Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Candace Conti-case

The Candace Conti-case was added to the "Handling of sexual abuse cases"-section. I removed the whole thing. It could be relevant, and an eventually Supreme Court case would out of question make the case on it's own relevant, but the edit didn't include Wikipedia standards when listing up sources, used outdated sources (the punitive damages was by the court heavily reduced), failed to mention the case is appealed, and added a conclusion that needs a reference at it's own. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This case should definitively be there, with the latest news. Could someone put it back and update it? --170.148.215.156 (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have restored and cleaned up the paragraph. The court documents are a matter of public record.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You did it quickly and well. Thanks! --170.148.198.156 (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I still have doubts this case is relevant to the main article about JW. Despite the media attention: The relevance for the statements is probably limited to a final result in Watchtower Inc's disfavor; otherwise this will just be another failed suit. If the case is settled or ends up in plaintiffs disfavor, it is just one of many cases. Or am I completely wrong? Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr, I think it's ok to speak about this case here, as it's quite recent, widely covered by the press and a very good example to illustrate the problem caused by the "internal justice" of the JW. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, was meant as an open question what to be counted as relevant to this topics main article. Actually I disagree on this to be "a very good example to illustrate the problem caused by the 'internal justice' of the JW", because the core in this case is a) weather Watchtower Inc. followed the laws when the molesting found place twenty years ago (plaintiffs point), and b) whether Watchtower Inc. is responsible for the actions of a random raf-member (defense's point), and not about JW's current practice. The case itself is raising interesting issues, but it is misleading to use the case to prove a vague (and easily disproved) point about criticism of JW's current practice regarding child sex abuse. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is User:Fazilfazil. I am at office and forgot my login, so using a radom username to hide my IP. User:jeffro77 has reverted some of the edits of mine claiming that the amount was reduced based on an appeal. An appeal is only made to a higher court, the verdict was reduced by a motion. A motion is just a legal procedure followed widely in the same court. The initial verdict was given by a jury based on sheet of paper as directed by the Judge. However the Judge is the final authority in a lower court and he did found the amount as too much. Also the reason for giving damage is primarily for WT soceity not disclosing the voluntary confession by the member. The statement added after "or" in that para is not correct, since they are not required to report as per law and its not found in judgment. (This case will turnaround most likely from a legal perspective and plaintiff might need to pay the legal expense at last. Much hype is made by apostates but history says JWs have very few instances of anybody winning a case again them regarding the subject. And the possibility of they losing financially is much less since most corporations take liability insurance.) I am no longer interested in reverting edits but if any honest editors find it useful they can contribute. More information regarding the subject is found at recent argument in Australia. [1] Thanks

I have made a minor change in relation to your objection based on semantics. Your use of the word primarily is not pertinent, as concerns about disclosure to authorities is an aspect specifically presented in the case. Your speculation about what might happen is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear how the submission to the Inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other organisations in Australia is relevant to the Conti case, nor does the submission itself contain any conclusions reached by the Australian inquiry.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your infatuation with the JW buzzword "apostates" is noted, but is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment about "WT soceity not disclosing the voluntary confession by the member" implies that the finding is a violation of clergy-penitent privilege, however this is misleading for two reasons, both raised in the court case:

1. JWs supposedly have no clergy class.
2. Confessions by members to 'elders' are not kept confidential, but are revealed to other elders, and other personnel at Watch Tower headquarters including the Society's lawyers who act in the interests of the Watch Tower Society and not the penitent or the victim.

The claim that 'apostates' raise 'hype' is also not supported by the suggestion that JWs have not often been found guilty, which more likely is a factor of information that is withheld by the Watch Tower Society from law enforcement personnel, also borne out by this case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note 2 is a controversial third party critical opinion

Resolved

Note 2 is the critical opinion and commentary of a third party. It does not belong on this page as a note or otherwise. It belongs on the page dedicated to the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. If there is a WTB&TS article to be cited, then cite it, instead of citing a third party's opinion. --Corjay (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Franz cites Watch Tower publications, which form the majority of the 'note'. Additionally, Wikipedia articles should not rely on primary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I find this to be biased and inflammatory. Is there nothing against such critical citations as "reliable sources", especially when it comes to disaffected ex-compatriots who are known for twisting the facts to suit their agenda of opposition? The only thing it can be counted on as reliable in regards to is demonstrating that a controversial criticism exists. You might as well include a third-grader's report on the Civil War with dinosaurs and rocket ships.--Corjay (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have simplified the note. Your analogy about a third grader bears no resemblance to a former high-ranking member of an organisation. In any case (and as already stated), the note is (and was) a collection of statements by the Watch Tower Society collated by Franz.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction, the original note referencing Franz was him providing an inflammatory claim suggesting not only the frequency, but the effect of that frequency. Thank you for the adjustment. --Corjay (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Note 4 is a controversial third party critical opinion

Resolved

As with note 2, this is a third party critical opinion and commentary belonging on the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page. If there is a WTB&TS article to be cited, then cite it, instead of citing a third party's opinion.--Corjay (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Note 4 is in reference to the Failed predictions section under Criticism. It is therefore unsurprising that it includes a critical opinion. It is properly cited as such. It is unsurprising that a note about criticism of JWs does not cite a JW publication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I just realized this was already posted in the right section. Sorry for the trouble. --Corjay (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinion of Andrew Holden not a fact

The words "although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible" is an opinion and may be considered inflammatory. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I most certainly do not give the publications "almost as much weight as the Bible." That may be the view of an outside observer, but it is not fact. It is conjecture not shared by the membership. The membership's sole guiding publication is the Bible itself. We heed the publications of the WTB&TS as coming from shepherds with divine backing, not divine inspiration. I'm fine with the statement being in criticism, but seeing as it is not established as true, it does not belong in the Beliefs section. The publications are published by fallible men with an accounting to God and reflect the errors of men from time to time, if rarely, and the membership is kexpected not to contradict and also to speak in agreement, that does not mean they must always believe every word without question as is implied by the above statement. There are channels for airing disagreements through the elders, or through a letter to the WTB&TS, and we are instructed to wait on Jehovah to correct either us personally or the organization eventually. --Corjay (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that someone can 'air disagreements' is slightly irrelevant when the outcome is that the person must then 'wait on Jehovah' accept the current Watch Tower Society teaching anyway. Members may be shunned if they don't shut up after being told to 'wait on Jehovah'.

JW literature does not endorse members just going directly to the Bible for 'counsel'. Instead, members are told to consult the interpretations provided in publications of the Watch Tower Society (euphemistically identified as the "faithful and discreet slave"). For example:

• The Watchtower, 15 May 2011, page 5: "If you allow your decisions to be guided by what you read in the Scriptures and in publications of “the faithful and discreet slave,” you will experience the refreshing and stabilizing influence of Jehovah’s inspired Word."
• The Watchtower, 15 August 2011, page 30: "Before they make judgments respecting fellow believers, elders need to pray for the help of Jehovah’s spirit and depend on its guidance by consulting God’s Word and the publications of the faithful and discreet slave class."
• The Watchtower, 15 February 2012, page 27: "When facing a challenge, it is important to seek Scriptural counsel from publications of the faithful and discreet slave class and from the elders."
• The Watchtower, 15 April 2012, page 30: "One way we can benefit from Jehovah’s loving direction is through personal study. By means of the publications of the faithful and discreet slave class, Jehovah provides a wealth of Scriptural counsel."
• The Watchtower, 15 July 2012, page 26: "Each of us does well to ask himself, ‘Do I immediately apply everything I read in the Bible and in the publications of the faithful and discreet slave class, even when it requires making personal sacrifices?’"

It is therefore clear that JWs are expected to adhere to what is taught in Watch Tower Society publications, and not just the Bible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement make it clear that it is the observation, and viewpoint, of Holden. Your comments are loaded with JW jargon supporting the unquestioned acceptance of WTS dogma and your viewpoint is no more "fact" than his. He's a reliable source and his comment is valid. BlackCab (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, you may be one of the very very few that doesn't take an almost dogmatic view of what's in the publications. It's pretty much implied that you have too, I have never rad any publication that implies otherwise. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Those quotes only show that we get our direction from the publications. As you say, "adhere to what is taught". None of those claim the publications to be direct extrabiblical inspirations by God, which would be required in order for it to be taken as the "almost equal to the Bible". If a pastor of any religion tells you "The Scripture says...", does that mean the pastor's word is to be taken as the "almost equal to the Bible", or is he simply quoting the Bible and it is the Bible that is looked to as the inspiration? That is all the publications are doing. They are shepherding us by means of them, just as if with a talk. Nothing more. Inspiration can only be determined when a truth, such as the fact that the Bible doesn't teach hellfire or the Trinity, continues to stand tall through increasing understanding. In the far future, it may be determined that this and that publication from the organization proved to be the inspired word of God, but we can't make that claim at this time when we're still in the midst of receiving it. We can only take it as direction, as instruction, as guidance as coming from a shepherd, as from a person giving a talk. --Corjay (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me use an example, JW's don't watch rated R movies. It's defacto not allowed, why because of things like "Young People Ask", likewise nothing in the Bible says anything about holidays. Why are these not allowed? Because the society says they aren't, what would happen if one of the congregation members celebrated Thanksgiving, or some other holiday? They would be considered "bad association" and not allowed to take part in certain parts of that organization. I respect the fact that you choose to live by that religion but when the publications say something it is presented as defacto edicts, similar to papal bulls. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Holden didn't say anything about the publications being "inspired" (an ill-defined and unprovable term) or that the publications are "equal to the Bible". Those are irrelevant conclusions you're making on your own.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said he did, but it's required to put our publications on the same footing as the Bible.

All religious organizations have written precepts, without exception. Let's look at the statement "almost equal". It's a writing. It's scriptural. And it's spiritual. Technically any writing that follows that criteria could be called "almost equal to the Bible" because it's using the Bible. But to call it out as if we're somehow unique in that matter is unfair. What religious organization doesn't have writings with the same status that we give to our publications? So to call it out with us and not them is to imply that we are somehow sinning. Why are we somehow special in that regard? --Corjay (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm drastically mistaken or missing something, no other religion I'm aware of makes such a wide range and vast publishing efforts that the Watchtower society does. Maybe Scientology, and Mormonism. That makes it pretty unique. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Precisely! Do you not think that the sheer volume of our publications demonstrates that we take the medium for granted, not as one would for something as sacred as the Bible? We easily put down and disregard out-of-date publications. I should say that's a clear demonstration that we don't hold our publications in near so comparison to the Bible. --Corjay (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is also different because when you go door to door, you aren't just taking the bible you are taking a watchtower and awake, tract or special brochure. You will pull a bible out to show some vs but the meat and potatoes is the publications. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You actually think we use the publications that way because we hold them "almost equal to the Bible"? They are preaching tools. Pamphleted sermons. So when someone writes down a sermon it's automatically counted "almost equal to the Bible"? I don't think so. Whether I speak a prepared sermon or hand out a pamphlet with a sermon on it, it's still just a sermon. A sermon that directs the student to the Bible and instructs the student with the Bible and about the Bible, not in the publication itself. --Corjay (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the publications aren't the "meat and potatoes". The Bible is the meat and potatoes. The publications are merely the utincils used to cut it up and make it edible in small, digestible bites.

I know they are, without a doubt. 1914 is a good example, nothing in the bible says 1914 it says the "end will come as a thief in the night". The publications state it was the date that Christ came back and is taught as Dogma. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That's unfair to the onlookers, and you know it. That's well-explained in the publication, Daniel's Prophecy, and it uses ample Scripture references to explain it. We don't just claim "1914" as if we pulled it out of thin air as inspiration from God. We use the Bible to show it and well so. EVERY Christian sect attempts to explain prophecy. There's not one that doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corjay (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

But the key is that the publications are used to state this as fact, therefore any good witness will agree. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So now I'm not "a good witness" because you failed to prove your point, and every "good witness" would agree with you because you declare it? I think this discussion is over. --Corjay (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry what was meant is any good witness would agree. it's meant to prove a point how it is conveyed in the publications not towards you personally. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no difference. The discussion has ended. --Corjay (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are conceding the point you were trying to make? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You're dangerously close to harassment. Go any further with it and I'll report you. --Corjay (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually this is called discussion but if you feel strongly you can file that report here WP:ANI, don't forget to notify me when you're done. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not resolved. Please don't put the resolved note on this until it is. --Corjay (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are willing to discuss it? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't. Just don't pull any of that concession talk again. I've countered every point you made. If you have more, I'm glad to discuss it, as long as you don't rehash old points or harass me with concession talk. --Corjay (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, 1914 is not 'clearly explained from the Bible', nor did you get it "from thin air". It's a convoluted interpretation borrowed and adapted from the Millerites (mid-19th century) based on a bunch of cherry-picking of unrelated scriptures that can 'only be understood' by 'studying publications from the faithful slave'. In fact, you've had defend it by citing a Watch Tower Society publication, which well demonstrates the point Holden made that you are arguing about..--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And your opinion matters how? Question: Have you ever been one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Have you ever read the publication in question? --Corjay (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My opinion matters at least as much as yours does, except that your conclusions about Holden's statements are of your own imagination and are not what is stated in the article. Your other questions are irrelevant attempts at ad hominem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is not harassment, if you quit discussing it, that means that you were conceding that no changes will be made. If you still want to discuss then it isn't resolved. Do you have any sources that can show your point of view? You have countered every argument but without reliable sources it's only opinion. Also to answer your question, yes I was. I have participated in many events and given several talks as well as going out in field service. I even still read the publications and I absolutely love the dramas. I have a lot of respect for the people that choose that lifestyle, it's not an easy one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jeffro, they are particularly relevant. First: If you are a disaffected witness, then you are the LAST person that should be editing the Jehovah's Witness page because you CANNOT be objective. Only a person who has NEVER been a Witness and is NOT involved with an organization that opposes Jehovah's Witnesses can actually be objective. Secondly, if you are an ex-Jehovah's Witness or pretending to be a Jehovah's Witnesses, I will refuse to speak with you any further, as you should know, as it is mentioned on the page.

And it is important that if you have a comment on how we explain a prophecy, you need to be familiar with the prophecy. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air that means nothing.

Mine are not opinions. Mine is insider knowledge. I AM one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which qualifies me to speak on the matter. You are not.

Hell in a Bucket, I'm not speaking to you any further. That's not concession. That's being worn of you. And since you admit to be an ex-witness, for that reason alone I will not speak to you any further. No concession. --Corjay (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in superstitions about JW members being scared of talking to former members. I'm only interested in improving the article.

If you are a witness, then you are the LAST person that should be editing the Jehovah's Witness page because you CANNOT be objective. Only a person who has NEVER been a Witness and is NOT involved with an organization that supports Jehovah's Witnesses can actually be objective. (See what I did there...)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your statement exemplifies why we can't accept what you are stating. It's Original Research. Your statement also exemplifies why you shouldn't be in this discussion either, you're nuetrality is questionable just as you want to impugn Jeffro's. you can't cherry pick who is acceptable to work here and who isn't Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro77, I have not been editing the page and will make no attempt to. I am making an appeal for a qualified person to make the edit. You have edited this night. I'm in a discussion on the talk page about editing the page. There is nothing that disqualifies any of us from being able to participate in this discussion. But since Hell in a Basket is an ex-Jehovah's Witnesses, I will speak to him no further. Your refusal to answer the question of whether you are an ex-Jehovah's Witness is to me an answer in the affirmative, therefore, I will cease speaking with you about the organization or spiritual matters as well. (If you have never been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, then we can continue to tal.) That includes any further discussion on this page. Elsewhere about non-spiritual matters affecting a different page is a different story. If you have never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then it is because you hold such strong feelings regarding Jehovah's Witnesses that disqualifies you for lack of objectivity. --Corjay (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, you have something of a problem. I'd suggest that most people with sufficient interest to edit and improve this article do so because of an interest in the subject, probably because they are, or were, a JW. I am intensely interested in maintaining the standard of the article as an accurate and reliable information source and I am an ex-JW, and rely on Wikipedia policies to protect its integrity. Your religion's edict (found nowhere in the Bible) that JWs should not speak to ex-JWs creates rather a barrier to your interaction on this talk page. BlackCab (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, I will discuss wherever discussion happens to lead. As prevously stated, I'm not remotely interested in superstitions about who you can talk to and about what.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I just have one comment to this case: I've pointed out the initial issue mentioned by Corjay in an earlier discussion here on the talk page. In the Norwegian article I've included some kind of "rebuff" to the statement, as Rolf J. Furuli, who is a scholar (dr.) and a JW himself, had some interesting and colliding viewpoints, as it is mentioned in "his" section of Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie ("Jehovas Witnesses - An interdisciplinary study"), edited by Ringnes: "When critics therefore argue that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in 'the Bible and the Watchtower', as if the two were juxtaposed, this shows a lack of knowledge about Jehovah's Witnesses." (p. 161, in Norwegian) Furuli spend some room explaining the context between the Bible and Watchtower.

Regarding JWs/ex-JWs participating here, you can't oppose or deny someone in participating here, as long as contribution to the article is the purpose. You can though point out possible biases in this and related articles, like you've done here. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

May I just ask a question? What happens when the Bible says A and the Watchtower's publications say B? In that case, can a Witness go against the Watchtower unbiblical teaching and still be considered a JW? If not, then the WT's publications are really considered as having an equal value as the Bible itself. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted the last change that started a new discussion because this is directly related to the about the overall question about the Holden statement. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've anyway prepared an answear out of the same quote from Ringnes' book and my knowledge about JW. I think it is within this talks scope: ChercheTrouve asks the question like it is A as opposed to B. The example above, about R-rated movies, shows A as an option to B, but unlike neccessery being the opposition. The JW interpretation of this example, is made out of for them a logical line of reasoning, where the Bible says God hates the one who loves violence, and therefor a true servant for God should not be the one who loves violence. If violence and enterteinment is connected, is a comletely other issue, but JW believes the advices given by GB complies to Bible teaching. Whether A is opposing B is more likely a question about what the witnesses believes, rather than doing A in opposition to B. Furuli writes: "Each witness' relation to the Governing Body is comparable to Norwegian citizens relation to the [Norwegian] government. The government is obliged to follow Norwegian laws, and when regulations are being issued, we expect that they comply with the laws. (...) Similarly Jehovah's Witnesses expect that the Governing Body's organization of the congregations and their teaching program is fully consistent with the Bible and in the best interests for each of the individual members. But in the same way as the Norwegian law is standing over the Norwegian Government, the Bible stands over the Governing Body."

That reads like a yes and no answer. Can you be a little more concise or am I just that dense lol? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps something has been lost from the translation from Norwegian, but the intended meaning of the claim that 'the Bible and the Watchtower' are not "juxtaposed" is not clear, and doesn't seem directly related to Holden's statement. Watch Tower Society literature provides the JW leaders' interpretations of scriptures, including some abstruse interpretations about matters that are not directly mentioned in the Bible. I already provided quotes above from Watch Tower Society literature that convey the importance with which JWs are told to view Watch Tower Society publications.

Regarding ChercheTrouve's question, in most cases it is not as simple as "the Bible says A and the Watchtower's publications say B", but more akin to "the Bible says A and Watchtower's publications conclude that A also means XYZ." However, there are also cases (as with many religions) that it is more a case of "the Bible says A but the Watchtower says the Bible 'really means' B". In both situations, JWs are expected to accept what is published in Watch Tower Society publications.

For example, in 1968, Watch Tower Society literature provided interpretations from the Bible that organ transplants amount to "cannibalism", and JWs who accepted an organ transplant could be subject to shunning (Awake!, June 8, 1968, page 21: "Christian witnesses of Jehovah,... consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism.") In 1980, Watch Tower Society literature again provided interpretations from the Bible that organ transplants are acceptable, and that equating them with canniablism was only the view of "some Christians" (The Watchtower, March 15, 1980, page 31). (The 1 August 1961 issue of The Watchtower had previously also stated that organ transplants were permitted, but did not cite any scriptures for or against the procedure.) Though the Bible says nothing at all about organ transplants, in each case all JWs were required to accept what was published. Hence Holden's statement about Watch Tower Society publications being given "almost as much weight as the Bible" is accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The answer was already given in the last part of the very first paragraph in this discussion. I said, "the membership is expected not to contradict and also to speak in agreement, that does not mean they must always believe every word without question as is implied by the above statement. There are channels for airing disagreements through the elders, or through a letter to the WTB&TS, and we are instructed to wait on Jehovah to correct either us personally or the organization eventually." I have no problem with that myself. There's no conflict. I have had differing ideas and I eventually was either corrected or the organization corrected itself. There have been many instances where I waited and the organization was corrected. This has the result of strengthening my faith, not weakening it. It also strengthens my faith when I realize I myself was wrong. Jehovah has never failed to answer my prayers or my questions. At this time, every last question I ever had has been answered, and every last thing I disagreed on regarding the organization has been resolved...because I waited on Jehovah. Opposers that are ex-Jehovah's Witnesses are such because they didn't wait on Jehovah. God is not our creation, but we are his. --Corjay (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your personal experiences about how you believe your prayers have been answered have no bearing on the article, and your statement that JW teachings might be changed ('corrected') in the future has no bearing on the fact that JWs are told to accept whatever is taught in Watch Tower Society literature at the time. Further, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to provide your own theological opinions, particularly about the actions or motives of 'opposers', and especially about other editors. The fact remains that Holden's statement is accurate, as has already been demonstrated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro77's comment makes it look like the organization contradicted the Bible regarding organ transplants, but it didn't. The organization has left it up to our conscience regarding organ transplants BECAUSE the Bible DOES NOT SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT. That's merely making a statement that it is not their responsibility to restrict it. IF they restricted it, THEN it would be taking responsibility of doctrine. --Corjay (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No. That's not what I said at all. Go back and read what I actually said.

And they didn't simply say it was 'up to your conscience'. They said it was okay, then years later they said it was cannibalism, then years later they said it was okay again. All supposedly based on 'scriptural principles', but as you correctly point out, "the Bible DOES NOT SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

ChercheTrouve can now see that the organization corrected itself. Someone's prayer was answered, and everyone that waited on Jehovah was blessed. --Corjay (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about whether the organisation 'corrected itself' in 1961 when transplants were ok, or in 1967 when transplants were prohibited or in 1980 when transplants were okay again. Who knows, maybe it will be 'corrected' again to cannibalism. And at any particular time, whatever is the most current view in Watch Tower Society literature is what JWs must accept as 'truth'. This confirms the validity of Holden's point. The claim that a 'prayer was answered' and that 'everyone was blessed' are irrelevant theological opinions, particularly for the people who died waiting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My personal experience directly affects the answering of ChercheTrouve's question by giving a demonstration of how it has no negative effect on one following the counsel to wait on Jehovah. --Corjay (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The point behind it is at that time they were still expected to tow the line indicated in the publication even if it meant death and not disagree. The fact that it was fixed later is non sequiter it's the statements made in the publication that were expected to be followed. Before you get your panties in a twist I'm not saying right or wrong just the observation about the publication dictated what a "good witness" could do. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point it is clear that the discussion has devolved into nitpicking over whether one provides external proofs and picking at straws about this and that. Opposers are just trying to fit in every little question they can. I'm just going to tell you that I have an answer for everything the opposers have to offer and leave it at that, because I've already demonstrated that I do. (And of course one of the opposers is going to pick at that statement as well. What's new.) I'm not trying to convince anyone with proofs because this matter of ChercheTrouve's is completely meaningless to the discussion regarding Holden. The question has been asked and answered.--Corjay (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you are so very better then the stumbled. Have you ever considered that by not acting with humility and humbleness you help push that person a little further down the line? It really is hateful and hostile that sets a bad example for people that know nothing about the organization to see that. I really hope that you think about that, maybe discuss with your group of elders. Remember Jehovah sometimes acts through the people outside of the organization and this could be your correction for your attitude which is more akin to that of the rude person who berates you for preaching. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ta da! --Corjay (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously I mean that in total respect for the organization. Please talk about it with your body of elders, show them the thread. Just because I don't actively attend meetings doesn't mean I don't read the publications and occasionally go for a public talk and the memorial. I am also a member at jwbrothers.org. I'm not sanctioned by the Kingdom Hall either through reproof or disfellowshipping. Maybe take a break and calm down a bit. I think you're taking everything that's being said here as against the organization and it's not. It's just a disagreement about how the publications are conveyed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Corjay, but I don't understand you when you say that you have been "waiting on Jehovah". Do you mean by that that you where waiting on the Watchtower to change some of its teachings? Or do you mean the Bible was not clear enough and it had to be "clarified" by the Watchtower on some points? Can you please explain? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether by the organization correcting itself, or by my personal study of the Bible, or very often simply in prayer it hits me, or yes, even through a clarification in a publication, or I might simply view an explanation given in a publication in a new light, or in a talk from the platform, or in a discussion with an elder, or any number of ways. But if the organization is the one with the misunderstanding, then clearly I wait until the organization is corrected, but that's not as often as I'm the one in need of the correction. (No one knows everything about the Bible, its prophecies and meanings. Not even Jesus himself. Jehovah is the one who reveals those secrets in His own time.) --Corjay (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And Jehovah reveals his secrets not only from the Bible, but also from the Watchtower. Isn't it? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In essence it's not the watchtower, that's only the vehicle of conveyance the clarification comes from the Faithful and discrete slave. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is what Holden's statement actually says.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(juxtaposed was ment to translate "likestilt", side by side or equally worth, I think it may was better translated in the other tread) This ain't leading somewhere. Furuli's conclusion was, JW consider the Bible above the GB. The whole question whether JW preferes WT or the Bible, is all about interpretation of the Bible. To state that JW follows WT in the same way, or rather than the Bible, it depends of an easy answear what the Bible say or how it is should be interpretated. The core here is whether JW states their ambitions to follow the Bible or WT. Regarding the organs transplantation, it is not mentioned in the Bible, so an easy answear here, is, whatever JW believes regarding organ transplantations, it does not say anything whether they consider the Bible or WT to be the core source for their beliefs. The JWs change of understanding ('doctrine' is may more neutral) regarding this teaching, it is either way an expressed will of following the Bible. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought you meant (about 'juxtaposed'). But Holden doesn't say they're considered equal, so the comparison is not valid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I was considering the statement as presented in the article, not Holden's exact comment in the cited reference. However, aside from the ambiguous term "inspired" (which JWs give special meaning distinct from 'directed' (though they have never actually provided any practical distinction between the two supposed mechanisms), Holden's statement is accurate, and the way it is presented in the article is entirely fair.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21) "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial, for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) "For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and cuts even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of joints and their marrow, and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart." (Hebrews 4:12) "But his delight is in the law of Jehovah, And in his law he reads in an undertone day and night. And he will certainly become like a tree planted by streams of water, That gives its own fruit in its season And the foliage of which does not wither, And everything he does will succeed. The wicked are not like that," (Psalm 1:2-4) That's what we follow. I'll leave the interpretation up to you. --Corjay (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If I try to summarize: according to JWs, Jehovah provides direction via two main channels : the Bible and the Faithful and discrete slave (who uses the Watchtower to communicate). The Bible alone is not enough to understand Jehovah's will. It has to be completed by the FDS teaching that - like the Bible - comes from Jehovah. So if it's that way, then I think Holden is right when he says that the publications are almost as important as the Bible itself. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is very accurate. It is all based off the interpetation of what the bible says and then is communicated to the membership through the Watchtower or other publications. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"True, some are preaching the Christ through envy and rivalry, but others also through goodwill. The latter are publicizing the Christ out of love, for they know I am set here for the defense of the good news; but the former do it out of contentiousness, not with a pure motive, for they are supposing to stir up tribulation in my bonds. What then, except that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being publicized, and in this I rejoice." --Philippians 1:15-18 --Corjay (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As that previously called for uninvolved editor, I would like to suggest that about 90% of this discussion is inappropriate. This is not the place to argue theology. This is, and must be, only a place to discuss improvements to the article. When we decide whether or not to include the Holden, the question is not "is Holden accurate"--the question is, "Is Holden a person of sufficient expertise and importance that his opinions meet WP:DUE and thus should be included in the article?" So confine the discussion to Holden's status, to whether or not he's cited by other authors, by where the statement was originally published, etc. That's how you determine what goes in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be a lopsided battle. Jehovah's Witnesses don't have as many opposers as the presence of their opposers on the net would indicate. However, to try to find even a single page owned by one of Jehovah's Witness or a dispassionate reviewer of their religion that says Jehovah's Witnesses "do not believe that the WTB&TS publications are almost equal to the Bible" is pretty slim, and to find such a statement from an independent scholar is even slimmer, considering that scholars aren't typically interested in such an issue unless they're opposed. I've written substantially on the organization in the last 16 years and this is the first discussion I've ever had on the subject. Yet you will find a couple of thousand opposer web pages that say that we hold the publications "almost equal to the Bible" or even "equal to the Bible" or "greater than the Bible". But perhaps that's the key. To demonstrate that opposers are not agreed upon which statement is true? By demonstrating a division of thought on the matter, the stand will be disqualified? Would that be possible?

(I removed the "resolved" sign because Qwyrxian apparently wishes to get a definitive dispassionate answer.) --Corjay (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a rather fair statement, it gives that Jw's say that the bible is the final authority in all things but that academics specifically Holden disagree. Both are presented in a neutral tone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The JW editors here have agreed that 'clarification' of scriptures is provided by the 'faithful slave' in Watch Tower Society publications, and those 'clarifications' must be accepted by members. Holden's statement is accurate and is presented in a neutral manner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay is still going on about a 'battle' and 'opposers'. The discussion is (or at least, should be) about the statement by Holden. The statement is accurate. Supposed 'battles' with 'opposers' are irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between my statement above and the ones prior to it. Before, I was talking about the opposers on this page. Now I am talking about the opposers in general regarding the subject at hand, not regarding this discussion itself. My statement was not ad hominem as Jeffro77's is. --Corjay (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The distinction you're attempting to make about various alleged 'opposers' is irrelevant. The discussion isn't about any 'opposers'. It's about sources. And your accusation about ad hominem is ridiculous in view of the fact of your previous 'demands' in order to 'determine' who you're 'allowed' to talk to. Please stick to the topic of sources or leave the discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Picking at straws is really tiresome. The red herrings are making me dizzy. Can we stick to the subject at hand, please? --Corjay (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The subject at hand is Holden's statement. The statement is accurate, as has been demonstrated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As has been asserted, opinions do not matter. Just as it is my opniion that it has not been demonstrated to be accurate. As Qwyrxian rightly pointed out, it is not about whether it is "accurate", (as it is subject to viewpoint) but whether it has substantial enough support to be included in the body of the Beliefs section. As to the reference to "opposers", the matter of opposers is significant to the discussion, because they represent an extremely biased viewpoint, but whether the statements of those opposers can be taken as significant is dependent upon the demonstration that their viewpoint is accepted by a majority or by a significant enough minority to contend for acceptance. --Corjay (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It is semantically redundant that opposers are biased, but JWs are also biased about JWs, and the argument is entirely irrelevant to the subject, unless you are claiming that Holden is an opposer. And even then, any other 'opposers' are still unrelated to the discussion at hand. So, if you like, you can provide sources stating that Holden is biased, otherwise the discussion should be closed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you search Wikipedia for the word opposers, two of the results on the first page of results are for JW-related articles, and for article Talk pages, it's six on the first page of results. JWs clearly have a penchant for the word opposers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think if he wants to call us opposers, go ahead it doesnt make it true. What he fails to understand is that it doesn't further his rationale in the slightest, it just sets a bad example for the organization and doesn't accomplish anything other then vague ranting. I don't see one shred of support for the viewpoint he's putting forward so frankly it doesn't matter. We guide it by consensus and consensus is clear here. This is HiaB BTW 8) 203.210.13.5 (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A search for "Andrew Holden" and "Jehovah's Witnesses" on Google scholar provides a substantial number of academic journals that have cited his book. I think his integrity is fairly clearly demonstrated. BlackCab (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is proof that authorities cannot agree on the viewpoint of whether Jehovah's Witnesses view their literature as "almost equal to", "equal to" or "superior to" the Bible:

• Equal. European-American Evangelistic Crusades claims that we believe our literature to be exactly equal to the Bible: http://www.eaec.org/cults/jw/jw2.htm
• Lesser. Dr. Paul P. Coulter claims that Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Bible as the only source of doctrine, and though claiming us to be a cult, and even highlighting that many cults claim their literature to be equal to or superior to the Bible, and giving negative opinions on other matters, he makes no attempt to contradict the view of Jehovah's Witnesses on this stand: http://www.paulcoulter.net/Writing/Cults.pdf
• Superior. The following book, edited by Rick Miesel, claims that we hold our literature as "normative", and implies that we do not hold the Bible as such, thereby implying that we hold our literature as superior: http://obinfonet.ro/docs/nmr/nmres/textb/cults
  
  

As an aside, by way of correcting something I said earlier, I just saw where I did indeed write on this subject. It was in regard to claims that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. (We don't need to branch off into that subject here.) I wrote: 'What about the publications themselves? Do Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Watch Tower Society's (This is merely a legal entity) publications equal to or near equal to the Bible as some claim? No. The Bible is the ultimate authority to Jehovah's Witnesses. But Jehovah's Witnesses take seriously the mandate to 'speak in agreement'. (1 Corinthians 1:10) The publications help keep our members on the same page, so-to-speak and well-informed of current understanding, and have proven to be an excellent means of promoting unity to a degree not seen in other religions. Do they replace the Bible or promote ideas outside the Bible? No. Just like any sermon given by a pastor, they contain ample Scripture references (I just opened one Watchtower and it had 44 Scripture references in a single five-page article; you will not get that in any sermon) and a discussion of Bible subjects. (Opposers quote our literature more than we do. We quote the Bible more than anyone else.) On the job, I had to listen to a Christian radio station, and you would be shocked to hear more than two Scripture references in any sermon.' Yes, it's my opinion, but I find it a fitting statement. --Corjay (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing you've provided says anything about Holden, and the only source you claimed supports your view is from an article that calls JWs a cult, and that source doesn't actually say what you're inferring. The word "only" does not appear at all in reference to Coulter's examination of JW's view of the Bible.

Holden's statement doesn't say or imply that JW publications replace the Bible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Coulter doesn't simply say that cults "claim their literature to be equal to or suprior to the Bible". Coulter actually says, "All cults have a source of authority other than Scripture—many cults have a source of authority that is equal to the Bible or even greater than it. This maybe the authority of tradition, the organization, an individual or another book."

My point was to show that Holden's viewpoint is not significant enough, being countered by others. --Corjay (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources you provided counters Holden's point, either explicitly or by implication. In fact, all three support Holden's statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, none of those three references would meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. BlackCab (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but I am not trying to provide an entry in the article, therefore those guidelines don't apply. I'm trying to demonstrate that there are countering viewpoints among academics. (Published or not. Dr. Coulter's report is a dissertation.) I can also demonstrate that two of those viewpoints are pervasive. --Corjay (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the Rick Miesel book is a published work.--Corjay (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course there will be a range of opinions. Christian bookshops are probably full of self-published books dumping on the JWs, but those opinions are irrelevant in this context. The opinion of a sociologist who has written widely on religions, however, and particularly when he explicitly addresses the issue of the source of JW doctrines, is relevant. I think your efforts are a little futile. The article fairly states Holden's significant view. I don't think you've yet made any comments about the issue on the specific page that's been set up to address the issue of the inclusion of Holden's comment. Will you be doing that? It may be the best way of overcoming this impasse and will bring in further outside comment. It's at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care for maintaining multiple pages concerning one discussion. I have enough on my plate just addressing this discussion. Feel free to make me look as bad as you like on that page. --Corjay (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am seeing a lot of assumptions of bad faith here on the part of Corjay. I am asking that you remember WP:AGF. 203.210.13.5 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If I were acting in bad faith, I would have simply made the edit myself. You are actually acting contrary to the page you cite, because it says to "assume good faith", which you yourself are not doing. You are assuming bad faith on my part. I have no such bad faith. I wish only to make the page objective, and I don't think Holden's comment is objective. He is not just a researcher. He is opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses as his many, many publications specifically written about us establishes. That's certainly not objective. That's a poison pen. No objective academic, in his right mind, would take Holden seriously. Also, according to the criteria mentioned about published sources, Holden is self-published, not through an academic peer-reviewed publication, which makes him a lesser source, not so well-established as some have claimed.--Corjay (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are saying that I am assuming bad faith on the part of others, then not overtly so. Yes, I believe several here are opposers to my faith, but I believe they are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the article. But I believe their bias invalidates their claims and their efforts. So I assume good faith on their part, but with bad motivations rather than bad intentions. I also felt I had ample evidence toward their bad treatment of me, such as Hell in a Basket's trying to force me to accept concession. Bad faith toward me, but not bad faith toward the article. --Corjay (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're grasping at straws. Holden's book was published by Routledge, a major publisher and clearly qualifies as a RS. I have already said he is widely cited by other academics. I have never before heard him described as opposed to the JWs and your view that "no objective academic would take him seriously", simply because you disagree with one of his conclusions, is childish. If you don't wish to address the very point you're raising at the best place, you seem to be wasting everyone's time. BlackCab (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

you apparently missed the part where I said I am Hiab or Hell in a BUCKET, I am assuming English isn't your first language since you can't seem to get the username right. If you refuse to discuss the issue by our standards that is concession, if you notice I haven't brought that up because you are discussion it now. Huge difference. 203.210.13.5 (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we forgo the insults, please. I have done none myself. As for my assumption, I couldn't find a publisher associated with his book. But okay, looking at Routledge and Google, we find out things about Holden. In a Google search, we find he has seven or more published papers through Lancaster University that make every effort to highlight every mistake made by Jehovah's Witnesses and giving very little respect to them as a religious organization. In fact, such are the ONLY things he has published in his position as Sociologist there. (Doesn't sound like he's doing much with his job other than obsessing over Jehovah's Witnesses.) He has no published works on any other religion. He authors books about tourism at Routledge. So how is it that a travel researcher comes to only publish about Jehovah's Witnesses and no other religion? Clearly, he has a point to make, showing a clear bias. If he were not so heavily biased, he would write more objectively and about other religions than just Jehovah's Witnesses. Can someone tell me what his qualifications are? I can't find ANY, anywhere, about his degrees and qualifications.--Corjay (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, as someone critical of Jehovah's Witnesses, he is outstanding. I'm not slighting him that. But that's exactly where his comments belong BECAUSE he is a critic with a clear bias (And I think I can safely say, a "vendetta",) against Jehovah's Witnesses, not an objective researcher. --Corjay (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Andrew Holden is no more qualified than the sources I cited. --Corjay (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I must make one correction. Andrew Holden has written one book favorable toward Muslims based on a paper he wrote about their religious tolerance and cohesion. In it, he does not provide any of the venom toward Muslims that he does toward Jehovah's Witnesses. So one has to ask, what's the motive? Yes, there's a motive. Lancaster University initiated what they call the "Burnley Project", which is an interfaith initiative. Who are two of the members of the board of this project? Andrew Holden and Hamid Qureshi. Thus, it's his job. He wouldn't write about it if it weren't part of his role on this committee. If given a choice, I think he would rather have written another caustic piece on how evil Jehovah's Witnesses are.--Corjay (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to take a moment to explain why I can talk to the ex-Jehovah's Witnesses here about Holden. Once Qwyrxian turned the discussion towards Holden's qualifications and the qualifications of his works, it was no longer a religious matter. As long as we do not discuss spiritual matters, or the organization itself, or get cozy, I can speak to them. Keep it professional-like and it's fine. --Corjay (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly your spoke objection is that you consider it critical? How does citing both not keep a NPOV it States JWs believe the Bible is the authority, an expert doesn't. 203.210.13.5 (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

[edit]The statement about the organization's doctrine is a factual statement, not an assessment.[/edit] It's not the critical analysis so much as the source. Andrew Holden is an outright opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses as his writings bear out. That's not just critical. According to WP:NPOV#Religion, such statements are done as "critical historical treatment". Someone who is opposed is not providing a "historical treatment", but is providing an attack. There's a gulf of difference. The very purpose of "NPOV" is that the article accomplishes a pure neutrality. You cannot accomplish a pure neutrality if you are providing an opposer's negative assessment without also providing a positive assessment from someone else not associated with the religion. So unless you can provide that, his statement should not be included. But if anyone can't provide a positive viewpoint of a third party to counter the opposer's assessment, the opposer's assessment must be removed to achieve NPOV, because, as stated earlier in this BOOK (I speak of the discussion) by one of the wikipedians, The religion's own assessment of itself, or the assessment of it by one of its members, cannot be included, which is fair, because it wouldn't carry any weight anyway. So a third party assessment is needed. It's not my responsibility to provide that third party assessment. I only need to challenge the right to include the opposer's viewpoint on account of the fact that the third party positive assessment is missing. If someone else wants to provide the third party positive assessment, then this discussion will be finally over.--Corjay (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Holden is not an "opposer", but a sociologist. He has never been JW, and his POV on them is accurate and neutral. When JW deal with blood transfusions, for example, they rely on what the Watchtower say, not on what the Bible say (because the Bible writers never heard about blood transfusions). So this is absolutely true to say that the WT teaching has almost the same (if not exactly the same) value as the Bible. JW are ready to die for something that is not clearly stated in the Bible, but only clearly stated in the publications, and changes over time when the WT's understanding change. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you know he has never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses? An "opposer" doesn't have to be an ex-Witness, but I strongly suspect he is an ex-Jehovah's Witness just because of his obsession, which is a tendency of many ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. (This is because of a failure of such one's to seek out new relationships and new beliefs. Even Holden highlights that much in one of his conclusive rants.) Does this statement sound neutral to you? "Ethnographic analysis reveals the dependency of this quasi-totalitarian movement on the very physical and cultural resources it condemns. The paper concludes that the Witnesses’ anti-mystical faith is both an inverted form of corporate ‘branding’ and an anti-modern quest for certainty in a hostile world of relativism." Does this article title sound neutral to you? "Cavorting With the Devil: Jehovah’s Witnesses Who Abandon Their Faith"; Or how about these chapter headings: "Private beliefs and public disapproval", "Stretching the boundaries: tension within the family and marriage", "suppressing ambivalence". Does this sound neutral to you? "I have argued that Watch Tower rhetoric cannot always override the individual’s sense of duty towards those with whom they have long been bonded or for whose welfare they are responsible." That's more than opinion. The paper was for the purpose of proving a point. Or how about this one: "At present, the movement shows few signs either of relaxing its quasi-totalitarian doctrines or of slowing down its evangelistic mission. In the end, if devotees and their unbelieving relatives wish to live amicably together, they may be forced to do tolerance." Really? So tolerance is a bad thing? As demonstrated in that statement, throughout the article he lays the fault of a family's intolerance on the Witnesses, not the family. His persistent use of such terms as "quasi-totalitarian" and "Watchtower regime" demonstrate his so not neutral stand. Whenever he talks about Jehovah's Witness beliefs, he does not use clinical descriptions, but imbues the description with the darkest language he can conceive of. [Emphasis mine.]

Does he provide any objective viewpoint about Jehovah's Witnesses having positive impacts on those around them or law or anything else? No. His articles don't provide any positive viewpoints. He highlights every negative he can find, such as discrepancies between the viewpoints of various Jehovah's Witnesses, or between their beliefs and how they execute those beliefs privately. All he is doing is highlighting the negatives of human nature within the organization, without ever talking about ANY positive aspects or coming to any conclusions that indicate anything positive. He's a doomsayer in everything he writes about the organization and only focuses on their mistakes as an organization or the mistakes of individual members. I'd call that opposition. In one article, he sets out to highlight the division Jehovah's Witnesses cause in family. In another, he sets out to make ex-Witnesses look like victims. His focus is very clearly to make Jehovah's Witnesses look bad under the pretense of objectivity. Objectivity anyone can achieve through the use of a neutral tone. But a neutral tone does not mean a neutral stand. --Corjay (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me attempt an explanation to you Cherche. He can not see it, I don't mean that he is incapable of it, just that he can't even think of it being neutral. If he did and someone saw that he would be subject to shepherding calls, if that didn't work and the elders deemed it serious he could be publicly reproved (can't participate in preaching or commenting at meetings among other things.) and if it continued it would lead to disfellowshipping (basically no one that is a JW will talk with you or even acknowledge your presence). Imagine everyone you know acting like you didn't exist, and keep in mind these are the only people you are "encouraged" to associate with. It's a scary prospect, my sister was disfellowshipped, my parents won't even eat with her. They will me because I was never disfellowshipped. The statement that tears down his entire neutrality is made above "If someone else wants to provide the third party positive assessment, then this discussion will be finally over." he will only accept a positive source and neutral is something that presents both sides of the coin. The statement provides the Jw's side that the bible is the final authority, the other-side is what's presented by Holden. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, please stop ranting about your uninformed opinions and generalisations about 'apostates' (a pejoratively used by JWs). In fact, your opinions about the actions and motivations of 'apostates' are based only on what you have read in Watch Tower Society publications. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Either provide sources supporting your claims about Holden, or don't.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You all are putting words in my mouth again. I never said I would not accept a neutral statement. And I never said "apostates" anywhere. I said the negative statement by an opposer requires a positive statement by a third party to counterbalance. I will not address your flaws affecting doctrine. --Corjay (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get on a soapbox. I provided proof that Holden is an opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses. --Corjay (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

My sources: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/search/?q=andrew+holden --Corjay (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay where does it state he is an opposer? It must say it, you can't infer it. It would violate WP:SYN and constitute original research. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So a zebra must actually say it's a zebra before you can call it a zebra? --Corjay (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you care to read our policies yes. BlackCab correctly also pointed out that it is techinically a violation of WP:BLP as well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Yes"? You're being ridiculous. The SYN affects content of articles, not discussions. I do not need to have a statement from Holden saying "I am an opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses" just to say that he is. I proved it through his actions. That is enough. If a person murders another person, does he have to actually say "I'm a murderer" in order to call him a murderer? Your reasoning is severely flawed. --Corjay (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)