Jump to content

Talk:History of Jehovah's Witnesses

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New name, resurgence

[edit]

In the expanded lead section, I wrote that the IBSA "introduced significant doctrinal changes and lost most of its original members between 1916 and 1928 before adopting the name Jehovah's witnesses in 1931 and growing rapidly again with new preaching and proselytizing methods." Jeffro has reworded this, saying "adopting new name not causative of regaining members", but Wills and Rogerson suggest that the new name and the resurgence in members are indeed connected. The change of name in 1931 made a psychological break with the old membership and old doctrines. Because more than three-quarters of Russell's followers had left by 1932, Rutherford was able to apply new teachings, a new name and a new organizational structure to effectively create a new religion that had little in common with what had gone on before. That was the point of that wording. I've added some material under the "After the 1925 disappointment" section to add the detail on that point. I'd welcome comments on that point.

Looking through the article, I think it's rather deficient in some areas and probably overemphasizes the 1925 predictions and their impact. The new material in the lead section includes some aspects that need more work in the body of the article, particularly the level of persecution, both wartime and more recently. I'll start running through it all again and work on it section by section to improve it further. If you have comments on points you think are significant omissions, please note them here and I'll aim to include them. LTSally (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that the resurgence and the name change weren't related at all, just that the name change wasn't the single reason for the resurgence. I don't have any problem with the current wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1928

[edit]

AuthorityTam mentioned at the Talk page for the main Jehovah's Witnesses article that this article refers to growth from 1928 to 1942. That statement needs to be changed, as 1928 is neither the beginning of Rutherford's presidency nor the adoption of the name Jehovah's witnesses. This should ideally be updated to reflect growth from either a) 1917 to 1942 to indicate growth of the movement under Rutherford's tenure (JWs did not exist in 1917); or b) 1931 to 1942 to indicate growth of JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the disparity between figures in the article that claim a Memorial attendance of 17,380 in 1928, but a total of 44,000 "Witnesses" in 1928. I have several books that show "active Witnesses" for a range of years, "publishers" for a range of years and a footnote (110) in this article has memorial attendance for a range of years. I agree it needs to be standardised and measured against some years that mean something. BlackCab (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1928 figure is sourced from Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (pg 312-3.) The table includes "total ministers reporting" and "memorial attendance" for a number of years starting with 1928. And 1928 does indeed show 44,080 ministers reporting, but only 17,380 at the memorial. The next date on the list is 1938 (59,047 and 69,345 respectively) and from that point the memorial figure is always higher than "ministers reporting". Apparently the 1968 Yearbook had some figures as well, which may help. In 1942, the year Rutherford died, the figures were 115,240 ministers reporting and 140,450 at the memorial. BlackCab (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are also the figures dredged up for the demographic chart on the main JW article page. They're at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 55#Demographic chart BlackCab (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A People For His Name

[edit]

User:Fladrif has deleted all reference to Tony Wills' A People For His Name as a source, noting in his/her edit summary, "LuLu is a vanity press; This is a self-published source, not a reliable source.". [1] WP:SPS states that "self-published media, such as books ... are largely not acceptable as sources because "anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field". There is no all-encompassing ban. Works should certainly be treated on their merits and commonsense applied.

It's worth noting that Wills' book, which was originally published by Vantage Press in 1967 or 1968 under the name of Timothy White (a pseudonym presumably used because he may have still been a JW and wished to hide his identity) has been cited many times since by authors who are clearly accepted as reliable sources. James Penton, whose Apocalypse Delayed is widely accepted as an authoritative history and analysis of the Jehovah's Witnesses, notes in his bibliography (p.406): "White's (book) was long by far the most complete history of Jehovah's Witnesses extant, and in many ways it was the best. An examination of A People For His Name shows that its author has done an amazing amount of research and understands both the history and the doctrines of the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses in a way that very few do. Although many Witnesses may disagree with some of his statements, what he says cannot be dismissed out of hand. At the same time, professional critics of Jehovah's Witnesses should note how he disproves many traditional anti-Witness arguments based on little more than gossip and slander."

Here then is a list of works that do include A People For His Name in their bibliograpy:

  • James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed (University of Toronto Press, 1995).
  • James Penton, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich (University of Toronto Press, 2004).
  • Shawn Francis Peters, Judging Jehovah's Witnesses - Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Mmovement (University Press of Kansas, 2000).
  • Robert Crompton, Counting the Days to Armageddon (James Clarke & Co, 1996).
  • James A. Beckford, The Trumpet of Prophecy: A Sociological Study of Jehovah's Witnesses (Basil Blackwell, 1975).
  • Heather and Gary Botting, The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses (University of Toronto Press, 1984).
  • James A. Beverley, Crisis of Allegiance: A Study of Dissent Among Jehovah's Witnesses (Welch, 1986).
  • Richard Singelenberg, "It Separated the Wheat From the Chaff: The 1975 prophecy and its impact among Dutch Jehovah's Witnesses", Sociological Analysis, Spring 1989, Vol 50, No.1, reproduced in Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy (ed, Jon R. Stone, Routledge, 2000).
  • Mathew N. Schmalz, "When Festinger Fails: Prophecy and the Watchtower", Religion, October 1994, Vol 24 No.4, reproduced in Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy (ed, Jon R. Stone, Routledge, 2000).
  • Bryan R. Wilson, "The Persistence of Sects", Diskus, 1993, Vol 1, No.2.

The book has demonstrably been accepted by academics who have been at the forefront in examining the history and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and their predecessors in the Watch Tower Society; that fact provides abundant support for its inclusion as a source in this article. None of the statements for which Wills is used would create any controversy or are likely to be challenged; the author instead has been careful and comprehensive in his documentation of the early history of the movement. It's important that he be retained as a reliable, factual source in an article on a subject that attracts much controversy and can polarise opinions. BlackCab (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conley

[edit]

Why do JWs not even tell the truth about their history? It didn't begin with Russell, but the first Watchtower president was a man named William Conley. Why do they hide this? In order to create some sort of mythology about a self-styled "pastor"? My source is James Penton, "Apocalypse Delayed" (as seen below). The book is also available in German, and I'm the translator ("Endzeit ohne Ende"). (Herbert Raab) 8:50 PM, 14 May 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:72:4F41:4273:96:73EA:64B8:F5BC (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conley was the president of the society before it was incorporated, that's correct. Little seems to be known about Conley and unlike Russell he seemed to be little interested in doctrines; it may be possible that Russell used him as an administrative head of the society but drove those doctrinal activities himself. Because Conley's involvement was relatively brief and little remains today to suggest what doctrinal or organizational input he added, it's no surprise that he tends to disappear from the narrative. I don't view that as part of any conspiracy. BlackCab (TALK) 21:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one, anywhere, argues that Russell was not the founder of the Bible Students, one splinter of which became the JW's, especially not Penton, so I am unsure what you are getting at. William Conley was not the first President of the incorporated Watchtower, but rather of the unincorporated Zion's Watchtower Tract Society from 1881-1884, which Russell founded and also acted as secretary-treasurer during that time, which was used to publish the magazine that Russell had started a couple years earlier in 1879 amongst some other theological writings. See here and here. Conley is in fact so insignificant in the history of the Bible Students/JW's that Penton doesn't even include him in the "Index" as a name. I'd also like to know which page in Apocalypse even mentions Conley, as I can't find his name anywhere. As far as the "self-styled Pastor" comment, as Penton says on page 37 of the 2015 edition of Apocalypse Delayed, Russell was "generally recognized as the 'Pastor', a position to which he was elected by his brethren of the Allegheny-Pittsburgh congregation in 1882 and later in many other centres." Therefore the sobriquet is not without merit. Vyselink (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People or the organization?

[edit]

Is this article more about the people who identify as Witnesses of Jehovah or about the organization called 'The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society'? So much is about the mental object which is an organization. Is that history of an organization really about the people, who are the embodiment of a faith position? I'd be looking for more demographic information gathered independently rather than through efforts of the The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I've worked on other Wikipedia articles where internally-associated information (the article's subject's alma mater's alumni profile of, say, a Harvard Faculty member, is discounted as 'biased' - where this article relies upon what could be called 'internally-sourced' data (and that may be the best available source for such information).

As a history of the organizational developments, its a curious study in the vessel(s) of 'the followership'. But how were these people(s) faring economically, socially, eudaemonistically? If I were a clinical psychologist or a social worker, would I get much out of reaching this article (or no)?

Can one pose the question, 'What is the quality status of information sourced from religious and spiritual organizations?' in a context such as Wikipedia? I (tend to) trust the data, but across the Wikipedia project, various standards have been applied with seeming inconsistency. Maybe we leave the reader to judge when the data source is identified, but we don't have much sociological data. Do we even have data on marital status (how many Witnesses are married), income, educational level, occupational status (employed or unemployed, in what occupations), ethnicities, urban vs. rural, home ownership vs. rental, living with parents or relatives or roommates or alone, health status, insured vs. uninsured, etc., and how has this faith's profile modified over the decades? MaynardClark (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about the scope of this article derives from the ambiguity of using the same term for the organisation as for its members. This article is analogous to History of the Catholic Church, and it is not its purpose to delve into how individual members were "faring economically, socially, eudaemonistically". You may be interested in improving Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Though there is significant overlap between 'Jehovah's Witnesses' (Joseph Rutherford's branch of the Bible Student movement) and 'the Watchtower Society' (a publishing company formed in the 19th century), this article is about the religious denomination, not the publishing company.
Wikipedia's policies regarding primary and secondary sources apply the same to articles about religious denominations as they do to any other topic. Hence, secondary sources are preferred, especially where primary sources are likely to be less than neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UN controversy

[edit]

An editor has twice added a paragraph about JW status as an NGO associated with the United Nations' Department of Public Information during (mostly) the 1990s. This has again been removed as it is out of this article's scope. It seems to have been added primarily to point out the 'controversy' of JW doctrines about the UN under the guise of it being 'historical'. The claim that JWs 'secretly affiliated' is clearly not a neutral presentation, since although it wasn't publicised, nor was it 'secret' as the UN publishes the full list of NGOs. The rest of the wording is similarly problematic and reveals a biased intent for inclusion. Hypocritical or not, neither the period of association nor the cessation of that membership represented a doctrinal or organisational change. Though the JW view of the UN would suggest that any kind of affiliation would be unseemly, association with the UN's Department of Public Information does not mean 'UN membership', nor does it confer any special consultative status or any other privilege with the UN.

The controversy is also covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations, though that article doesn't really have much in the way of sources to justify the existence of that article. JW interpretations of the UN, including a single sentence about the 'controversy' could be adequately covered in a section of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, possibly as a subsection of the current eschatology section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's covered elsewhere, then it's fine. I still think it could also be mentioned here as part of the history of the movement, but if you feel it would be wrong, I won't insist. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what other editors think.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read how the paragraph reads, but I think a few sentences/paragraph might be appropriate if properly worded. Both Penton (Apocolypse Delayed, Third Ed. 2015 pg 191-193) and Chryssides (Jehovah's Witnesses: Continuity and Change, 2016, pg 88 footnote) mention it, with Penton being quite critical and Chryssides, as it is only a footnote in his book, essentially just stating the facts with no analysis of what they mean. It obtained some public recognition (see this article in The Guardian newspaper (UK)) and necessitated a response and official action from the WTBTS (i.e. removing themselves). While I think an entire page about it is a bit much, it probably is worth mentioning given the nearly one-hundred year history of the Watchtower magazine teaching that it is evil (which they still teach, see here) I think it fits in the History section. Vyselink (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm clearly not the best to write in english here, could someone please maybe start from what I've done, rephrase it, and place it in the right section? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The wording as it was suggested[2] is definitely not appropriate, and was merely an attack rather than providing any useful information of historical value. It may appropriate to briefly state the Bible Students' and JW views of the League of Nations and United Nations in the relevant doctrinal changes sections.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JW headquarters

[edit]

Detailed minutia about the sale prices of individual buildings sold by the Watch Tower Society are trivial in this article's scope. Hence, it has been removed again. The information is covered at Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could at least tell the most important figures : price of the new headquarter + total sold price for the 25 buildings in Brooklyn. What do you think Jeffro ? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really clear how those figures are important to the history of the denomination. The use of "whereas" in the suggested wording also sounds less than neutral, as if the amount of profit is somehow relevant. If other editors think the costs of new and sold building is important in the context of this article, it would still only be appropriate to simply state the amounts rather than implying some sort of comparison or other commentary on the amount of profit, unless this is specifically indicated in secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick sentence or two stating the primary numbers would probably work. For many years "Brooklyn" was used as shorthand within the organization to refer to its HQ, and now it's no longer in Brooklyn, so I think it's worth mentioning, at least the totals. Vyselink (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone willing to do it please? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure how 'moving from Brooklyn' equates to some pressing need to include property sale values. The move of the headquarters is relevant, and has been retained. The property sales are relevant to the Watch Tower Society article, and are there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed changes

[edit]

A recent editor claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses are a continuation of the Associated Bible Students. This claim is particularly misleading as that specific name is an alternative branch of the Bible Student movement. This is even borne out in the JWs' own literature. Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 151: "Such fragmented groups used a variety of names, some of them clinging to the designation Associated Bible Students."; God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, page 251: "opposing ones have formed themselves into divers and numerous companies and have taken and now bear such names as, to wit, “Bible Students,” “Associated Bible Students,” “Russellites teaching the truth as expounded by Pastor Russell,” “Stand-Fasters,” and like names, all of which tends to cause confusion and misunderstanding". It is hoped that the editor will not continue to misuse the name Associated Bible Students in this manner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=1201005694"