Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Jehovah's Witnesses. 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 5

←

Archive 7

→

section deleted due to slant

DELETED TEXT: 'The local congregation of Jehovah Witnesses most often seen in an neighbourhood is called a Kingdom Hall. The main governing Body of Jehovah Witnesses with "absolute power" is Headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. This is called the Watchtower". Their governing Body is lead by a president and a group of men known as "The Governing Body". This group oversees every aspect of the organization including the material that is written for the periodicals and the study books. "The Watchtower" claim that they are an organization directed by God. Since 1931, the name for Jehovah Witnesses has been officially "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society". Some refer to it as just "the Society". Their legal name is: the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.'

I agree that this was a bit POV, but the info seems good, so could someone reword it and replace it within the article? Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 11:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Sam this information is already included in the articles and appropriate links to these articles are included in the proper places. If the anonymous editor who icluded these comments (and other more overtly slanderous comments on another page) had read through them, it would have been obvious. I am sure you were wishing all the persons who are not JW's in this discussion a "Merry Christmas"!

Wink

best regards

george 19:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And to the JW's a merry life! I really reaaaallly really think the content of the above needs to be in this article. Can somebody edit it to be more sympathetic and positive and add it back in? Tom - Talk 18:20, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Tom, no can do. This content is really problematic. What isn't wrong is poorly worded. The little bit that is left is already in the article and/or linked articles!!!

But in the spirit of full-disclosure, here's a point-by-point for you:

TEXT: The local congregation of Jehovah Witnesses most often seen in an [sic] neighbourhood is called a Kingdom Hall.

COMMENT: Kingdom Halls are buildings, congregations are made up of people. Poor wording aside, these points are already covered. In addition to the references to Kingdom Halls in the various articles related to JWs, there is even a separate article for just this subject! (See linked article). There is a nice description of Congregations in the Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses article.

TEXT: The main governing Body of Jehovah [sic] Witnesses with "absolute power" is Headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.

COMMENT: The worldwide headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses IS in Brooklyn, NY. There is a nice description of the Governing Body in the Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses article. That "absolute power" stuff is nonsense. Only God has absolute power. One can only guess at what this is supposed to mean. I don't guess.

TEXT: This is called the Watchtower".

COMMENT: What is the "This" to which the editor is referring? None of the nouns in the previous sentence are called "Watchtower" by JWs.

TEXT: Their governing Body is lead by a president and a group of men known as "The Governing Body".

COMMENT: Besides the fact that this sentence is confusingly worded it's also not accurate. Only legal entities have presidents. Again, I refer you to the description of the Governing Body in the Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses article. Also see the Legal instruments subsection in the same article.

TEXT: This group oversees every aspect of the organization including the material that is written for the periodicals and the study books.

COMMENT: This is more-or-less true and is approximately how it is already described under the Governing Body section of the Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses article. Are you noticing a trend here?

TEXT: "The Watchtower" claim that they are an organization directed by God.

COMMENT: Strictly speaking, The Watchtower is a magazine. Last time I checked, inanimate objects can neither make claims nor are they "an organization". If the editor meant the "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" (WTB&TS) then he should have said so. But then he'd still be wrong. The WTB&TS is one of several corporations (legal instruments) that are in use by Jehovah's Witnesses. They deal with legal issues and represent the interests of the religious organization.

Worldwide, Jehovah's Witnesses are called "Jehovah's Witnesses" in their local language. This worldwide Christian religion does claim that they are an organization directed by God. This point is implied in the first sentence of the intro to the main JW article. Perhaps it could be more explicitly stated somewhere. Suggestions?

TEXT: Since 1931, the name for Jehovah Witnesses has been officially "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society".

COMMENT: No, since 1931, the name for Jehovah Witnesses has been "Jehovah Witnesses". This point is already made in the Origins section of the main JW article. In every country and land on earth we are known by that name in the local language. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania was founded in 1881. So we have some serious date confusion here!

TEXT: Some refer to it as just "the Society".

COMMENT: This is true, but it is a relatively unimportant bit of JW slang. Is it really appropriate to an encyclopedic entry? I think not.

TEXT: Their legal name is: the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

COMMENT: Similar to points discussed above. This point and related topics are more fully and accurately discussed in both the Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses articles.

So when you sort through it all there are only two new points for possible addition to the article:

1 - JWs claim that they are an organization directed by God.

2 - JWs refer to the WTB&TS as "the Society" for short.

Again, I think the first point is already implicit in the article, but if you (or anyone else) think it's worthy of inclusion, then I'm all for it. (Don't most religions believe they are directed by God?) Where would you place it in the article and how should it be worded? Regarding the second point, as it is just a JW nickname for the WTB&TS, I don't see that it warrants inclusion in any of the WP articles. I have no objection to it, just don't see a reason for it.

I'm not trying to bite the newbies, or any other contributor for that matter. But if someone wants to add something, then they should have something to add, not just a re-hash of existing content thoughtlessly inserted whereever their cursor happens to land. Also, it should be accurate and meaningful. Finally, some thought to clarity of wording would be nice. I hope this helps! Oh, and thanks for the wishes for a merry life; sending the same back at you!!! --DannyMuse 19:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Danny. Thanks for "deleting" and commenting on the article discussed above. When I saw it I (temporarily!) gave up! There were so many inaccuracies that I thought it would be obvious to even the casual reader that the text didn't make any sense! Thanks for taking the time to sort it! Regards --JW-somewhere 16:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chitchat Link Moved to Talk Page

On 28 Dec 2004 146.145.27.99 added the following link to the Main Article. As it is a self-styled "Chitchat" page it seemed, only slightly, more appropriate for the Talk page (and totally inappropriate for an encylopedic listing):

Slippy's Jehovah's Witness Chitchat - A discussion forum for Witness and exWitness issues.

"Where the Beer's Cold, the Women are Hot and the Discussion is Flaming!!"

I'm not making this up, really! Discussion? Should we even bother? --DannyMuse 17:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alleged Criticism from the Scientific Community

There is a blurb in the article at the end of the Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses section that I find a bit troublesome. It reads:

Witnesses, like many mainstream Christian organizations, have drawn the criticism of [sic] the scientific community for their outright rejection of evolutionary theory.

While it may be that there has been some "criticism" from some because JWs do not accept the the theory of evolution of species, blurbs like this are a problem for several reasons. First, there is no source cited. How do we know this is true? Also, the "scientific community" is not as monolithic on this topic as this blurb suggests. (See the Intelligent Design article for some interesting reading on this point.) At any rate, any such criticisms would have to come from someone and should be so attributed. Without attribution, it is just a weasly assertion that perhaps should be deleted.

BTW, in case any aren't aware of it, JWs beliefs regarding the question of origins--Creation vs. Evolution--is discussed in the Creation and the Flood section of the Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses article.

So, can anyone document this assertion or cite a source? If not, should it be kept? Re-worded? Moved? Or just deleted? Discussion please! --DannyMuse 17:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could we try: Witnesses, like many mainstream Christian organizations, reject evolutionary theory.

Either that or delete it. george 19:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's a thought. But then it would no longer fit in the Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses section. While we're at it, what's the point here of including the "... like many mainstream Christian organizations ..." phrase? So it could be:

1 - Edited down to: Witnesses reject evolutionary theory.

2 - And moved up to the Beliefs and Doctrines section of the main article.

But then that's not really right. Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time. JWs certainly believe that things change. So, how 'bout this instead:

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that life on Earth, and indeed all things, were directly created by God. They do not accept the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Whaddya' think? --DannyMuse 20:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok so I jumped the gun and made an edit, sorry. I think moving it to the doctrines section is a good idea as all creationist groups curry the disfovar of evolutionsts.george 22:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

George, I'm slightly confused by your comment. (I'm guessing you made your edit to the article first and your comment later. And I don't like to guess.) I moved the statement to the Beliefs and Doctrines section of the main article as per your agreement, but modified it to my suggested text. I wasn't sure about your addition:

Particularly for their use of quotes from evolutionists in order to defend their position on creation.

What's your basis for this? --DannyMuse 07:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your guess was right Danny.

As to your query about: Particularly for their use of quotes from evolutionists in order to defend their position on creation.

I added that as an afterthought, it probably isn't neccessary. If you note these two sources you'll see why I feel that way: [1][2]

George, those articles were interesting. Thanks. But they reflect two writers opinions, that hardly consitutes the "the scientific community". --DannyMuse 17:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Danny. The writer says that... many mainstream Christian organisations reject evolutionary theory (re the creation of species etc)... Hmmm. I've got a problem here in this part of the planet (Earth) where most "mainstream" religions accept evolutionary theory! Or perhaps the writer really does mean Christian "organisations" and not Christian religions! Either way, evolution is a separate issue and arguments for and against should be, and are, discussed elsewhere. Apart from the mention of Jehovah's Witnesses position on this doctrine, further discussion is un-necessary in an article about Jehovah's Witnesses. --JW-somewhere 16:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JW-somewhere - Agreed. See the current edit where I've placed:

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that life on Earth, and indeed all things, were directly created by God. They do not accept the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection.

in the Beliefs and Doctrines of the main article. --DannyMuse 17:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

jan 1 edits

The following conversation was started on Jan 1, 2005 (george's time) by user:george m. The user danglick's comments are set completely to the left while user george m's comments are indented.

The user:danglick made several POV changes which were obviously negative. I reverted to an earlier version. george 04:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for making edits without posting here first. I must admit I did not see the comment at the beginning of the article that requested discussion.

In all honesty, however, I feel that the article does not come anywhere near to representing a neutral POV. The language and tone are nearly identical to JW PR material I've read.

Here are what I feel are the instances most in need of correction:

1. In the Opposition section, "criticism from those of other faiths" is listed right alognside "targeting of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Holocaust". These two items do not bear the slightest relation to each other.

Reply: I am sorry you feel that way but the title of the section is "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses" and the attitude and actions of the Nazis definitely counts as opposition. So do the attitudes and actions of many religious groups around the world.

For the sake of clarity, I'll respond in numbered points again.

1. The article mentions elsewhere that the Witnesses have been subject to mob action, etc. due to religious opposition. That's a fair statement. But to list "criticism" as worthy of mention right next to the Holocaust is a massive lack of perspective.

I am suggesting--as I did in my earlier edit--moving the material about being regarded as a cult and being criticized down to the second half of the section. It's more logically coherent that way too; first the section discusses violent persecution, then legal opposition, and then finally criticism and disagreement. Sound fair?

If you want to submit changes which divide the section into subsections then fine. please submit them here and we will all work to come up with a suitable solution

2. The paragraph about the name "Jehovah" is blatantly apologetic.

Reply:I am not sure if it "blatantly" apologetic, but it does need work.

2. I'm referring to the second full paragraph under Beliefs and Doctrines. I really don't see what purpose the paragraph serves, and the link to a JW apologetic brochure is IMHO inappropriate. The link could perhaps be included at the end of the article, although I think it would be redundant there since there is already a link to the main Watchtower site, which contains the brochure.

I do think the paragraph needs work but a link that explains in depth the reasons Jehovah's Witnesses take the stand they do on a matter is niether apologetic nor inappropriate. Please feel free to ask any admins about it.

So I'm still voting for removing the paragraph.

And I will have to argue against it. Please submit the changes you wish to see here.

3. The practice of disfellowshipping should characterized as "based on their interpretation of scripture", a neutral phrase, rather than "based on scriptural precedent", which implies agreement with the Witnesses' interpretation of scripture.

Reply:Actually, as you well know from being associated with JW's that this practice is based on a scriptural precedent. Perhaps we could wordit that way: "based on "A" scriptural precedent. The phrase "based on their interpretation of scripture" can obviously carry a negative tone implying that the scripture does not mean what it is believed to mean.

Thanks so much, Danglick, for contributing. I agree with you that in this context, "based on their interpretation of scripture" would be more in harmony with Wikipedia policies, because it attributes a position instead of taking a position. Of course, when attributing a position, it is important as georgem mentions to be sure we don't use loaded words. Also, in my opinion, even mentioning scripture here could be seen as superfluous since I think the position has already been established that JWs intend to be fully "scripture interpretation" based, and not based on any outside tradition or internal authority. george, do you have a wording that you think is an improvement? Tom - Talk 22:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

While I'm certainly open to compromise, I agree with Tom that the scripture is superfluous, which overlaps with my point above about the Divine Name paragraph. If we start presenting the justifications for various Witness beliefs, then fairness would require that we present counter-arguments as well, and the page becomes a theological discussion, rather than an encyclopedia article. I think the cleanest, most consistent solution is to avoid any argumentation or justification and simply describe what the Witnesses believe. Links to theological sites (pro and con) can be put at the end of the article.

But again, at a minimum, if we can simply change the wording "based on precedent" to something more neutral, that would be a good start, IMHO. --Danglick 02:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3. There's nothing negative about the phrase "based on their interpretation", although I'm open to "based on their understanding" or other neutral alternatives. It just recognizes the fact that many people understand that same scripture differently.

Please by all means let us know how other people understand this scripture, I know that other religions use this scripture to support the some practice JW's follow.

Hmm. See my comment above. Tom - Talk 22:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I could point out more, but I think that's enough for starters. Any thoughts?

--Danglick 17:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, why not submit the cahges you feel are needed here and they can be discussed.

george 23:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, I think that more changes are necessary, but let's try and work out a consensus on these first.

That is what wikipedia is all about. -- george

--Danglick 01:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, Danglick. Keep with us while we incorporate your perspective and insights. Tom - Talk 22:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom! --Danglick 02:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Opposition Section

Okay, here's a specific proposal for reworking the Opposition section. --Danglick 02:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a very practical suggestion. My only comment at this point is noted below. --DannyMuse 08:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Legal Material

First, create a separate section called Jehovah's Witnesses and the Legal System; this text is copied directly from the current article, with the removal of the redundant phrase "Christian Neutrality":

In the United States, many Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses have shaped First Amendment law. Significant cases affirmed rights such as these:

Right to Refrain from Compulsory Flag Salute - West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette
Conscientious objection to military service
Preaching in public (proselytizing)

Other court cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses had less favorable outcomes.

DannyMuse comment: The above sentence says "Other court cases ..." yet only one is cited. Perhaps it should say something like, "Not all court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses had favorable outcomes. For example ..." or maybe, "There was one case ..." --DannyMuse 08:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Olin R. Moyle v. Watchtower Headquarters Staff (1943) - After Moyle resigned from the Watchtower, the October 15, 1939 Watchtower contained an attack on Moyle, saying his resignation was full of lies and false accusations. Moyle sued for libel and won.

DannyMuse comment: Nevertheless, it is interesting that the substantive matter of the cases cited is markedly different. Most deal with Constitutional, public issues. The single "less favorable outcome" law suit cited involves a private dispute with an individual. Also, he (Moyle) sued the "Watchtower Headquarters Staff" not JWs as an organization. I believe these are very significant points. Consider the following paragraph. --DannyMuse 08:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

george - Perhaps a list of "freedom of speech" cases lost by the WBTS would be a better inclusion? I know they haven't won every case they've brought. The civil suit seems almost nonsensical in the context. george 16:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

danglick - Fair point. How's this for starters:

Cases that the Witnesses lost include:

Prince v. Massachussetts, where the Court held that the Witnesses' proselytizing was subject to child labor laws.

I know there are more; anyone want to add a couple? --Danglick 01:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this looks good. let's find more. BTW I like your solution to the "Jehovah" paragraph. george 00:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court had reviewed 71 cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization, two-thirds of which were decided in their favor. Most recently, in 2002, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society disputed an ordinance in Stratton, Ohio that required a permit in order to preach from door-to-door. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Witnesses.

Citation Dates & Details

Cite Your Sources - I urge any that are going to add citations of court cases/legal proceedings that the citations have sufficient details to allow corroboration. Good citations should include at the least:

Parties to the action
Venue (court which heard the case)
Date (year decided at least
Case number

For example:

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

319 U.S. 624

June 14, 1943

Note: Although the reference to West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette does not contain this information in the article itself, it is found on the linked webpage and therefore meets the standard of a good citation.

In other words, enter the complete reference information. To not include complete reference information is un-encyclopedic to say the least. It is important to identify good references that the reader can consult. As the WP Style Manual: Cite sources page says, "... this forces you to check your facts. The main point is to help the reader—cite whatever you think will be most helpful." - --DannyMuse 05:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would be my recommendation that ONLY CASES THAT RESULTED IN CURRENT LAW BE INCLUDED on the JW main article page. It would certainly be useful to have a separate page that has a history of significant legal proceedings involving JWs and/or the WTB&TS. I would be interested in working with anyone on developing that. Nevertheless, I do NOT believe it is helpful to list just any old cases involving JWs on the main page, particularly cases which have been later overturned. To do so gives the uniformed the wrong impression of the current status of whatever the issue is. Comments, suggestions? --DannyMuse 05:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the following references from the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Legal System section of the main article due to the fact that the citations lack sufficient details to allow corroboration. This is in accordance with the WP Cite Your Sources policy. If any one would like to add the appropriate details to make these citations complete and accurate then it would be easy to determine their value and place in the article.

Beginning of Deletion:

Cases that the Witnesses lost include:

Prince v. Massachusetts, where the Court held that the Witnesses' proselytizing was subject to child labor laws.

Cox v. New Hampshire, which held that the Witnesses' public marches, even when protected by the First Amendment, were still subject to "time, place and manner" restrictions

At the state level, People v Labrenz, in which the Superior Court of Illinois held that Witness parents could not prevent a blood transfusion from being administered to their baby, despite religious objections.

End of Deletion

Please see my (10 Jan 2005) comments at the beginning of this section for guidelines regarding good and useful citations. --DannyMuse 18:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Opposition Section

The remaining opposition section can be reformatted as follows:

Jehovah's Witnesses have often been the subject of religious and political controversy. Political and religious animosity against them has at times led to mob action and government oppression, including the targeting of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Holocaust.

Witnesses have been mentioned on lists of cults. Many criticize the organization's practice of excommunicating--termed "disfellowshipping"--members, based on scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. Jehovah's Witnesses whose family members have been disfellowshipped are discouraged from having social contact with the disfellowshipped family member except on extreme occasions, such as the death of a family member. This does not apply to disfellowshipped minor children living in the same house as Witness parents.

Many view door-to-door evangelizing as an invasion of privacy; some people even pretend to not be at home when the Witnesses stop by. Although uncommon, hate crimes have occurred against Jehovah's Witnesses because of their beliefs and practices. On the other hand, many people are cordial to the Witnesses.

Traditional, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians have criticized the Witnesses' rejection of mainstream Christian doctrines such as the Trinity. And many have been critical of the Witnesses' eschatology, including the belief that the "last days" began in 1914.

I would like to offer a different solution using almost the same wording but merging the second and fourth paragraphs proposed:

Traditional, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians have criticized the Witnesses' rejection of mainstream Christian doctrines such as the Trinity. And many have been critical of the Witnesses' eschatology, including the belief that the "last days" began in 1914. Many criticize the organization's practice of excommunicating--termed "disfellowshipping"--members, based on scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. Jehovah's Witnesses whose family members have been disfellowshipped are discouraged from having social contact with the disfellowshipped family member except on extreme occasions, such as the death of a family member. This does not apply to disfellowshipped minor children living in the same house as Witness parents. These differences have moved some religious groups to label Jehovah's Witnesses a cult.

My reason for this is that the "cult" sentence of the previously proposed paragraph has no relationship with the rest of the information, or if it does, no explanation as to how. Since only religious groups (to my knowledge) list JW's as a cult then naturally any comments on that point belong in the paragraph(s) discussing religious opposition.

george 21:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cults and Sects

FYI: Yesterday there was a special on the History Channel on the subject of Cults. Interestingly it called the religion started by Jesus of Nazereth the "most successful cult in the history of mankind." Apparently, "cult" status is in the eye of the beholder. --DannyMuse 05:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

George, I separated the paragraphs precisely because secular cult experts--e.g. Steve Hassan--also list the Witnesses as a cult, and disfellowshipping is one of their main reasons. I can add a little more explanatory material about that if you like, but I was trying to avoid being too derogatory. --Danglick 01:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, the website, Religious Movements: Jehovah's Witnesses, that Danglick added to the main article 7 Jan 2005 had this to say about cults:

Cult or Sect: Negative sentiments are typically implied when the concepts "cult" and "sect" are employed in popular discourse. Since the Religious Movements Homepage seeks to promote religious tolerance and appreciation of the positive benefits of pluralism and religious diversity in human cultures, we encourage the use of alternative concepts that do not carry implicit negative stereotypes. For a more detailed discussion of both scholarly and popular usage of the concepts "cult" and "sect," please visit our Conceptualizing "Cult" and "Sect" page, where you will find additional links to related issues. (Emphasis added)

Something to think about, isn't it! BTW, the actual title of the Steve Hassan webpage list which includes the Witnesses is "Cults and Other Groups of Interest". Note that this website makes this qualifying disclaimer at the top of the page:

The fact that these groups appear on this list does not necessarily mean they are a destructive mind control cult. They appear because we have received inquiries and have established a file on the group.

The fact that links for other organizations exist on this page does not mean that we agree with all of their viewpoints, or can verify that all of their information is true.

More stuff to think about, no? I suggest we be very careful before we go parading out a bunch of "experts". What is the purpose of including this information anyway? How does it help the article? Why is it important? --DannyMuse 02:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)--DannyMuse 01:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Danny, if you'd read Steve Hassan's book Releasing the Bonds, you'd know that he definitely considers the Witnesses to be a cult.

In harmony with NPOV, it's not up to us to decide whether the claim is true. The point is that it is a common criticism of the Witnesses, and thus deserves mention in the article. George said that he was only aware of this criticism coming from religious sources, so I gave an example to show that it comes from secular sources as well. That's all. --Danglick 01:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Danglick: I've been doing some research, particularly on [The University of Virginia's New Religious Movements Homepage]. There, Timothy Miller, of the University of Kansas, states in his essay, Religious Movements in the United States: An Informal Introduction:

“Cults” are usually defined by anticultists by lists of attributes they possess: they have charismatic leaders, they want your money, they demand high levels of involvement, they expect members to conform to certain behavioral patterns, and so forth. But such attributes are perfectly capable of belonging to groups that few would consider “cultic”—Catholic religious orders, for example, or many evangelical Protestant churches. If the term does not enable us to distinguish between a pathological group and a legitimate one, then it has no real value. It is the religious equivalent of “nigger”— it conveys disdain and prejudice without having any valuable content.

Thus academic students of nonmainstream religions generally quit using “cult” as a descriptive term. (Emphasis added)

Food for thought! :) --DannyMuse 06:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Danglick: So Steve Hassan "definitely considers the Witnesses to be a cult." That proves that there is at least one secular source that states that. You still haven't answered my questions:

What is the purpose of including this information?
How does it help the article?
Why is it important?

Danglick: I thought I had submitted my changes to the talk page, but apparently I didn't, so here goes again.

DannyMuse: I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of NPOV meaning "it's not up to us to decide whether the claim is true."

Danglick: I'm sorry you feel that way. The NPOV article clearly states: "The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."

DannyMuse: What exactly do you believe is the "dispute" relevant to this article?

DannyMuse: But more important than that is this, even if something is true it does not mean it is relevant or meaningful.

Danglick: Quite true. However, the claim that the Witnesses are a cult--or more technically, a high-control religion--is one of the things that almost all critics of the Witnesses--whether ex-JW, never-JW, Christian, or secular--will agree on. The article cannot ignore such a common and basic criticism.

DannyMuse: Danglick, the profile by the Religious Movements Homepage Project at the University of Virginia had this to say about the pop myth of Brainwashing & Mind-Control:

A quarter-of-a-century of scholarly research on why people join new religions has come to essentially the same conclusion ... -"brainwashing" is not a viable concept to describe the dynamics of affiliation with new religions. Defenders of "brainwashing" have used other concepts like "mind control" and "thought reform," but they have failed to produce a scholarly literature to support their claims. Thus, whatever euphemisms may be employed, the basic conclusion against the brainwashing thesis is not altered.

DannyMuse: Did you perchance read my 6 Jan 2005 comment above regarding the special on the History Channel on the subject of Cults? On it, one of the scholars interviewed called the religion started by Jesus of Nazereth the "most successful cult in the history of mankind." Apparently, "cult" status is in the eye of the beholder.

Danglick: Again true. And that is why the article does not take a position on whether or not the Witnesses are a cult. It simply states that they have been included on lists of cults, which is an objective fact. --Danglick 23:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DannyMuse: Do you think we should include that quote in the WP article on Jesus and/or Christianity? If not, why not? Certainly, the "authorities" interviewed on the History channel have equal or better credibility than Mr. Hassan. The show most definitely has broader impact and influence! --DannyMuse 08:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Danglick: Since the mention of 'cult' appears to be the only remaining controversy, I have gone ahead and edited. I neither added nor removed any references to cults, just kept the one that was there. We can continue to try to reach a consensus on any suggestions for improvement. --Danglick 23:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would phrasing such as this be useful? There is, by the way, an entire article about the Mormonism Controversy. And I would think that the JW Controversy merits an article too. Tom H. 15:45, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Those who practice Mormonism call themselves Latter Day Saints because they believe that the Latter Day Saint movement is a restoration of the original church of Christ in the New Testament (see Church of Christ (Mormonism)). However, as Mormonism from its beginning rejected the traditional churches, including all their sacraments, history, creeds, and debates, so various Christian churches and movements have adopted stances regarding Mormonism as a heretical or apostate form of Christianity, a departure from the Christian faith, or more pejoratively, a cult."

Tom, as always, a practical suggestion! --DannyMuse 16:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)