header, I just raised the point so discussion could occur on whether it should be changed and what it should be changed to. Evident 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

FUNDING

I totally agree with you evident and I think it would be better if we add THROUGH and even better is we add this to the initial section about funding and rephrase it slightly.

"the needed finances come from voluntary contributions made THROUGH JW..."

I have lived for several months with a JW family in Germany, the mother and her 5 grown up children were JW, but not the father. One day a couple of members of the congregation came to the house and met with the husband. Afterwards he told me they had come to request/discuss a donation, understandable as he was the money earner.

I also question "There is no tithing or collection, but all are encouraged to donate to the organization". The WP definition of tithing read "is a one-tenth part of something, paid as a voluntary contribution or as a tax or levy, usually to support a Jewish or Christian religious organization". If all are encouraged to donate to the organisation, isn't that equivalent to tithing or collection? Maybe tithing is referred to the Catholic practice of giving money during mass and that is definitely not the case during the JW reunions as I have witnessed. In which case I think it should be phrased differently as tithing and collection can have various meanings.

Finally, how about rephrasing the whole initial paragraph as follows:

Jehovah's Witnesses fund their activities, such as publishing, constructing and operating facilities, evangelism, and disaster relief via donations through its members. There is no tithing or collection during reunions, but all are encouraged to donate to the organization according to each one's means and inclination...

What do u think?

P.S. Having quickly read through this talk section I find that dannymuse has failed to reason efectively and looks to me like he has shut up when other JW have critized his lack on enciclopedic etiquete. It is extremely rude to edit someones work without submitting appropriate reference. I have high regard for JW and the way they search for the truth with reasoning rather than dogma. This talk page is far more civilized than the one on the Catholic Church. Keep up the good work. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses

The article has a section that needs to be merged and redirected here. Rename first so a merge makes sense based on the article title. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delineation of Practices and Doctrine Articles

There appears to be a fair bit of overlap between

The opening paragraph states: "This article discusses how the doctrines as well as non-doctrinal organizational and cultural arrangements manifest themselves in the practices and stances of Jehovah's Witnesses."

However, there is no reference to Saturday morning field service groups, the section of blood completely explains the doctrine itself. There are numerous other sections with rationale for a doctrine.

So, is it possible to get a clear idea of what should go in the one, and what should go in the other? Is it possible to do without too much overlap? Is it desireable to merge this in with doctrines? joshbuddy 22:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging, in my opinion, would likely be the best option to avoid overlap as our practices are inherently a product of our doctrines. Duffer 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a useful approach is to structure it this way.

doctrine
implications of doctrine in everyday life (if exists)
critical viewpoint (if exists)

does this seems like a reasonable approach?

then we need a categorization scheme. any ideas? joshbuddy 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The merging of doctrines and practices was the general idea of the new structure that was voted on a while ago. As the practices are generally derived from the doctrines, it makes sense to present them together. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to begin work to merge them. Thank you. joshbuddy 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am indifferent as to whether or not they should be merged, but regardless, this article needs to be MUCH shorter and more succinct. It contains a lot of unnecessary details at the moment, and needs to provide a more "Helicopter view". I will trim it down to make it more manageable, as noone will read the article at its current size (sorry). BenC7 11:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(After editing) I have extensively trimmed and synthesized, but the article is probably still too long. But if it will be merged, I suppose it isn't going to matter. Remember, whoever is doing the merge, the objective is to give the facts succinctly, not to dazzle the reader with copious amounts of fine detail. These may be interesting to you, but people do not need to know things like, for example, the specific order of events in a particular meeting. Also try to avoid using numerous long quotes from Watchtower or Awake! - paraphrase and reference. BenC7 12:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A question about converts from the Catholic Church

What do you think as JW about the Catholic Church dogma regarding its members, that once they are baptized they remain so even if they convert, i.e. to JW? (even if excommunicated)

I am still very surprised to find that, as a baptized catholic, there is nothing I can do for the Catholic Church to declare that I am no longer part of it. Even if I turn out to be the new messiah and manage to destroy it completely, they will still consider me as its member.

This idea about membership is used by the Catholic Church to claim, for example, that there are 87% chatholics in Spain, where official unbiased polls say that only 13% claim to attend mass regularly on sundays.

It follows that the Catholic Church considers all those JW that have been baptized by it, to still be their members...

I find this totally crazy, is there any official position by JW? I suppose the best thing is to ignore it. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The following quotes are from JW's most- and second-most-current primary Bible study aids (for new converts):

What Does the Bible Really Teach, ©2005 Watch Tower, page 154, "The Bible teaches that [false] worship is contaminated with unclean teachings and practices. (2 Corinthians 6:17) That is why it is important for you to get out of “Babylon the Great,” the world empire of false religion. (Revelation 18:2, 4) Have you done this? If so, you are to be commended. But more is involved than just separating yourself or resigning from a false religion. Afterward, you must ask yourself, ‘Do any traces of false worship remain in me?’ [emphasis added]"
Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life ©1995 Watch Tower, page 125, "No faithful worshiper of Jehovah will engage in interfaith activities by sharing in worship with different religions or by having spiritual fellowship with any part of Babylon the Great. ...Consequently, many new Bible students send a letter of resignation to the religious organization to which they belong."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

JWs and birth control

I wonder if someone knowledgable on this subject could write a section on it here. I realize the official statement is "This is a amatter of personal choice", but can anyone expound and expand? CyberAnth 23:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to expand or expound about this. Birth control is a personal choice in JW and unlike Catholic chuch, JW view legal birth control as acceptable. As long as the birth control method doesn't include man slaying or abortion, it is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.95.105 (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The following is from JW's primary journal:

The Watchtower, June 15, 1989, page 29, "Each [married] couple should privately and responsibly determine whether to try to regulate the size of their family. If they agree to practice birth control, their choice of contraceptives is also a personal matter. However, they ought to consider—in accord with their understanding of the Bible and their conscience—whether using a certain method would show respect for the sanctity of life."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Merger

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. BenC7 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Theocratic warfare

BlackCab aka LTSally has recently insisted on terms like "theocracy" in articles related Jehovah's Witnesses.
Yesterday, he added an entirely new section to this article here entitled "Theocratic warfare".
I reverted his addition, commenting, "Not current / useful if you have to dig for refs in 1950s and 60s."
BlackCab reinstated, commenting, "The teaching was published in 1954 and still appears in the Insight book, 1988."
Here is BlackCab's new section, under the section heading "Theocratic warfare".
Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that Witnesses are engaged in a spiritual, theocratic warfare against false teachings and wicked spirit forces. They are told that to protect the interests of God's cause, it is proper to hide the truth from his "enemies"^[1]^[2] by being evasive or withholding truthful or incriminating information from those not entitled by law to know.^[3]^[4] The Watchtower told Witnesses: "It is proper to cover over our arrangements for the work that God commands us to do. If the wolfish foes draw wrong conclusions from our maneuvers to outwit them, no harm has been done to them by the harmless sheep, innocent in their motives as doves."^[5]
The topic was inserted by an editor with a history of railing against Jehovah's Witnesses. By taking forty and fifty year old publications out of context, his new section implies that Witnesses are sneaky, less-than-truthful schemers. That's WP:UNDUE.
Of course, in context the gist of the references was that if a Nazi or KGB agent holds a gun to the head of a Witness and asks where the other Witnesses are, the Witness can with a clear conscience say "I'm alone [thinking, I'm alone in this room if not this house]". Jehovah's Witness publications last applied the name "theocratic warfare" to modern Christians in this context in the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War when there were tens of thousands of Witnesses behind the Iron Curtain. These days? The current Watch Tower Publications Index has zero entries for "Theocratic warfare". The 1930-1985 Index has one entry, and that is "(See Warfare [Spiritual])". Like most Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned with "spiritual warfare", a term which encompasses the ongoing "fight" between the forces of good and evil. While a potential interaction between a Christian and a "satanic" Nazi or KGB agent might be one minute fraction of a much larger topic, you'd never guess that from the way it is framed in this recent added section. BlackCab aka LTSally makes no attempt to discuss the matter comprehensively, but instead he isolates one tiny fraction of the topic. How did BlackCab decide which fraction to include? Readers will likely draw their own conclusions. It's not worth it to add balancing context to this article, since the Christian belief/practice is hardly unique to JWs and is more properly discussed at Spiritual warfare. It's totally WP:UNDUE here, and should be removed.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

^ "Use theocratic war strategy", The Watchtower, May 1, 1957, page 285,286.
^ "Questions from readers", The Watchtower, June 1, 1960, pages 351-352.
^ "Christians live the truth", The Watchtower, October 1, 1954, page 597.
^ Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1988, pages 244-245.
^ "Cautious as Serpents Among Wolves", The Watchtower, February 1, 1956, page 86.

As the entry I added noted, it is a strategy referred to in WT publications as Theocratic, or spiritual warfare. The Watch Tower Society still holds to the teaching, as shown in its inclusion under "Lie" in the Insight into the Scriptures volumes, published in 1988, which repeats the wording used through the 1950s, '60s and '70s. Judging by reference to it in a television documentary here, a court case here and discussion of the concept of the Witnesses' use of the tactic on the internet at such sites as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8], the teaching is notable. AuthorityTam's argument that inclusion of the practice breaches neutrality policies is misplaced: it's a short entry, properly sourced, among a long loist of JW beliefs and practices. BlackCab (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's unsurprising if a few disgruntled former Witnesses (including, ahem, BlackCab aka LTSally) seek to highlight this matter and use whatever "media" is at their disposal to further their agenda. A blog or a homemade video can pretend that "hiding the truth" is an important part of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. Wikipedia cannot, because it violates WP:UNDUE and other guidelines intended to discourage intellectually dishonest propaganda. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The article contains a long list of beliefs and practices peculiar to this religion. Why do you think the inclusion of a doctrine, expressed repeatedly in WT publications and discussed on television documentaries and a court case, is undue weight? I'm not suggesting it's an important belief, nor does the wording suggest there is anything wrong with the belief. But it certainly is distinctive and notable. For that reason it is worth including. BlackCab (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the editor seriously suggest that no other Christian religions teach "spiritual warfare"?

Does the editor seriously suggest that no other Christian religion teaches that a Christian can "hide the truth" from persecutors?

When the editor chose to introduce a new section on "Theocratic warfare" at a central article of Jehovah's Witnesses, the editor did not choose to discuss the topic fully and fairly. Instead, the editor chose to cherry-picked a handful of quotes to make it seem as though "hiding the truth" is a notable or unique part of Witness theology, and the only aspect of "spiritual warfare" worth considering. It is not. A section like this is WP:UNDUE. If the editor is serious about insisting otherwise, it probably makes sense to solicit outside opinion. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: I'd appreciate some outside comment on my addition of a section, "Theocratic warfare", under the "Practices" section of this article. User:AuthorityTam has twice deleted it, initially claiming "Not current/useful if you have to dig for refs in 1950s and 60s." (One of the cited sources that repeats the information from the 1950s, '60s and '70s was in fact from 1988, in a textbok still in curent use by Jehovah's Witnesses). He has subsequently claimed the addition of the material would place undue weight on the teaching and suggested this would constitute "intellectually dishonest propaganda."

As noted above, I contend the doctrine is:

An unusual teaching that is distinctive to this religion and therefore of interest;
Of proven notability, on the basis of reference to it in an Australian TV documentary and a US court case (in which it was alleged JW leaders lied to protect the reputation of the religion) and hundreds of websites (links provided above);
Clearly and unambigiously enunciated in Watch Tower Society publications since 1954, one of which was an article headed "Use theocratic war strategy", encouraging Witnesses to hide the truth when it suits God's "cause";
A current teaching, as indicated by its inclusion under the heading "Lie" in the 1988 JW textbook Insight on the Scriptures, which employs almost identical wording to articles published between 1954 and ~~1988~~ 1971; and
Written in an editorially neutral tone with neither a complimentary or pejorative tone.

I believe the practice is a valuable inclusion in a list of JW beliefs. AuthorityTam believes I am trying to cause mischief. Some comments would be appreciated. BlackCab (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be aware that the supposed citation from 1988 never mentioned "theocratic warfare". The 1988 reference work is nearly 3,000 pages, and here is all that it has to say about the topic as presented by the editor above:

Insight on the Scriptures, vol 2, page 245, "While malicious lying is definitely condemned in the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under obligation to divulge truthful information to people who are not entitled to it. Jesus Christ counseled: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open.” (Mt 7:6) That is why Jesus on certain occasions refrained from giving full information or direct answers to certain questions when doing so could have brought unnecessary harm. (Mt 15:1-6; 21:23-27; Joh 7:3-10) Evidently the course of Abraham, Isaac, Rahab, and Elisha in misdirecting or in withholding full facts from nonworshipers of Jehovah must be viewed in the same light.—Ge 12:10-19; chap 20; 26:1-10; Jos 2:1-6; Jas 2:25; 2Ki 6:11-23."

Of course a thorough 3,000 page Bible reference work would address those verses! A Bible reader might wonder and research why Jesus and other "good" Bible characters did something that might to some Bible readers have seemed questionable (that is, hide the truth). An index listing of "Scriptures explained" points to this article for each of the cited Scriptures. Discussing the actions of Bible characters is the context in which the matter was discussed in 1988 (twenty-two years ago), not discussing "warfare"! To the point about undue, even then, that quoted 1988 paragraph is second-to-last within an eight-paragraph article discussing the Bible's condemnation of lying.

Is "theocratic warfare" a major part of the unique beliefs and practices of JWs? No, JW beliefs and practices on this matter actually line up pretty closely with other Christians (that is, a Christian can be evasive toward Nazi persecutors and the like).

Do JWs often discuss "theocratic warfare"? No, they last used the term this way in the 1960s.

Does it fairly represent the topic of "spiritual warfare" or "theocratic warfare" to write only about how it pertains to interactions with human antagonists? No, that is a relatively small part of a much larger topic. The 1988 reference uses the term "spiritual warfare" seven times in nearly 3,000 pages, and always to discuss using the "holy spirit" and Bible to win faith and minds to "true worship".

Does the paragraph introduced by BlackCab aka LTSally fairly discuss Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs about truthfulness? No, that editor (who describes himself as an experienced former Witness) has chosen to cherrypick, isolate, and group together a handful of refs to make it seem as though "hiding the truth" is a common thing for and unique to adherents of that particular faith.

That's WP:UNDUE, and the ostensible section title is WP:COATRACK. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical question: If a Jehovah's Witness acted to remove details of "theocratic war strategies" from an encyclopedia (ie, withhold information) because he believed it was in the best interests of his religion that the public not know of the doctrine, would that be a demonstration of that strategy in action? BlackCab (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Although the specific words, theocratic warfare are not always used (though the specific wording is certainly not foreign to present-day JWs), the concept in the context of BlackCab's presentation has been re-stated in JW literature as recently as 2009: "Does being truthful with others mean that we must disclose every detail to whoever asks us a question? ... Jehovah’s people need to be on guard against apostates and other wicked men who use trickery or cunning for selfish purposes." (Watchtower 15 June 2009) Also: "The faithful witness does not commit perjury when testifying. His testimony is not tainted with lies. However, this does not mean that he is under obligation to give full information to those who may want to bring harm to Jehovah’s people in some way." (Watchtower 15 November 2004); "Of course, being truthful does not mean that we are obligated to divulge all information to anyone who asks it of us. ... For example, individuals with wicked intent may have no right to know certain things." (Awake!, 8 February 2000) However, AuthorityTam is correct that dishonesty is not the only aspect of JWs' view of 'theocratic' or 'spiritual' warfare (much of which is similar to views held by other churches), and a proper consideration of the subject would not only present information about being deceptive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the opening statement in this section, "BlackCab aka LTSally has recently insisted on terms like "theocracy" in articles related Jehovah's Witnesses." seems to be a dig at BlackCab, however JWs, both in conversation and in their literature, very frequently use terms such as theocracy and theocratic, which is not at all something BlackCab has invented on a whim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The word theocratic or theocracy seems to be non-encyclopedic if you ask me. There are more neutral terms that can be used to describe the central kind of phenomenon being described here. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The term is not mine. It was the phrase used in the Watchtower articles and repeated in the TV documentary and court case. BlackCab (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The term "theocratic" is widely used within the JWs, and even included on the message boards in front of their local halls here. The term, or something remarkably similar to it, is however used in Masters of Deception by F. W. Thomas, which is described as an "excellent" source in Jerry Bergman's 1999 bibliography, Jehovah's Witnesses: a comprehensive and selectively annotated bibliography. However, although that book (which I myself count as being far less than "excellent") does use such a term, I think a more neutral statement would be to say that the JWs have accepted, in certain circumstances, situational ethics. The specific incident the book mentions, about a woman changing clothes and probably lying (depending on whether she "sees" herself), is to my eyes a very minor matter. The author also discusses an individual JW "publisher" flatly lying to the author himself about how he, the author, had been kicked out of the JWs for embezzlement (I think), but that is the specific action of a specific publisher, and I don't think it makes sense to say it necessarily has any broader implication than that. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a great deal of similarity with situational ethics, to which an Awake article (August 1973) has referred with some disdain. Theocratic warfare is about protecting the interests of God's kingdom, which the Watch Tower Society believes is synonymous with the interests, expansion and magazine distribution work of Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason for mentioning it is that, in context, the term seems to be used in connection with, at least in some instances, being less than observant of what some might call basic Christian beliefs regarding honesty, etc. At least, in the book I cited, it is used in that context. So, in effect, if it is used to justify "all's fair in love and war," or a related concept, that seems to me to be a fairly clear endorsement of at least some situational ethics, at least as it applies to preaching/witnessing. The Witnesses seem to see themselves as being in a "war" of sorts, and it is generally accepted that, in "wars", sometimes even the "good guys" act in a way which they might not approve of otherwise, for expediency, etc. I could see perhaps adding something to the effect that they accept some situational ethics thought when it directly relates to the preaching/witnessing, but would want to see it limited to that if it is included. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tolerating evasiveness is not distinct

No. Jehovah's Witnesses reject "situational ethics" by name. Witnesses also condemn the so-called "Christian principle of double effect".

This actually seems a remarkably relevant line of reasoning...

How many religious denomination articles at Wikipedia discuss that denomination's interpretation of lying and evasiveness? I'd guess zero, this being the first. Whether their articles mention it or not, since other Christian religions tolerate evasiveness (and they do, especially in the face of outright persecution), for what ostensibly encyclopedic purpose is this discussed at all in an article about Jehovah's Witnesses?

* Do Witnesses have a more strict or a less strict interpretation of lying than other Christians? Perhaps most importantly: does this new section give an accurate impression of Witness views on lying? In fact, Witnesses do not tolerate outright lying at all (even in the face of persecution), yet the new section never says that. Indeed, JWs consider lying a 'serious sin' for which a Witness could be disfellowshipped, yet the new section never mentions that.
I'd guess that's more strict than most Christian denominations, yet the new section never mentions that, and gives the opposite impression.

* Do Witnesses have a more strict or a less strict tolerance for evasiveness than other Christians? While certainly discouraged, a Witness would admittedly never receive judicial discipline merely for being evasive, whether it was with his neighbor, his business associates, or Nazi persecutors. Even then, however, a Witness could lose congregation privileges for incidents which merely have the appearance of wrong! (See JW discipline#Limited "privileges of service".)
I'd guess that's more strict than most Christian denominations, yet the new section never mentions that, and gives the opposite impression.

Again, if all or the overwhelming majority of Christian religions perhaps condemn lying and certainly tolerate evasiveness, why is this notable only for Jehovah's Witnesses? Again, why must only this religion's article explicitly comment on the matter of evasiveness to the questions of a persecutor?

So, per WP:UNDUE the new section by BlackCab aka LTSally fails based on the ease with which any determined editor could cherrypick sources stating that nearly or literally every religion tolerates evasiveness in the face of persecution.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Part of the reason for inclusion, I think, was the fact that the chapter on "lying" (whatever you want to call it) was mentioned in Bergman's bibliography book as being one of the few key points of the book mentioned, which he indicated was "excellent", although I really have to wonder about the level of quality required for such an assessment from him, based on my own view of the book. Such inclusion does indicate notability of the subject. I don't know if it is sufficient for inclusion, just indicating what seems to me a possible reason. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

AuthorityTam adopts the OTHERSTUFF argument: if other articles don't discuss the ethics of lying in a religious context, neither should this one. It is true that JW publications condemnd lying. That would be a standard Christian ethic, similar to a condemnation of adultery, murder and theft and that wouldn't be notable. I'd guess that other religions don't have a teaching called Theocratic Warfare in which their publications have advocated deceptiveness and evasiveness when the interests of their religion's activities seem threatened. Witnesses do and that's notable. BlackCab (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, my own opinion regarding this might be to simply keep a comparatively short one or two sentence summary of the material here, and place the bulk of the relevant content, possibly including the instance when the author said a street "publisher" lied to the author about the author's own background (not knowing that was who he was), in the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not presenting the Theocratic Warfare belief as a criticism. It is a notable belief and nothing more. BlackCab (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Only a subset of what they call 'Theocratic Warfare' is presented, and it does come across as a criticism. (Aside from that, I've seen no evidence that "Jehovah's Witnesses reject "situational ethics" by name".)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Watchtower, September 15, 1974, page 562, "[Use] the Word of God as the guide to what a person should be doing if he is practicing the truth, walking in the light. ...Eph. 4:17-19. The standards of this world, their “situation ethics,” are the result of minds that are in darkness mentally, alienated from the life that belongs to God. [emphasis added]"--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, some of the outside sources which discuss it definitely do so in "critical" fashion. While it is notable as a point of their beliefs, and can be mentioned as such, it probably is a bit more notable as being a point about which the JWs are criticized. That was my basic thinking for the proposal. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the doctrine is not notable. Neither the thread nor the article has thusfar seen any useful "outside sources" which call this a notable doctrine. What seems obvious to most is that what is currently discussed at Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Theocratic warfare is nearly identical to the position held by just about every Christian faith. So who is it that seeks to frame and push discussion of this supposed "Theocratic Warfare"? Almost all discussion of so-called "Theocratic Warfare" is among former and anti-JWs, rather than by reputable works. Try it, perform a Google search. I haven't located a single chapter or subheading in any reputable work which discusses this position as though it were unique to JWs, except perhaps in that JWs were and are persecuted to a unique extent (and the topic is intertwined with persecution). Incidentally, since 1950 the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses have never treated "theocratic warfare" as a capitalized term, and have only used the term about 60 times in 60 years; by contrast, the less loaded but synonymous term "spiritual warfare" has been used about 240 times. Why did BlackCab aka LTSally choose the former term which JW publications rarely use? Why do editors consistently capitalize "theocratic warfare"? Is the term "theocratic warfare" among those in the back-of-the-book indexes of reputable works on JWs? The answers are telling.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack

Let's be honest: despite its title, does the new section actually discuss "theocratic warfare" aka "spiritual warfare"? No, its originating editor (BlackCab aka LTSally) cherrypicked only a tiny fraction of quotes from among a very large topic to focus on what he wanted to discuss, utilizing a framework upon which to drape the idea that JWs are prevaricative. Discussing one tiny part of a larger topic and labeling it with the larger topic's name is also WP:UNDUE but its undeniably WP:COATRACK. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The section is included under the "practices" section of the article. The relevant "practices" of the Theocratic Warfare strategy, are therefore noted. Those are the practices that have attracted comment from outside observers. BlackCab (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor here clarifies his claimed position: that "the practice" is the notable thing. Ironically, as "practices" go, circumstances involving persecutors are far less likely than those involving criminals, such as those intent on rape and assault. Regarding notable "practices", Witnesses insist that an adherent physically resist rape and that an adherent not seek to kill his assailant. Those "practices" are both less theoretical and more notable (in that they are several orders of magnitude more likely for a typical Witness, and actually do differ from other Christians). To the informed person, it is obvious that this section is not about discussing a genuinely notable practice but about having an excuse to pretend that Witnesses are somehow untrustworthy and dishonest. The section titled "Theocratic warfare" is distracting and undue in this article. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Watchtower's teaching known as "theocratic war strategy" (TWS) is a doctrine that makes a disinction between lying and making an intentionally misleading/false statement that is not a lie. So, for example, the doctrine expresses that the ancient Rahab who intentionally mislead Jericho men by making false statements was not lying for reasons the doctrine offers. This doctrine is alive and well in Watchtower teaching. It is refered to in several ways and not just as "theocratic war strategy."--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I grew up as a Witness in the 1950s-1970. My family was active since the Bible Students. Witnesses freqeuntly bragged about lying to authority, esp. judicial officials. Rutherford admitted to doing so under oath in a court case to protect the Society. I can cite no written references, save Rutherford's comments. My area's usage may have been different from others. In the NY/NJ area, it was done. The culture encouraged it. There was never a decree from Brooklyn stating to lie.

I find "Theocratic Warfare, a peculiarly Jehovah's Witness term. No idea what it actually means. I am certain that whatevcer it is, it can be explained more clearly. The section title should be titled something that a general audience would understand. To me, it is redundant and silly. Perhaps one could say "in the 19--s, the WTBTS discussed the evangelical and worship efforts of Witnesses as "theocratic warfare." Since most people don't see angels and other heavenly soldiers in combat, theocratic warfare is hard to understand. "Theocratic" is a JW buzzword. It means more to me than a dictionary definition of theocracy. Everything is theocratic. Theocratic this, theocratic that. Maybe a section on JW lingo and terms would be good.-75Janice

The section is the result of the vigorous discussion you can read above. My initial intention was to state their peculiar belief that embraced the notion of JWs being permitted to lie to, or withhold information from, their perceived "enemies". I wondered, during that discussion, whether a JW opposing its discussion at an encyclopedia is itself an example of theocratic warfare, in other words, God's people fighting some righteous war against the devil's forces. Given the level of brainwashing within the organisation, it's actually difficult to identify when JW editors are simply trying to protect the reputation of their religion. At the moment it adequately explains the concept of theocratic warfare or spiritual warfare, which are terms their literature uses. It is absolutely a JW buzzword, but it's included here as a JW practice nonetheless.

I agree that the name of the subsection is a bit ambiguous. The text from that section could be moved into the Separateness subsection instead, as there is clearly an overlap, because JW's 'separateness' from the 'world' is the basic reason for 'evasiveness' toward those from whom they are 'separate'. Such a change would better contextualise the concept of 'theocratic warfare' without a potentially confusing heading. The actual text would not need to change substantially—probably hardly at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Article name

This article was recently split from Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses; see Splitting the article in that Talk (and an old thread here).
Regarding the current name of THIS article... I could find no other article which begins "Practices of...". By contrast, article titles on group practices tend to have names like Spanish practices, Sikh practices, and Buddhist practices.
I recommend that his article be renamed Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Any objections or discussion?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you argument is reasonable.Have changed in this instance..Thank you..humblefool 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should *really* be called Jehovah's Witnesses' practices. Note the second apostrophe, after "Witnesses". This is as clear-cut a possessive case as you can find (and completely separate from the possessive case in "Jehovah's"), and the article title is incorrect grammatically, as it currently stands.

Am I going to upset too many apple-carts if I change it? Must say, though, that if the answer is "Yes", I think those apple-carts *need* upsetting. This gives a very bad, ignorant image of Wikipedia. M.J.E. (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

'Jehovah's Witnesses' is normally a proper noun, as the name of a religious denomination, and it functions here as an adjectival modifier. This presentation is consistent with similar article titles as indicated in User:AuthorityTam's comment above. The name 'Jehovah's Witnesses' does not function here as the simple plural of 'Jehovah's Witness' (being two or more JWS) but as the proper name of an organisation. The other articles mentioned above are not called "Sikhs' practices" or "Buddhists' practices"; similarly, this article title employs the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses" (which functions in the singular) as an adjectival modifier of "practices". It is therefore not used here as a possessive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, for whatever it's worth, I totally disagree with this analysis, and regard it merely as a product of modern sloppy trends in grammar, and I think it gives Wikipedia a very bad look. As you may guess, I am not young, being in my 50s, so I was well-drilled in grammar and such things; and when I was at school, there would have been no way of parsing this other than as a perfectly normal, orthodox, unexceptional possessive case.

The possessive case's name is slightly misleading in that, while it its primary use is to indicate true possession, like a person owning an object, in fact it is merely a grammatical structure which also goes further than that, and is by no means *exclusively* about possession in the everyday sense. It covers all sorts of non-possession-related situations: like "2 years' imprisonment", "for goodness' sake", and many others - all completely wrong without the apostrophe. This is akin to organizations that incorrectly leave out a required apostrophe in their name, such as "Builders Union" or (ironically) things like "Teachers Union" or "Boys school" (where you would expect them to know better!), and it it something I believe Wikipedia should avoid emulating. (If I had a son and were looking for a good school to send him to, I would think twice, and yet again, before choosing a school whose signage said "Boys school" rather than "Boys' school". At the very least, I would ask the school about it. You'd think this would be rare; but I have seen it more than once.)

As for nouns used as adjectival modifiers, I would have learned at school that only singular nouns could be used in this way, and even then probably not in all instances. And with the analogy with "Buddhist practices", which I presume is an example of a noun used as an adjectival modifier: I would accept the comparison only if we used "Jehovah's Witness practices". I would accept this version, but still consider it inferior to "Jehovah's Witnesses' practices" (with the apostrophe). With my previous example, "Teacher union" might be marginally acceptable; but not "Teachers union"; "Teachers' union" would be better than either, though.

Jehovah's Witnesses are unusual in that the name of the group is normally used in the plural form; but I still submit that omitting the apostrophe gives a bad look, and is not as correct as with the apostrophe.

I still believe it should be changed. But I've seen the acrimonious disagreements that often ensue when someone corrects something like this, and am not sure I am up to it. There is perhaps too much else to do in life than to get too emotionally hung up on whether something in Wikipedia is correct or not.

Who cares? Well, I do - but I'm trying not to.... M.J.E. (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I support keeping it as it is. There is an argument that it is grammatically correct, but in any case it is simpler. BlackCab (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As you (M.J.E.)have stated yourself, adjectival modifiers are correctly used on singular nouns. The proper noun 'Jehovah's Witnesses' is a singular noun. It is an organisation. Use of the organisation name here is descriptive, not possessive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Request Theocratic warfare title change to Spiritual warfare

I suggest the editors to change the outdated title theocratic warfare to Spiritual warfare. I never heard such a term though I am involved in JW for over 20 years. The main article is on Spiritual warfare. I searched on watchtower library 2009 on all publications. I found only 158 instances of the term Theocratic warfare. And It is occurring only on articles published before 1989. But the term Spiritual warfare is occurring on recent articles and totals about 636 times. The term Holy war is from a 1955 published article. It could be replaced by Spiritual war. Further recent articles in watchtower had criticized the Holy war done by churches. Wikipedia encourages to focus on latest beliefs and not on outdated words. Hope you would consider the updating the title. Logical Thinker 16:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the section heading. As you indicate, the sources are not recent, however the information has never been repealed (i.e. replaced with 'new light') though the subject is seldom discussed in detail in more recent literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Assembly Halls

District conventions for foreign language congregations are routinely held in Assembly Halls. 99.34.28.106 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

New sections go at the bottom of Talk pages. Conventions of any language are routinely held in JW Assembly Halls where such facilities are available. Their being in a 'foreign language' is not particularly relevant. Not all areas (including those with foreign-language congregations) have a JW-owned Assembly Hall.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wedding rings

The article currently states, "The Watchtower acknowledges that wedding rings were first used by pagans".
I have not been able to locate any such explicit acknowledgment, but I'm happy to wait for feedback before editing what seems a dubious misstatement. The Watchtower seems to have addressed the matter less than a handful of times, only mentioning that wedding rings may have originated with pagans or that an individual Christian may conscientiously conclude that the rings have a pagan association (and so he personally might avoid the custom). Other Watchtower articles seem pointedly to argue that wedding rings have multiple parallel origins, including among 'true worshippers'.--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking the sources, I agree. Whilst a 1956 Watchtower did not dispute the pagan origin of weddings rings, more recent articles (most recently, Awake! August 1, 2000, p. 27), have suggested that they may have pagan origins. Therefore, whether or not weddings rings do or do not actually have a pagan origin, the JW view is only that they may.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the sentence about wedding rings should be removed from article as it gives a non-neutral POV slant to the article. It only makes sense to mention the rings if it can be shown that there was a movement some point in JW history to require or discourage the wearing of wedding rings. Wedding rings seem to be as common among Witnesses as are the the rest of the USA. For example, many of the photos/pictures on these pages of What Does the Bible Really Teach? show people with rings.^{[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]} Rings are shown prominently in the article "Does God Approve of Same-Sex Marriage?"^[19] and for the link to that article on the "Beliefs and Activities" page.^[20] --Marc Kupper|talk 08:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem removing They may use rings in wedding ceremonies, which seems a bit mundane; however, the rest of the sentence seems relevant to the context of the preceding sentence about what may be an obvious question to some regarding the origin of the custom, particularly in view of the fact that The Watchtower has specifically commented on the topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It would seem the editor prefers to retain the following from the current article: "The Watchtower has stated that although wedding rings may first have been used by pagans, their origin does not rule out their use for Christians."
However, the cited Watchtower did NOT state or imply that 'origins do not matter', but rather the religion's position that origination among pagan persons is different from origination in pagan worship; the reference explicitly compared rings with articles of clothing and systems of measure (secular things not associated with worship). Here is the referenced quote in context:

"Even if it were a fact that pagans first used wedding rings, would that rule such out for Christians? Not necessarily. Many of today’s articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours, minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christian’s using these time divisions, for one’s doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices.[emphasis added]"

The cited Watchtower continued, "The Bible shows that some of God’s servants in the past wore rings, even ones that had special meaning attached to them." Other WT articles have claimed that the exchange or donning of particular engagement/wedding jewelry was well-established among "true worshippers".

Genesis 24:47-51: After that I asked [Rebekah] and said, ‘Whose daughter are you?’ to which she said, ‘The daughter of Bethuel [apparently, a known "true worshipper"]...’ Accordingly I put the nose ring on her nostril and the bracelets on her hands... Bethuel answered and said: “...Here is Rebekah before you. Take her and go, and let her become a wife to the son of your master...”
Ezekiel 16:8-12: And so you became mine. ...And I went on to deck you with ornaments and to put bracelets upon your hands and a necklace about your throat. Furthermore, I put a nose ring in your nostril and earrings on your ears
Jeremiah 2:32: Can a virgin forget her ornaments, a bride her breastbands?

Per User:Marc Kupper, I also now think that any mention of wedding rings is probably too granular for the scope of this article, especially since the JW view of wedding rings is not different than that of other Christians (and never has been). Nevertheless, for now I have removed only "They may use rings in wedding ceremonies" and merely edited the remaining sentence to this: "The Watchtower has stated that although wedding rings may have been used first by pagans, that does not rule out their use by Christians." (see diff.)--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The text is retained because it answers a fairly obvious question that could be raised by readers familiar with early use of wedding rings. The wording does not attempt to claim that such usage is 'good' or 'bad'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(I wonder how many JWs have noserings.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've no intention to argue for or against the use of wedding rings, but I do disagree with the insistence that the article retain the discussion of wedding rings (about which JWs apparently feel no differently than anyone else! and never have!).--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the subject lacks notability, and is therefore unnecessary. The sentence "The Watchtower has stated that although wedding rings may first have been used by pagans, their origin does not rule out their use for Christians." seems to attempt to imply a hypocritical stance, which is simply POV spin. either the sentence needs to be expounded and cleaned up to more clearly present what Jehovah's Witnesses true views on the subject are, or it needs to be removed altogether. Willietell (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As stated before, The text is retained because it answers a fairly obvious question that could be raised by readers familiar with early use of wedding rings. The wording does not attempt to claim that such usage is 'good' or 'bad'. I don't know how to say this any more clearly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know how to "say it more clearly", then I'm sure another editor might be able to "say it more clearly" and make the change, or I can make the change if you like, as I'm quite sure that I can find a way to "say it more clearly". Willietell (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The reference to wedding rings follows a sentence that explains that Witnesses celebrate weddings but "avoid incorporating certain traditions they see to have pagan origins". This creates an immediate contradiction: rings were used by pagans in wedding celebrations, as The Watchtower freely acknowledges, hence it is helpful to explain why, then, Witnesses continue to incorporate rings in their wedding celebrations. BlackCab (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, your response does not make sense. I explained why the text is in the article, and I cannot make that explanation more clearly. It is not necessary for another editor to change my explanation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your explaination aside, a change could be made to the article, to make it more clearly explain the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on the use of wedding rings, but I'm guessing that you already understood that and are simply being coy. Willietell (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

The cleanup tag was added in August 2010 by sockpuppet Jehonathan who also edited as Matrix356 and others; no further problems have been raised. Are we safe to delete the tag? BlackCab (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, but recommend waiting for other editors to respond also.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Travelling overseers

The new Traveling overseers (but Australian English in my section heading :) ) section seems like excessive detail for the scope of this article. I therefore propose:

that the bulk of the material be moved to a new section at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, under the Branches section, with the existing Units within a branch subsection adapted into the new section as a less abrupt introduction to the topic.
a Traveling overseers subsection at the end of the Meetings for worship section, with a single paragraph summarising the circuit overseer's visit and a 'See also' link to the new section at the other article.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The material has limited relevance to the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't see that it warrants even a sentence under the "meetings" section. BlackCab (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have merged the material into the relevant section of the Organizational structure article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Memorial event - time duration (difference to congregation meetings)

Memorial event´s duration much shorter than normal congregation meeting. MA lasts aproximately 0,75 hour (45 minutes). CM lasts eventually 1,75 hour or close to 2 hours. (including speech) ... this fact could be also implicate in article. ... --89.176.227.251 (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The specific duration of the event doesn't seem to be especially notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Weekend meeting" and "Midweek meeting" parts in that article have time duration alleged. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If anything, those other times could be removed as well. Best at this point to see what other editors think.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Best at this point to see what other editors think. I agree.

In my opinion is interesting information what show time duration difference in several JW´s meetings.

But as I said ... its only suggestion to improve this article. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

Someone today has tagged the article (albeit in the wrong location) with the warning that it relies on primary sources. I'd make the following four points in suggesting that the use of primary sources in this article is of no concern:

(a) WP:PRIMARY says that whether primary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense;

(b) Watch Tower Society publications are a generally reliable source of information on the religion's practices;

(c) There has been no challenge over the accuracy of any specific claim sourced to a WTS publication' and

(d) The article does have a good measure of secondary sources as well.

Some comment on this would be welcome, with a view to removing that tag. BlackCab (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Holden, Franz and Penton are all used, as well as Botting (although I don't know that name myself). Seems fine to me. Vyselink (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree that tag was unwarranted.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Headcovering

I'm surprised the article doesn't currently mention Christian headcovering. Any ideas where it should go?--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be a subsection of Worship.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Only a sentence or two would be needed to cover the topic; it could possibly be put into the section on weekly meetings (with wording clear enough to indicate that it refers to situations in which female members are teaching members of the congregation, but not to evangelising). It would not be necessary to elaborate on minutia of JW head-covering situations.

Additionally, the subsections for the Weekend and Midweek meetings could probably be made into a single subsection for Weekly meetings (but could probably maintain the existing paragraphs).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with a move to dissolve the two separate section headings; elsewhere, an invited WP:3O highlighted the advantage of maintaining and pointing to separate sections for JWs' midweek- and weekend meetings. Headcovering is now discussed within a new section in this article, at 'Ministers and ordination'.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging the Meetings subsections into one but maintaining the existing paragraphs describing the different meetings would not at all detract from the import of the third opinion, nor is the third opinion necessarily binding. Having the meetings discussed in one subsection—still covering the separate meetings in separate paragraphs—would allow for a single link from other articles rather than a redundant link to the same section. The different meetings are not so notable that other articles need to specifically mention both.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea of removing the long-existing subsections for JWs' midweek- and weekend meetings; perhaps this should be discussed in a new thread.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And you're welcome to your opinion. A consensus can be determined after input from other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ministers

I've created a new article section at 'Ministers and ordination'. It pulls together mini-discussions related to ministers, ecclesiastical privilege, confessional privilege, pastoral care, women, headcovering, and religious orders. None of that was previously discussed here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to the section. A couple of minor points are worth noting here:

I've removed the ambiguous 'rare'/'unusual' and replaced with a specific statement.
I've replaced 'privileges' with 'duties' in reference to pastoral care. In this sense, privileges is an honorific euphemism for duties or activities.

Otherwise, the section is a good addition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The recent edits to this new section (here and here) are appreciated, even when they simply substitute an equally-valid alternate spelling. However, I've reverted edits that introduce mistakes.

I replaced "if no baptized male is available," back to "in unusual circumstances". Per references such as the cited one, there are circumstances in which a female would lead even if a baptized male were present, though it would be unusual. IMHO, the absence of any baptized male is already implied as one such 'unusual circumstance', and the others of 'unusual circumstances' do not lend themselves to pithy inclusion here.
I replaced "after-hours pastoral visiting duties (such as in hospitals and prisons)" with "after-hours pastoral visiting privileges (such as in hospitals and prisons)" (though neither "duties" nor "privileges" is bolded in the article). The term "privileges" is not used in this case as an honorific euphemism for "duties"; the term "privileges" in this case refers to extra considerations extended by hospitals and prisons to particular trusted persons.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your re-interpretation of 'privileges'. In the context of the paragraph, use of 'privileges' does not clearly refer to permission granted by hospitals and prisons. It would be more neutral and entirely accurate to simply refer to activities.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And you're welcome to your opinion. A consensus can be determined after input from other editors.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're just being smarmy, mimicing a previous comment I made. Can you please try to be civil.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with AuthorityTam , the use of the word "privileges" in this instance, refers to extra considerations extended by hospitals and prisons to particular trusted persons as this is not something they are obligated to allow. If the statement seems to lack clarity to you, then seek to clarify it instead of introducing "duties" as a POV spin word substitution. Willietell (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor has repeatedly (2/1,2/2,2/10) removed the word "privileges" as the term which describes the extra considerations granted by hospitals and prisons to ministerial officeholders (that is, non-relatives entrusted by institutions to visit in circumstances and at times other than those typically allowed to others). Hospitals and prisons do not grant "duties" or "services" to ministers, so those newly-introduced terms are not even logical here (and thus certainly not to be preferred). While "privilege" is elsewhere used as a euphemism for a calling or duty, the term "privilege" has a well-established quasi-legalistic history. A particular extra consideration that is typically granted to all those holding a particular office is called a "privilege", and that usage is entirely distinct from a "personal privilege". Here is an excerpt from a work which spends hundreds of pages to analyze the term "privilege" in excruciating detail: "[Alberto Toso] stated that a personal privilege is one given "directly to the/a person (that is, a physical person) without reference to a thing". The distinguishing mark of a real privilege, on the other hand, was the fact that it was given directly and immediately to a thing or place ["an office"] and thence to the persons who possessed the thing or place."[italics retained from original]-The Term "Privilege": A Textual Study of Its Meaning and Use by Alan McCormack, Gregorian & Biblical, 1997, page 360.
I have again reinstated the term "privileges".--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The cited source says nothing at all about prisons or hospitals granting 'privileges' to JW elders, nor is there anything in the source indicating that prisons or hospitals have a specific requirement for religious representatives to be elders. It is unclear why you have such a strong intent for the specific word 'privileges' in this case. Prisons provide services to prisoners, which includes allowing religious representatives to visit prisoners. Some such services are provided as privileges to prisoners, not privileges to visitors. The restored wording does not, and did not, suggest that services are granted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:AuthorityTam's reasoning here, "Privilege" seems to be the best fit and the most logical wording to be used in this instance. Willietell (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reason for your support other than personal bias? Though I can find plenty of references of prisons granting privileges to prisoners, I can find no sources referring to prisons granting "privileges" to visitors in general, nor any specific references to prisons granting privileges to JW elders in particular. What specifically do you think is inaccurate about the wording I have restored?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel that if you inquired of many jails and/or prisons as to whether they regarded the allowing of ministers to have access to inmates to be a duty or a privilege that they extend to ministers, you would find few if any who would admit that they feel it is their duty to allow ministers access to inmates and that almost certainly they would without exception say that they consider this to be a privilege extended to ministers and to inmates alike. I think you will find that this is also something they reserve the right to revoke if strict rules are not adhered too. Therefore, I feel that reason and common sense dictate the use of the word privilege here. Willietell (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your response is a false dichotomy. 'Duty' was used in alternative previous wording that stated 'duties of elders'; it is less accurate than, and is not present in, the current wording. It is quite likely though that prison administrative staff would state that they provide services to prisoners, including visits by religious representatives.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it more than highly unlikely that a prison administrator would ever even consider it logical to think that they were providing a "service" to prisoners by allowing ministers to call upon them in the course of there incarceration, perhaps they might even considering serving lunch or dinner to be a "service" rendered to inmates, but I seriously doubt that religious instruction would fall into that category in their eyes. I do though, realize that you are being more than somewhat disingenuous and are in fact arguing the point simply for arguments sake, and that therefore, no reasonable argument will ever get you to change your dogmatic position. Willietell (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Christ, you must be bored. The sentence currently reads "Only elders assert ecclesiastical privilege and confessional privilege; after-hours pastoral visiting services, such as at hospitals and prisons, are also generally provided by elders ..."' The information is clear enough and your arguments are nitpicking in the extreme and show a determination to stretch the point. Your userpage states that you suffer from OCD and I wonder whether this relentless arguing over one word in this section is a symptom of that. The initial wording used the word "privileges" three times; Jeffro's edit overcomes the problem with a perfectly neutral word of "service", which adequately conveys the function of a minister of religion making a pastoral visit on a prisoner. You need to stop this stupidity. BlackCab (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The terms "services" and "privileges" are certainly not synonyms or near-synonyms; the terms convey different ideas. The idea that JW elders perform pastoral (shepherding, literally) services is uninteresting here; that's different from the fact that hospitals and prisons (that is, government or quasi-government entities) recognize JW elders as ministerial officeholders, and JWs do not authorize their other "ordained ministers" to represent themselves as ministerial officeholders for this purpose. IMHO, it would be better to remove the point altogether than for the current nonsequiturial wording to remain. BTW, I was glad to see this false accusation recanted .--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No 'false accusation' was intended. I'd simply forgotten the prior discussion to that point because I've been rather busy with other things. Once I reviewed the previous discussion, I immediately corrected the error. Stop being so dramatic.

The fact that 'services' is not a synonym for 'privileges' is irrelevant, as the rest of the sentence has been changed accordingly. No source has been presented that gives any suggestion that prisons grant any such 'privilege' to JW elders. Additionally, there is absolutely no reason to use the word 'privilege' three times in the same sentence. Just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "privilege" has a unique legal and quasi-legal connotation not easily synonymized (eg Law of Privilege and Privilege (canon law) and many others). The term "privilege" was used three times in the article because no other term fit; one wonders if the editor's objections to the term are perhaps not fully informed.
The editor's preferred wording conflicts with the progression of thought. The article said/says: "Witnesses recognize that many government and administrative precedents for ministers are not intended to include all active adherents. For example..." and then the last example, insisted upon by the editor, is certainly not an example pertaining to "government and administrative precedents". As it was nonsequiturial, the last example has been removed.--15:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)AuthorityTam (talk)

I don't believe your rationale to be valid (that is, the subject of the sentence is things elders do, which includes asserting privileges and providing pastoral services), but it is preferable to leave it off then to continue this inane dispute. And as suggested elsewhere, please stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Another smarmy response. And yet you link to an edit that related to discussion of content. Sigh. Please try to play nicely.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources tag, etc.

I am moving this section from my talk page to here because I feel it is more appropriately discussed here on the articles talk page to allow interested editors to have input into the discussion. It comes from:

See User_talk:Willietell#Sources tag etc

I am posting it in its entirety thus far and am providing this as a heads up so no one thinks I am attempting to use User:BlackCab's signature. I am only copy/pasting it from my talk page.

Re your addition of the "Fact" tag here: the statement about secular society is part of the quote from Holden's book and needs no further source cited. The reference to closed meetings is also clearly sourced to Franz. Your reference to "non-prescription use (medical use) of addictive drugs" is also confusing, suggesting that medical use of addictive drugs is prohibited. It's clearer the way it is. And the articles have had a long-standing practice of generalising the numbers of languages in which WT publications are published, avoiding the need to update them as they rise and fall. BlackCab (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not accurate, nor is it necessary to generalize that the Watchtower and the Awake are printed in "hundreds of languages", they are in fact, printed in 194 and 84 respectively, which is not "hundreds", Franz is a fringe, biased, POV source and is not acceptable, nor is the POV spin of "closed meetings" , "non-prescription use" is factual and clarifies that some addictive drugs under prescription use are allowed for treatment of medical conditions, and the statement about secular society really needs more clarity, but it is also written in such a way as to appear to be not properly sourced, which is why I added the [citation needed] tag, perhaps some clarification on the statement in the sentence structure will help. Also, this discussion is more appropriate on the articles talk page instead of mine, as others my also wish to contribute to the discussion. Also, if you continue to repeatedly revert pages edited by me without discussion, I will begin to report your attempts to edit war, so please refrain in the future. Willietell (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have patiently explained to you why your edits are unacceptable. Franz has long been accepted as a reliable source and there is no evidence that suggests he is wrong when he says the meetings are held behind closed doors, but if you know of published evidence that disproves that source, feel free to provide it. You have shown repeatedly that you do not accept consensus views, and are therefore work poorly in the collaborative environment of Wikipedia, so I would suggest you ease off on the threats. BlackCab (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Franz is not only not a reliable source, but is clearly biased in his opinion. If you wish to use his statement, then back it up with additional sources stating that they are "closed meetings" as there is also no evidence to suggest that he is "right" either. Also again, this is a discussion for the articles talk page and I think it would be the proper thing to move future discussion there. Willietell (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you think everyone who is not a JW is biased. That will always affect your thinking. BlackCab (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that everyone is biased, only those who demonstrate that they are biased, I judge only from action and endeavor to always assume good faith, until actions demonstrate that good faith in not intended. Ray Franz has demonstrated his bias and convicted himself with his own mouth in doing so. Your user page vocalizes your bias, and demonstrates such, as do some of your public statements. I only ask that you attempt to remain objective and not let your bias against Jehovah's Witnesses dictate your editing patterns. It is not necessary to revert edits simply because you view them as not being negative enough to suite your tastes. An accurate and properly sourced edit should stand, whether you personally like the presented material or not is irrelevant. If you have an opposing view, edit it in and don't simply revert the edit to destroy the work of other editors who are also attempting to work in good faith. I will again ask you nicely, to put back the information I edited into the article. I don't wish to engage you in an edit war, all I am trying to do is improve the article by making it more accurate. If you have a source for the statement where I have placed the [citation needed] tag, then simply place the citation there and expound the statement for clarification as requested in the edit summary. It is every editors right to ask for support and clarification, and the burden is upon the editor wishing to include the disputed material to provide support for it. Willietell (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Willietell (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverts unwarranted

Holden: Long-time editors may recall my previous comments elsewhere which question the "scholarship" of Andrew Holden, who begins his so-called "sociological study" with anecdote about how his family dislikes Jehovah's Witnesses. A four-page passage of Holden's work was cited (wow!) to support the claim that "Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to remain separate from secular society". Recently, a certain editor twice inserted the {{fact}} template, and a different editor twice removed it without comment . I have ready access to the referenced work, and I re-read the entirety of pages 9 through 12; frankly I believe 1) nothing on those pages could be interpreted as "Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to remain separate from secular society", and 2) the tone of those ref pages implies the opposite of the claimed interpretation. I suppose some writer can be found somewhere to say something similar to the claimed article language, so for now I have merely reinstated the {{fact}} template and ask that editors retain the template until it's been actually addressed.
Languages: The misstatement that JW magazines are "published simultaneously in hundreds of languages" has been twice-corrected, but the same 'certain editor' has twice reverted those corrections . It would be better if that stopped.
Drugs: JWs do not proscribe the use of addictive drugs. Rather, JWs proscribe the abuse of any drug (and have no particular objections to the non-recreational use of legal but addictive drugs). The same 'certain editor' has insisted on reverted to inaccurate wording . It would be better if that stopped.
I've reinstated the more-accurate wording, and the {{fact}} template.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The two changes you've made to ths sections on languages and drugs are good and overcome the problems Willietell introduced. I'm unsure of what you're actually seeking on the "secular society" reference however. The issue of separateness is dealt with in an expanded form under the "Separateness" section of the article, and sources are more comprehensively cited there. As you probably know, WP:CITE states that "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article," although it does add that "particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." It also states that inline citations are required "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". I therefore ask: Is it a "particularly controversial statement", and "likely to be challenged" that JWs endeavour to remain separate from secular society? I've just delved into the Watchtower Library and found statements such as these:

March 1, 1957 WT (pg 149): "For firmness in our faith (Jehovah) instructs us to keep separate from the world. Association with people of the world is permissible to the extent of contact required by gospel-preaching and permitted secular work. We are advised, however, to avoid strictly the evil, hurtful practices of this old system and build up our understanding of spiritual things ... Selfishly and stubbornly some make a serious mistake with regard to companions whom they seek out. Making friendships socially with people of the world and associating with them is not conducive to standing firm as a Christian."
Feb 1, 2001 WT (pg 10): "True Christians ... keep separate from this world’s corrupt politics and its defiling way of life."
Jan 15, 2006 WT (pg 25): "Anointed Christians and their dedicated companions strive to keep morally and spiritually clean, separate from this world. This unrighteous world hates us because we keep separate from it and are ‘preachers of righteousness.’ True, we live in the midst of human society, which includes fornicators, adulterers, extortioners, idolaters, thieves, liars, and drunkards. But we do not breathe in “the spirit of the world,” for we are not driven by this sinful motivating force."

During my years in the religion, there was a constantly repeated theme at meetings that Witnesses needed to remain separate from the world, i.e, secular society outside Jehovah's organization. Holden, in several places in his book (pg 12, 26, 109-112, 126) discusses the practice of trying as much as possible to limit contact with secular society and remain separate from it, while allowing that there is a distinction between the JW attitude and that of Plymouth Brethren who "isolate themselves completely from outsiders". I believe the phrase in the article intro, as a succinct summary, is fair and accurate and reflects the view of the WT organisation, which I've just cited. BlackCab (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, you have just reinstated the "fact" template, but have not responded here to the specific question I have asked about whether it is a "particularly controversial statement", and "likely to be challenged" that JWs endeavour to remain separate from secular society. I have provided three Watchtower quotes that say precisely that. Why are you asking for more proof? BlackCab (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement is still sourced only to Holden, whom an editor has already indicated is a questionable source considering his own admission regarding his stated background. That editor has also questioned the validity of the information cited by the source. If you have 3 WTS sources, then cite them. in the article, and expound on the statement to provide a better overall explanation of what is meant by the statement "remain separate from secular society" , because I feel it may lead the reader to an incorrect conclusion. Therefore, unless it is your goal to lead the reader to an incorrect conclusion. it should be of little consequence to make the necessary changes to sentence structure to satisfy the request for an expounded explanation and to provide a reliable source for the ^{[citation needed]} request. I am re-instating the tag, please do not simply remove it, but please provide the requested information. I wish to thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Willietell (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You really are tiresome. Please read this carefully.

1. I have already pointed out that WP:CITE states that citations are required in the lead section only for controversial statements and also anything that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". I have twice asked both you and AuthorityTam (who are the only editors who seem to question this) to explain why it is controversial, or false, to state that "Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to remain separate from secular society" when I have provided three Watchtower references that say exactly the same thing. Neither of you have responded!

2. Holden is a perfectly acceptable source. I don't know what objection you have to him. AuthorityTam falsely states that Holden "begins his so-called 'sociological study' with anecdote about how his family dislikes Jehovah's Witnesses." In fact he explains (p.3) "how I became interested in the Watch Tower community": He says his curiosity was aroused as a child when Witnesses made periodic visits to his family's home despite his Catholic mother's "impatience with their tireless efforts to recruit us". He asks: "Why were my parents so dismissive of their message without even hearing it?" He also encountered some Witnesses at a local fitness club, prompting "some interesting discussions about creation, evolution, the meaning of life and what happens to us when we die. I had to find out what kind of people converted to the Watch Tower organisation and why they did it." Holden is a teacher of sociology. He is not a JW, nor has he ever been (so far as I know) a JW, or for that matter a critic of the religion. He is a scientist.

3. The section "Separateness" contains three paragraphs, supported by 20 sources that explain the Watchtower view of remaining separate. Fifteen of those are from Watch Tower sources. Because that section is so well sourced, it requires no additional sourcing n the lead section.

For those clear reasons (which have now been explained three times) I will remove the redundant tag. If you have read this far, then thank you. BlackCab (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a couple of obvious edits, such as replacing "homosexual activity" with "homosexual sex" and replacing 'alcohol abuse' with "drunkenness". The terms used before my edit are not unambiguously "serious sins" such as the others listed in that article paragraph. My other recent edit concerns JW separateness...

It has saddened me to see editors so determined to retain their preferred wording ("[JWs] separate from secular society"), that they repeatedly and summarily (reflexively?) delete the {{fact}} template.[21],[22],[23],[24],[25]

Wording similar to "Witnesses endeavor to remain separate from secular society" sounds a lot like they form monastic enclaves and communes and seek to limit non-spiritual interactions. That's not accurate. JWs do not feel compelled to separate themselves from secularity per se. Washing dishes is secular. Driving a car is secular. The article's use of the term "secular" in this thought is here misplaced. A knowledgeable editor was correct to patiently ask for a citation for the article claim "Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to remain separate from secular society"; just who is supposedly making that claim?
Frankly, it seems more likely that the claim about "secular" is an interpreted corruption of some source. For example, a recent JW publication stated:

"[Jehovah's Witnesses] are “no part of the world.” The term “world” here refers to human society alienated from God. We [Witnesses] are separate from the world in that we shun attitudes, speech, and conduct that offend Jehovah. Moreover, in harmony with the principle that “bad associations spoil useful habits,” we avoid intimacy with those who do not live by Christian standards. ...Hence, being separate from the world does not mean that we physically withdraw from all contact with other people. [Bible citations removed without ellipses]"--The Watchtower, March 15, 2006, page 30

The article's wording would be improved by simply replacing the term "secular society" with "the world", and the term "the world" can be easily expanded in a footnote. I did that, quoting their article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You make a reasonable point and I have no problem with your edit. If your initial objection was to the word "secular", why did you not say initially? Holden, incidentally, uses the phrase "outside world" several times when discussing separateness and that wording may be clearer to a reader unfamiliar with JW lingo. This may also obviate the need for the footnote; the phrase "separate from the world" is defined and explained in the "Separatenss" section. BlackCab (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The change to "separate from the world" satisfies the request for clarification in the sentence, in my opinion. If it remains, I will not reinstate the ^{[citation needed]} tag. Willietell (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Requirement to preach

User:Willietell has objected to the opening sentence of the Evangelism section that reads: Jehovah's Witnesses are required to express their belief in the religion's doctrines by participating in both organized and spontaneous evangelizing and proselytizing work. He has changed the "required" to "admonished" and commented, "JW's are not a military organization, and "required" is off base here as individual members are encouraged to do what their particular circumstances allow."

The statement cites Andrew Holden, pg 71-76. That section includes the following quotes:

"Belief in the doctrines must also be expressed in religious participation, and in this sense Witnesses are not just believers, they are activists. Those who (...become baptised...) are automatically ordained as ministers. This means that they have a moral obligation to disseminate Watch Tower doctrines as evangelists of 'the truth'. Devotees claim that ministering and believing must coexist if their principal mission of accelerating the New Kingdom is to be achieved ... Some are keen to proselytise ... others are more circumspect, mainly because of their lack of evangelistic experience; but even these individuals are concerned that ministering to others is what Jehovah requires of them. (pg 71).
"Each member has a personal responsibility to spread the good news and to monitor their peformance by recording the total number of monthly hours allocated to the ministry ... those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism soon lose the respect of their co-religionists ... though the Watch Tower authorities acknowledge that factors such as old age, ill health and family responsibilities may mean that some people are unable to devote as much time to the ministry as others, all Witnesses are expetced to contribute to the recruitment effort ... this is an extremely resourceful movement in which every member is a missionary. There is no place for anyone wishing to tag along as a free-rider." (pg 72).

Willietell may believe it is possible to join the Jehovah's Witnesses religion while holding no intention of sharing in the ministry work, but this is not supported by Watch Tower references. Here are some of them:

Organized to Do Jehovah's Will, the handbook for new publishers, (pg 78): "It would be the same with all others who respond to Jesus' invitation to 'come be my follower', even down to this day. All who respond have a divine commission to preach the good news of the Kingdom and make disciples."
Draw Close to Jehovah (2002, pg 295): "As Christians, we have an obligation to preach the good news and to make disciples."
Young People Ask, (pg 174): "The prime obligation for Christians today is to preach the Kingdom message. And youths who take seriously their obligation before God feel compelled to have as full a share in this work as possible — even if they are not naturally inclined toward preaching."
Watchtower (July 1, 2005, pg 17): "As Christians, we feel an obligation to preach the good news and to make disciples."
Watchtower (November 15, 1986): "Certainly, we have the obligation to preach the good news whether we have good health or not."
Watchtower, December 15, 1984, pg 16): "Yet, in addition to preaching the word in a congregational setting, true Christians have an obligation to preach to all publicly, seeking those who will respond to 'the word'."

In addition, the Watchtower of July 1 1993, pg 13, quotes approvingly from the Catholic Encyclopedia's description of Jehovah's Witnesses (Volume 7, pages 864-5): "The fundamental obligation of each member of the sect is to give witness to Jehovah by announcing His approaching Kingdom ... They regard the Bible as their only source of belief and rule of conduct ... To be a true Witness one must preach effectively in one way or another.”

My home dictionary defines "admonish" as "reprove" and "give advice to". Clearly there is no advice to Witnesses at the point of baptism that they may preach; there is a very clear direction that they have an obligation and requirement to; therefore "admonish" is just wrong. I will add the Catholic Encyclopedia quote as a further reference and reinstate the original wording. BlackCab (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I will save you the trouble, the definition of admonish, as I used it in the article is as follows:

ad·mon·ish [ad-mon-ish] verb (used with object)

1.to caution, advise, or counsel against something. 2.to reprove or scold, especially in a mild and good-willed manner: The teacher admonished him about excessive noise. 3. to urge to a duty; remind: to admonish them about their obligations.

I used the word in the context of the third stated definition, which is to urge to a duty; remind: to admonish them about their obligations.

Considering this definition, the word is a perfect fit for inclusion in the first sentence. I am glad that I could be of assistance in helping you to come to a more complete understanding of the word Admonish. You are quite welcome in advance. I will make the change back to the more appropriate wording. Willietell (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous use of a secondary meaning of admonish is hardly an improvement on the clear and accurate meaning of require.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, your attempt at sarcasm fell rather flat. The statement is based on a cited reliable source and supported by multiple other reliable sources I have quoted above. Your introduction of the quite inappropriate word "admonish" is simply wrong and would misrepresent those sources, none of which use that word. BlackCab (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The nature of the "requirement" is quite subjective; while a new convert must initially preach to qualify for JW baptism, a baptized but non-participant Jehovah's Witness merely drops from their statistics (he is referred to as "an inactive Jehovah's Witnesses" rather than a "former Jehovah's Witness"). Certain meeting attendance figures and secular statistics typically count about twice as many "Jehovah's Witnesses" as the number who report recently participating in preaching. Anyway, it's plain that a person must preach to become a JW (as that sentence in the article concludes). Other article statements were more obviously wrong...

The article formerly stated, "Jehovah's Witnesses are required to express their belief in the religion's doctrines"; that tends to inaccurately evoke the distasteful image of regular loyalty oaths. I removed it.

The article formerly stated, "Jehovah's Witnesses are required to...participat[e] in both organized and spontaneous evangelizing and proselytizing work" [emphasis added]; that inaccurately implies that a Witness may not choose 'only formal preaching' or 'only informal preaching'. I restated the sentence thusly:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are required to "give witness" (preach), with baptism permitted only for those who demonstrate "regular and zealous" participation."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that User:BlackCab would object to the use of the word admonish when the simple meaning of the word (to urge to a duty; remind: to admonish them about their obligations) is used in nearly every single reference he has provided. I thus think it rather strange that the word require, which can have an altogether different meaning, would become the word of choice in this situation. My only conclusion is that the insistence on the use of the word require is simply yet another example of the introduction of POV spin into the article, used to insinuate that Jehovah's Witnesses are subjects of some sinister form of manipulation and to this I object. Willietell (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Income earners are required to pay tax. Drivers are required to have a current licence. In Australia, people on the electoral roll are required to vote. Jehovah's Witnesses are required to preach. None of these imply a sinister form of manipulation. I am content with AuthorityTam's wording. BlackCab (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You cant seriously be attempting to put governmental agencies, which have executive powers in the same category as the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. That's a stretch, even for you. Let me spell this out for you as simplistically as I can as to why require is not only a bad choice of wording here, but actually entirely incorrect. There are a limited number of circumstances that arise when the congregation has the ability to require anything of an individual, whom Jehovah's Witnesses believe is given by Jehovah God a free will to choose their own individual course of action. Those times are limited to occasions when the congregation has a decision to make, such as an individual requesting to be baptized and recognized publicly as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. They must demonstrate that they meet certain requirements that are laid out to qualify for baptism. However, once the individual is already baptized, they are not required to do anything, as they have a personal choice to make as to whether they as individuals will live up to the dedication that they as individuals have made. The congregation at that point can only admonish them to live up to that dedication, reminding them of the obligation they have taken upon themselves. If the person somehow becomes disfellowshipped due to some bad course of behavior, they again, before any reinstatement takes place, must meet certain requirements to demonstrate that they have repented of that course of action, because again a decision rests in the hands of the congregation as to whether to reinstate the individual or not. The same is the case in an individual reaching out for the office of an overseer or ministerial servant. They must meet certain requirements to become eligible to attain that office. However, once they have been appointed to that office, they are admonished to continue in the course that lead to them being entrusted with such responsibility. If they fail to do so, they can be removed from that office, and would thus face making changes that would meet the requirements for being appointed to that office before they can again attain it. The same is also true for those seeking to broaden their ministry and serve as full time missionaries, special pioneers, pioneers and auxiliary pioneers. There are certain hourly service time (hours in ministry) requirements that these individuals commit to, exercising their own freedom of choice to do so. After their application for such service commitment has been approved however, the congregation can only admonish them to live up to the commitment they have made as individuals, they cannot require that they do so. If however, they demonstrate that they regularly fail to meet their commitment, the congregation does not have to approve a future application to serve in such a capacity, though, I personally have never seen an instance where an application to serve as a pioneer or as an auxiliary pioneer has ever been rejected. The point is, the congregation can only lay out requirements in advance as a qualification that the individual must meet, such as living a moral lifestyle, being the husband of only one wife, etc.. It cannot require individuals to adhere to these things after a decision has been made, only admonish them, remind them of their obligation. In the case of serious sin, the congregation must take action to keep the congregation clean up to and including a disfellowshipping action. However, disfellowshipping is not the result of failing to meet some requirement, but a failure to continue in the things learned after the requirements have been met. It is in fact a failure to heed the admonishment given by the congregation to live up to the dedication one has made to Jehovah. That is why require is the wrong word here, because it is simply incorrect. Willietell (talk) 05:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you're becoming rude and belligerent again. I have shown above that the Watch Tower Society repeatedly instructs members that they are obliged to preach. Drivers are similarly obliged to have a licence. I am obliged to pay taxes. The Catholic Encyclopedia (quoted approvingly in The Watchtower) similarly says JWs are under this "fundamental obligation". Look that word up in the dictionary and tell me if "requirement" isn't a definition. So let's stick to what the sources say: Jehovah's Witnesses are obliged to preach. BlackCab (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That you would accuse me of something additional is not surprising, as it seems to me that I am constantly being accused by certain editors of just about anything imaginable, still I have been neither rude nor belligerent to you. I have attempted to present you with an intelligent argument as to why I have the view that the word you insist upon using is a bad choice, I completely expected this type of response from you however, because your desire to use "require" seems more related to POV pushing than proper usage. Perhaps additional input from other editors in an attempt to reach consensus is in order, because I don't think that the two of us will ever see eye to eye on this matter. I am not sure just how to go about opening a RfC, therefore, perhaps some more knowledgeable editor could provide help with the process. Willietell (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, you are required to pay taxes and have a drivers licence because a governmental authority exercising executive police powers has the ability to imprison you if you do not. This is not in any way the same circumstances as a person who has made a personal decision to join a religious organization. You don't have any input as to whether you pay taxes, the government tells you that you will, they require it of you, and under threat of executive power you will comply or you will be imprisoned. The same holds true for being licensed to drive or as in some countries, requirements to vote,(something that in some instances Jehovah's Witnesses have been imprisoned for refusing to do). In the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, a person has a choice, no one is under some forced requirement to remain part of the congregation, they are free to leave of their own accord at any time. Their decision to stay as a member is a personal choice, barring disfellowshipping for reasons of unrepentant gross misconduct. Additionally, I think I have already well supported the fact that an obligation is not the same thing as a requirement, because an obligation is something someone is obliged to do or should do, but still something they may fail to do, while a requirement is something they must do, an action which they have no other alternative but to perform. You are therefore comparing apples to oranges, so to speak, and your example is without merit. Willietell (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to define "requirement" as something that carries official sanctions, which is not true. Male diners in a restaurant may be required to wear a tie; children staying at a weekend camp may be required to turn lights off at 10 o'clock. The absence of an official punishment doesn't weaken the requirement. But if you accept that Witnesses are obliged to preach, then we will replace "required" with "obliged", a word both WTS and non-WTS sources agree on. That way no one is interpreting what an "obligation" is. BlackCab (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Male diners in a restaurant may be required to wear a tie", but if they don't they will also be denied service by that restaurant. "Children staying at a weekend camp may be required to turn lights off at 10 o'clock", again however, if they fail to do so, a monitor will perform that action in their stead. The insertion of obliged here would display a rather clumsy use of the English language, unless it were followed by a short definition, such as stating: "Jehovah's Witnesses are obliged, or duty bound to "give witness" (preach), with baptism permitted only for those who demonstrate "regular and zealous" participation" because the word obliged seems to be somewhat falling out of use in the modern vernacular and might not be completely understood by the passive reader. I feel that the use of admonished better supports the sentence, however, if we include "or duty bound" as stated in the example, I will find that acceptable. Willietell (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of the word is below and it's quite clear; there is no implication of consequences, as you suggest. The suggestion that "obligation" is "somewhat falling out of use in the modern vernacular and might not be completely understood by the passive reader" is one hell of a stretch, even more so from a person who has pushed so hard for the word "admonish" which would rarely be used in any normal conversation, and is probably being suggested only as a euphemism.

Let's not forget that "required" was in the sentence only because it initially referred to what Holden noted as a key difference between JWs and other Christian groups: namely that JWs don't just get baptised and attend church passively, they get baptised and demonstrate for the rest of their life that they are active evangelists. That sentence has been reduced to a simple reference to "give witness (preach)", which rather blunts Holden's statement. My preference is to return to what all those Watchtower and Catholic Encyclopedia references are trying to impart, which is that the WTS tells members that once baptised, they are under an obligation to preach. Your latest suggestion still misses the point. My suggestion would be: "Jehovah's Witnesses are told that once baptized, they have an obligation to "give witness" by participating in both organized and spontaneous evangelizing and proselytizing work." This is an accurate representation of what the WTS itself tells; surely you don't see that as "POV spin". BlackCab (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

obligation A social, legal, or moral requirement, duty, contract, or promise that compels someone to follow or avoid a particular course of action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Even Holden (who was a demonstrably incompetent researcher/writer) explicitly states on page 71 that "individuals are concerned that ministering to others is what Jehovah requires"; that's a widely- not universally-held feeling rather than policy. Furthermore, Holden on page 72, rather than use "required" explicitly uses the term "expected"; I've now used that latter term in the article (see diff).--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was necessary or relevant to claim that Holden is "a demonstrably incompetent researcher/writer".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And I'm not sure it was necessary or relevant to comment on the necessity or relevance of my claim that Holden is "a demonstrably incompetent researcher/writer"; BTW, refs for that here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A very interesting read, I would like to take some time and look at it later, is there anyway I can mark that archive for future reference? I don't know if this can be done and the link will be hard to remember off the top of my head. Willietell (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

First, lets clarify one point, I didn't state that obligation was falling out of use, I stated that obliged appeared to be. I realize the words are connected, so perhaps you misunderstood. Further, I can agree to your suggested rephrasing of the sentence if you drop a couple of POV pushing spin words and make the sentence as follows:

"Jehovah's Witnesses, once baptized, have an obligation to "give witness" by participating in both organized and spontaneous evangelizing and proselytizing work."

It is thus simple, straight forward, accurate and lacking the attempt to maneuver the reader with a POV interpolation. If this isn't acceptable in your eyes, then perhaps it is simply better to proceed with opening a RfC and get additional input. Willietell (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The word expected is accurate and sourced. Additionally, your suggested wording is problematic because regular preaching is also expected of prospective members as a criterion for getting baptised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with "expected" to preach. I am probably happier with Willietell's suggestion, though it does leave unanswered the question of why they have this obligation (answer: because the WTS says they do), but that's a small matter. While Jeffro is correct that baptism candidates must also preach, the following clause in that sentence, "with baptism permitted only for those who demonstrate "regular and zealous" participation" covers that. Both are infinitely better than introducing the rather quaint euphemism "admonish". Both can also be directly sourced. Willitell might also note that WP:CON states that Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. The wording "Jehovah's Witnesses are required to express their belief in the religion's doctrines by participating in both organized and spontaneous evangelizing and proselytizing work ..." etc has been in the article since at least August 2010. There was clearly a long-held consensus over that wording until he decided in February 2012 that it was offensive. BlackCab (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Willietell's suggested wording above omits the additional clause. The current wording is fine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro, for the sake of clarity: do you prefer the "expected" option or the "obligation" option? BlackCab (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I prefer expected. Obligation—obligation to whom? to God? to the WTS? moral obligation? legal obligation?—seems slightly more ambiguous than expected. In the context of the article, it seems natural to interpret expected as referring to an expectation of the religion, i.e., its leadership.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

An obligation to Jehovah, and this can be referenced to the citation provided by BlackCab which is:

Young People Ask, (pg 174): "The prime obligation for Christians today is to preach the Kingdom message. And youths who take seriously their obligation before God feel compelled to have as full a share in this work as possible — even if they are not naturally inclined toward preaching."

The sentence could therefore read: Jehovah's Witnesses, once baptized, feel they have an obligation before God to "give witness" by participating in both organized and spontaneous evangelizing and proselytizing work.

An additional source provided by BlackCab could also be relied upon, it is:

Organized to Do Jehovah's Will, (pg 78): "It would be the same with all others who respond to Jesus' invitation to 'come be my follower', even down to this day. All who respond have a divine commission to preach the good news of the Kingdom and make disciples."

As this source indicates that Jehovah's Witnesses consider preaching an obligation that results from a divine commission from God.

This is in line with the source and carries no agenda, it is simply a statement of fact. Willietell (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If obligation is to be inferred as an obligation to Jehovah, then in that case it is far more neutral to use expected.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, could you explain your reasoning on your position that "If obligation is to be inferred as an obligation to Jehovah, then in that case it is far more neutral to use expected", because I would like some insight into your thinking. The sources clearly indicate that the obligation is to Jehovah. If you wish to state that they are reminded of this obligation by the congregation, I think admonished is the proper word, if however the sentence is simply pointing out that they feel they have an obligation, then I think it is simpler to just use obligation rather than insert some other word unnecessarily. Willietell (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Whilst most JWs may feel they have an obligation before God to preach, the article can't speak for all members. It is therefore more neutral and accurate to simply state that they are expected to do so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Simply another reason that Admonished is the better fit in the sentence, it covers all disputed aspects from a NPOV. Then sentence could therefore read:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are admonished by the congregation to take part in the preaching activity by participating in both organized and spontaneous evangelizing and proselytizing work."

This would clarify the point and eliminate the POV euphemisms of required and expected. Willietell (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim that 'expected is a euphemism' seems to be merely retributive in nature in response to an earlier statement about the word admonish. Expected is quite specific, accurate and sourced, and the word's plain meaning is unambiguous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as a small side point, admonished is not a "rather quaint euphemism", it is a word in the English language which carries a very specific meaning that is not entirely conveyed through the use of other singular words, this is why it is the best choice, because there are few alternatives which carry the full force of the word admonished, which in this case means to urge to a duty. But that is taking us full circle, and I don't wish to rehash past discussion, only explain that the word is not used as a euphemism. Willietell (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your latest proposal takes us back to square one, for which there was no support from any other editor. To be accurate in describing the imperative or motivation for Jehovah's Witnesses' preaching work, the wording must reflect the fact that it is part of the JW teaching that once baptised, Witnesses must preach because it is expected of them by God. The repeated use of the word "obligation" by the WTS emphasises this expectation, or requirement. I don't want to start another argument over "POV spin", but if you read again the statements by both Holden and the Catholic Encylopedia you get a very clear picture by outsiders (and thus free of any coded language of the WTS) that there is a very clear difference between the JWs and other Christian denominations on this point. Baptist and Church of Christ ministers may urge members to give a good Christian witness by their moral and honest conduct and spontaneous comments to friends and neighbours about the role of Jesus in their lives. The word "admonish" could very well apply to that urging, but there is no peer or organisational pressure to give that witness. Jehovah's Witnesses are quite different, as Holden, the Catholic Encyclopedia (and of course the WTS) recognise.

I know you don't like the words "require" or "expect" in this context for reasons you've explained. I accept that "require" is not the best word. Either we leave it as it is, with "expect", or find an acceptable sentence that encapsulates the WTS wording of "obligation". I have always had serious reservations about use of the phrase "Jehovah's Witnesses believe ...." in an article because realistically some JWs remain members but (quietly) do not agree with all teachings. But I think at some point one must accept that there is an official JW "belief" or creed, and in this case I wouldn't object to a sentence that said "Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are under obligation to God to "give witness" by participating in both organized and spontaneous evangelizing and proselytizing work ..." Hopefully we're moving closer to resolution, but it would be helpful as we aim for consensus if you accepted that "admonish" is not a term that is attracting any support. BlackCab (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I can agree to BlackCabs suggested wording of "Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are under obligation to God to "give witness" by participating in both organized and spontaneous evangelizing and proselytizing work." Willietell (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's better, but it's acceptable. Is the intention to retain with baptism permitted only for those who demonstrate "regular and zealous" participation at the end of the sentence, to put it in a separate sentence, or to exclude it??--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the wording "Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are under obligation to God to "give witness" by participating in both organized and spontaneous evangelizing and proselytizing work." is somewhat awkward, and it wrongly implies that a Witness is obliged to participate in both formal and informal witnessing. For now, I've merely removed the word "both".--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Truth In Research, or Fear Thereof

After attempting to add accurate and up-to-date information regarding the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, only to see it repeatedly revert to use phrases and words no Witness uses on a regular basis, I've come to the conclusion that some people have a tremendous difficulty handling the truth of the matter directly from the source.

This simply indicates what has been known all along: Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses, even at their best, cannot operate in a fair and just matter in their critique of the beliefs, actions and structure of the Witness organization. To some, it's far more important for them to tear something down rather than offer something of equal or greater substance in return.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwramirez (talk • contribs)

The article should not be filled with 'words Witnesses use on a regular basis' (also known as jargon). This is an encyclopedia, and it uses common language to present information as it is reported in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a Watchtower article. There is no need to make paranoid claims about "opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses".

You are welcome to indicate anything that you believe to be untrue in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In particular, articles should not contain tenuous opinions, such as your claim that Jesus described JWs as being "separate from the world" (Jesus never described JWs as anything); articles should not present JW interpretations of scripture as if they are the only interpretation (in fact, interpretations of religious texts as primary sources should not be used at Wikipedia at all), such as your opinions about what the Bible 'clearly indicates' or JW interpretations about shunning. It is also not neutral to make claims JWs necessarily "lead happy and fulfilling lives" as if to imply that living happy lives is in some way dependent on attending JW conventions. You also attempted to remove various existing citations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Pwramirez, your edits weren't "accurate and up-to-date." They were largely unsourced opinion, which is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. Among these were:

Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to remain "separate from the world" as Jesus described them as being. (Jesus never referred to Jehovah's Witnesses.)
Members practice a Bible-based moral code which clearly indicates that premarital and homosexual sex, adultery, smoking, drunkenness and drug abuse are things God finds detestable. (I know of no Bible texts that "clearly indicate" God finds smoking and drug abuse to be detestable. JWs interpret certain scriptures to draw this conclusion.)
Spiritual cleanliness within congregations is maintained by a system of judicial committees. (You changed the sentence that stated correctly that "discipline" is maintained by the JCs. Judicial committees are commonly formed to investigate and pass judgment on JWs who have conscientiously dissented from JW doctrines. That has little to do with "spiritual cleanliness.")
The removal of those that fail to follow the Bibles' strict moral code from the Christian congregation is in line with the the scripture at 1 Corinthians 5:13 where the apostle Paul admonishes those within the congregation to " “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.” (That may be so, but JWs also use that scripture as a basis for the removal of members who breach rules the organization creates, including a prohibition on blood transfusions, the celebrating of birthdays and maintaining contact with a disfellowshipped or disassociated JW. Only JWs regard those things as "wicked" and worthy of that individual's extermination at Armageddon.)
...meetings are based on pertinent and timely Bible topics that are designed to help the members of the congregation lead happy and fulfilling lives while dedicating their time and efforts to the sanctification of God's personal name, as directed by Jesus at Matthew 6:9,10. (The first phrase is opinion. Reference to the "sanctification of God's personal name ... etc" is not correct. Jesus began the Lord's Prayer with the words "You should pray like this" (JB) or "You must pray, then, this way." (NWT). There was no "direction" to Christians. Jesus did not there, or anywhere else in the NT, refer to "God's personal name". And "sanctification" is a current JW doctrine. A few generations ago WTS publications focused on the "vindication" of God's name. That was an interpretation (now evidently incorrect), just as the sanctification doctrine is an interpretation.)

You complained that "some people have a tremendous difficulty handling the truth of the matter directly from the source". Hopefully this brief critique of your edit will explain why your statements can't be accepted as being either true or directly from the source.

I notice that your one previous edit was in 2008,[26] when you expressed your opinion about an elder's handbook. That too, was clearly unacceptable. Despite your suggestion, Wikipedia isn't an anti-JW club. New editors are always welcome, but there are some basics of article content with which you should first familiarise yourself. BlackCab (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)