Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses practices/Archive 2

Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls

I have edited this section as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

FUNDING

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do u think?

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

Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses

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

Delineation of Practices and Doctrine Articles

There appears to be a fair bit of overlap between

• Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

does this seems like a reasonable approach?

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

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

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

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

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

A question about converts from the Catholic Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JWs and birth control

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

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

The following is from JW's primary journal:

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

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

Merger

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

Theocratic warfare

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

---

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As noted above, I contend the doctrine is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tolerating evasiveness is not distinct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related question

It seems to be contended that for something to be considered relevant, it must by definition be comparatively recently stated. I find that proposal at best somewhat dubious. Coming from a Catholic background, and being, honestly, for familiar with it and some other groups, I note that, in such groups as the Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc., once something has been stated within an officially sanctioned document, that statement remains, in effect, officially approved until such time as a subsequent statement modifies it. So, in effect, something which has not been officially discussed in several hundred years would remain valid if the last time it was "officially" discussed it was declared as, in effect, an official policy. Is there any reason to believe that the Jehovah's Witnesses, with the Watchtower as their, basically, official statement of faith, would be different? John Carter (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some Witnesses have certainly taken the position that material written 50 years ago [9] is out of date and of historical interest only. The claim was made recently that a Watchtower stance of just 10 or 12 years ago was similarly irrelevant. The argument tends to be used when they are scrambling to deny the Society still holds a particular view despite the absence of evidence the view has been abandoned. Yet in many cases Watchtower articles recycle the wording of articles decades ago, and this was noted in the case of theocratic warfare. It is a religion built very firmly on written traditions. BlackCab (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it seems unlikely that typical 2010 Jehovah's Witnesses feel troubled at demonstrating evasiveness with persecutors today. Really, is their position on this matter different from that of other Christians, or of other religionists?
For example, evasiveness toward persecutors is just as tolerated by 2010 JWs in Syria as it was tolerated by 1950s JWs behind the Iron Curtain. The age of the teaching doesn't make it invalid, but it should also be obvious that being evasive under persecution is a more relevant discussion when a significant percentage of readers are actively being persecuted. BlackCab aka LTSally quotes from Watch Tower publications during an era of intense persecution without ever putting these quotes in that unique context. The fact that BlackCab aka LTSally chooses to source from that era strongly implies that he is more interested in juicy verbiage than in encyclopedically discussing the large Christian topic of "theocratic warfare" or "spiritual warfare" (a discussion which should be elsewhere anyway).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I beleive the response to the above question about how this is different from other churches is answered by my own comment above, specifically, that there is an entire chapter, as I recall, in a book discussing the JW's by an outsider in a semi-academic source (the dissertation of a disapproving Evangelical, admittedly, but still an outsider) which has been adjudged an "excellent" book by someone else, discussing this matter. The book in question is described, as I remember, as the shorter version of the writer's dissertation paper. The term you object to, I think, is also the term used in the book in question. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless he produces a source, it appears AuthorityTam appears is applying some original research to suggest that the Theocratic Warfare strategies were developed to counter intense persecution at that time and that the teaching, advocated in such WT literature as an article entitled "Use Theocratic War Strategy", applied only to that time. He should note that the tactical details of that strategy were repeated in the 1988 "Insight on the Scriptures" volumes, which are textbooks still used by Witnesses today. There was no indication in that textbook that the strategy was of historical interest only or that Witnesses should no longer use it. His reference to "juicy verbiage" is puzzling. The words are all from his own religion's literature and are a neutral presentation of that information. BlackCab (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The section could certainly contextualize the concept better, such as by indicating that it refers to things like carrying out their religious activity under ban. The 'strategy' of being evasive, though, is certainly not an outdated or isolated teaching in JW belief, and the concept is alluded to at least as recently as 2007 in an article about lying (w07 2/1 p. 5). I haven't seen any discussion in JW literature addressing or disclaiming the specific term "situational ethics". Even if they disclaim the specific term, but endorse its specific meaning, a more common term trumps other jargon.

(Is it particularly important to note that 'BlackCab' is 'aka LT Sally' every single time AuthorityTam mentions the name. I think we can remember back as far as the previous sentence.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Both Jeffro77 and BlackCab aka LTSally have described their personal connections and bad experiences among Jehovah's Witnesses; by contrast there's no basis upon which to refer to AuthorityTam and "his own religion's literature". Please stop. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your vitriol against editors that don't like everything about JWs (with no gratitude for the many times the same editors defend the religion) is basis enough.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but "vitriol"? ...and "gratitude"?
I do not expect Wikipedia editors to be so thin-skinned, or to attack or "defend" this or that group. Rather, I expect Wikipedia editors to edit in a manner which best serves the Wikipedia community.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, vitriol. My comment above, from June 2010, related to your frequent attempts to use article Talk pages to air your opinions about editors' comments from years ago that have no bearing on current discussion. And you have done the very same in just the last couple of days[10]. Stick to content!--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Coatrack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request Theocratic warfare title change to Spiritual warfare

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

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

Assembly Halls

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

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

Wedding rings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup tag

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

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

Travelling overseers

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

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

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

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

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

Memorial event - time duration (difference to congregation meetings)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headcovering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ministers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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