Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

JW editors

Is there any available appropriate source material for the recent claim that the Watchtower Society has 'advised' JWs not to edit JW-related articles on Wikipedia? If so, it would be worth mentioning under the Internet subheading of this article.--Jeffro77 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and furthermore there is tons of written warnings for JW's to either abstain from using the internet or to not read, engage in discussion, or write about the religion over the internet from the mid 90's to early 2000's. Justinmcl 199.243.211.114 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It has never been stated by the Watchtower Society that JWs are to "abstain from using the Internet".--Jeffro77 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No no printed encouragements to not use the internet were made, informal ones were. However "to not read, engage in discussion, or write about the religion over the internet from the mid 90's to early 2000's" was most certainly explicitly and repeatedly stated. Justinmcl 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 edition of NWT

Jeffro the new edition is more than making it a softcover. For example, the single brackets are gone and cross references have changed. OF course there are more changes than that too. Johanneum 11:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. In that case, is there any resource available (or in progress) that documents the changes?--Jeffro77 12:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Organ transplantation

I see that the prohibition of organ transplants between 1967 and 1980 is not mentioned. There has been quite some controversy over the handling of this issue.

Mind control etc.

I have deleted this paragraph from the mind control section:

In 1987, the American Psychological Association determined that theories of coercive manipulation or "mind control" as applied to religious movements lacked any scientific foundation and should not be presented as scientific.(ref: Board of Ethical and Social Responsibility for Psychology Memo to Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion,on and Control Committee Washington: American Psychological Association, 1987 May 11) However GRIS a "religious association" questions the validity of this. They state, the "APA has never taken a clear and official stand on theories of thought reform and mind control as applied to New Religious Movements." (ref: http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Landmark/landmark-cherries.dir/grisroma/inglese/Apa_english.htm) Massimo Introvigne goes into great detail on explaining the controversy and states that the "APA thus declared not once but at least twice in 1987 that “the theory of coercive persuasion is not scientific” and that it “lacks scientific rigor”." (ref: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/gandow_eng.htm) Since that time "mind control" theories have been consistently rejected by scholars and courts of law in the United States and elsewhere.(ref: The modern anti—cult movement in historical perspective Santa Barbara, alifornia Institute for Study of American Religion, 1995) Saying that mind control theories have been and are still universally rejected is simply not true. See APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control and Brainwashing#Brainwashing controversy in new religious movements and cults. They make it quite clear that there is no consensus on this topic. BenC7 06:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

BEN this whole page is about controversy, and yes this too is a source of controversy, which can be brought out. Still the facts remain that APA and others have indicated that there is no scientific basis for "mind control". The Molko case also shows the APA did not support Mind control. Singer is still trying ( and thus it is controversial) however, what she put together to prove mind control in 1987 was tossed out because it lacked SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT and EVIDENCE. Please see this page [1] that does have the attachments, which were missing (even the word attachmet) in the GRIS article you refer us to. Thus while the debate continues all the evidence that is presented to support mind control has been referred to as lacking EVIDENCE. Therefore that this is controversial can be brought out, but to hid the facts that have shown that there is not scientific evidence to support mind control, is to show poor editing and bias. Johanneum 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I referred you to some articles; it does not appear that you read the whole of them. So I will quote relevant sections here. I have highlighted some main points in bold for you. From the APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control article:

They quoted Benjamin Zablocki from a personal email: "In my opinion, the DIMPAC committee went too far in the other direction by asking the APA to affirm that brainwashing in religious cults was a proven psychological fact. It was for this that they were censured. It is not true that the APA affirmed the contrary, that brainwashing was disproved. Instead, the APA argued that it could not go along with EITHER SIDE in this matter. I would say that neither side got what it wanted from the APA. As an organization representing ALL psychologists in the USA, it took a proper agnostic position that no final decision could be given at this time".

In 2002, at the APA's 2002 Annual Convention in Chicago during the panel session "Cults of hatred", Alan W. Scheflin, professor of law at Santa Clara University, stated that "Extreme influence [such as mind control and cults] has remained dormant in the field of psychology". He went on to state that it is a legitimate field of study and that psychology needs an organized response to it, saying: "We need to stop this germ from spreading."

The panelists also called for the APA to form a new task force to "investigate mind control among destructive cults." Panelists included Deborah Layton, survivor of the People's Temple mass suicide/murder at Jonestown, Steven Hassan, Cynthia F. Hartley, Stephen J. Morgan, a faculty member with the American Management Association/Management Centre Europe in Brussels, Belgium, and then APA President Philip Zimbardo

These clearly indicate that there is no consensus in the scientific community, regardless of the acceptance or rejection of the Singer report.

From the Brainwashing#Brainwashing controversy in new religious movements and cults article section:

Benjamin Zablocki, professor of sociology and one of the reviewers of the rejected DIMPAC report, writes in 1997:

"Many people have been misled about the true position of the APA and the ASA with regard to brainwashing. Like so many other theories in the behavioral sciences, the jury is still out on this one. The APA and the ASA acknowledge that some scholars believe that brainwashing exists but others believe that it does not exist. The ASA and the APA acknowledge that nobody is currently in a position to make a Solomonic decision as to which group is right and which group is wrong. Instead they urge scholars to do further research to throw more light on this matter. I think this is a reasonable position to take."

In 2002, APA's then president, Philip Zimbardo wrote in Psychology Monitor:

"A body of social science evidence shows that when systematically practiced by state-sanctioned police, military or destructive cults, mind control can induce false confessions, create converts who willingly torture or kill "invented enemies," engage indoctrinated members to work tirelessly, give up their money--and even their lives--for "the cause." (Zimbardo, 2002)

On the other hand, several scholars in sociology and psychology have in recent years stated that there is among many scholars of NRMs a bias to deny any brainwashing possibility and to disregard actual evidence. (Zablocki 1997, Amitrani 1998, Kent 1998, Beit-Hallahmi 2001)

You will notice that most of these are recent quotes (from around the 2000s), not things from 20 years ago. Hopefully this should be sufficient. BenC7 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• First neither I nor the article you have removed said what you claimed it said namely, “mind control theories have been and are still universally ...rejected.” I made the point quite clear that this is still a source of controversy. However, what has been presented and what has been stated is also clear, that the scientific community as a whole rejects this over and over again (consistently). That does not mean “universally” or “every one” but the weight of evidence rejects it. Gordon Melton MOLKO BRIEF However, not everyone agrees with what has been presented and thus we have people like you and others who force the issue. Thus a very small minority of North American scholars have recently tried to resurrect the dead horse of brainwashing. (Zablocki 1997; Kent & Hall 1997 ) It is of note that they rely on information that is almost exclusively on the testimony of disgruntled ex-members turned apostates. However only a small number of former members are apostates and the majority are not, yet their point is not considered. One report suggest that only 10% to a maximum of 20% are apostates. (see Bromley 1998) Claims resting mostly on apostates (10%-20%) of former members can hardly be regarded as true, at least so says most of the rest of the scholarly community.

One report stated, ““Mind control, or "brainwashing" as it's commonly referred to by the media, is often viewed by many psychologists as science fiction.”

It's awfully convenient to bandy around words like 'apostate'. Even using the normal definition of the word 'apostate', but especially with the 'demonized' view of the word that JWs apply to former members (as distinct from apostates from other religions who become JWs), it simply serves to make them look unfavourable without considering why they leave. Rather than pay attention to facts, such as why a person leaves the religion - often having detailed information that is not validly responded to by JWs, the situation is simply trivialized away as them being 'disgruntled apostates'. When 'mind control' is spoken of in this context, it is not some mysterious force of science fiction, but a much more mundane result of information control and group-think.--Jeffro77 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro- I was using the term in the secular way. please see under that term. [2] Besides this issue is not really about a religion, (JW's or any other)but about wheter "mind control" is valid.

Yes. I first referred to the "normal" definition of the word 'apostate', though I mentioned how it is also specifically used among JWs. Whether we're calling it 'mind control' or 'information control', the point is still the same. There is no paranormal form of direct control involved, but there is still control of information. The controversy about whether 'mind control' exists is more about semantics. Is it 'mind control' if someone goes racing for a Watchtower Index before making a major decision? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it mind control that Pavlov's dog salivates at the sound of a bell? If it's too controversial to call it mind control, then don't. But conditioning is still involved.--Jeffro77 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, In 1986, a group of psychologists formed a task force--Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC)--and submitted a report to APA condeming “mind control.” But the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology found the report "unacceptable," lacking in scientific evidence, relying too much on sensational anecdotes and providing insufficient information for APA to take a position on the issue.

The scientific community as a whole (NOT ALL) concluded that the "rejection of a committee report" was indeed the rejection of the brainwashing anticult consensus as it existed at that time (additionally, a key enclosure of the rejection document rejected the term "brainwashing" as well). [3]

Also at the link containing the MOLKO BRIEF the point is clear that APA once again rejected “mind control”. There you will find:

B. The Theory of Coercive Persuasion Plaintiffs Advance Is Not Accepted in the Scientific Community 1. The Conclusions of Drs. Singer and Benson Are Not Recognized As Scientific Conclusions in the Relevant Professional Communities 2. Plaintiffs' Theory of Coercive Persuasion Is Not Generally Accepted in the Relevant Professional Literature

Here is a nice modern (up to date) short article that shows why there are two sides.

[4] Johanneum 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Things have happened since 1987. Read the quotes I have pasted above. They came from articles more thoroughly researched than this one. If they present that there are two sides of a debate and that there is no consensus, there is no reason to say otherwise in this article. BenC7 04:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Payment of sales tax on literature

The section was removed from the article, citing shortening the article though the section wasn't very long. It should probably be in the article, though should be explained better than it was. It didn't properly explain why the issue is contraversial - that a method of tax evasion was employed, telling members an entirely different reason for the change, and not mentioning the real reason to them. The issue is related to concept of information control.--Jeffro77 08:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that it is notable, you can put it back in. I don't think that it is really all that notable in and of itself, considering the significance and level-of-controversy of the other things in the article. BenC7 12:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Return of Christ

Ben the way you keep the article is misleading. Once again, you are not comparing apples to apples. Jw's do believe that there will YET be a future coming of Christ. For example, The March 15,2007 Watchtower makes that clear! IT states, after quoting Revelation 1:7 "This Coming refers to Jesus' appearing in the future to reward the just and punish the wicked. The big difference is that Witnesses teach this is a "seeing" or perceiving with the mind not the eyes. You are comparing oranges to apples. Witnesses do highlight the difference between presence and coming, which seems to cause you confusion. If you did read my last referenced statement you would have read, "At Matthew 24:37 the Greek word pa·rou·si′a is used. Literally it means a “being alongside.” Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, 1968) gives “presence, of persons,” as its first definition of pa·rou·si′a. The sense of the word is clearly indicated at Philippians 2:12, where Paul contrasts his presence (pa·rou·si′a) with his absence (a·pou·si′a). On the other hand, in Matthew 24:30, which tells of the “Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” as Jehovah’s executioner at the war of Armageddon, the Greek word er·kho′me·non is used. Some translators use ‘coming’ for both Greek words, but those that are more careful convey the difference between the two." Thus if you wish to bring this out, the article should state that JW's Believe that Christ Presence covers a length of period from 1914 to Jesus' coming at Armageddon.

Johanneum 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In the references that I have used, the JW publications explicitly use the word "coming", not "presence". It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to present here an argumentitive case about the meaning of words from the Greek etc. BenC7 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What they said should be explained by them and not by you. It can be and is, in this case, misleading. It is not comparing apples to apples. You are comparing apples to oranges while claiming its accuracy. Johanneum 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of the name Jehovah

Why does this article focus on the NT and say nothing about the OT? Very losided coverage. George 17:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Because that's where the controversy is. In any case, it does mention the OT. BenC7 06:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)