The salvation section makes the following somewhat inaccurate statement: " They believe that all intelligent creatures are endowed with free will, and that salvation is the result of a person's own decisions" and I am looking for recommendations on a rewording of the statement so that it conveys a more accurate description of what JW's really believe, as Jehovah's Witnesses believe that salvation is a result of the "undeserved kindness" of Jehovah, and not as a result of ones personal actions. They do however believe that a person must demonstrate in their daily lives, works which befit repentance, meaning they must constantly live up to their Christian dedication to Jehovah God. This sentence is lacking in clarity on this point and I am looking for assistance in rewording it so it gives a more complete description. Any suggestions? Willietell (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that the JW belief is that "salvation is a result of the "undeserved kindness" of Jehovah" and "as a result of one[']s personal actions". Within the context of the typical Christian doctrine of divine grace, the statement about free will seems fairly accurate, but I have made a minor change to better suggest that it's a factor rather than "the result of". The paragraph that follows already seems to include the other points you've raised, so there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a section on Bible Chronology to the beliefs page, I just wanted to run that by people for comment. Willietell (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What would the section contain? BlackCab (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't completely formulated the idea, but I was thinking along the lines of the views of JW's with regards to the dating of significant biblical events from the creation of Adam up to the death of John and possibly until the fulfillment of Revelation 12:7. I envision it as possibly becoming a rather large section that might one day require a minor section with a redirect to the main article, but its likely best to start small and see if the section grows in information. Willietell (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it could be too big to include as a section of its own here. Your best course would be to build the article in your sandbox, then when it's finished, launch it as a separate article. Once it has passed the notability test, then link to it from the JW beliefs article and possibly include a brief summary here. BlackCab (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Much of what JWs call 'Bible chronology' is at odds with not only secular history, but also with other interpretations of the Bible. Therefore any section purporting to present "Bible chronology" (or biblical chronology) would need to very clearly indicate that the views are those of JWs, and would need to indicate that they are not supported by other sources (and some scholars, including Richard Dawkins, John Steele, Ron Sack and others, have specifically said they've been misquoted by the Watch Tower Society). Such a section also should not be written in a way that tries to preach or convince.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would present the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, this its existence on the Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs page. I will have to see how large it gets at the beginning, if it becomes too large then a separate article might be necessary. At present, it's just an idea I'm tossing around. Willietell (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the topic would merit a separate article. Such an article would constitute original search unless it were to draw sufficiently from secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Presumably it would be drawn from the All Scripture is Inspired book and sourced to that. That book has five pages of a list of "outstanding historical dates" starting with Adam's creation in 4026BCE. Edmond Gruss's Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation devoted more than 20 pages to an analysis of how the WTS arrived at that date and a comparison with the guesses of other theologians that ranged from 3958BCE (Selwyn, 1899) to 11,013 (Harold Camping, 1970). I don't see that any estimate is any more reliable than another, and I'm quite curious to see what Willietell proposes to do with this: create it as a list? Write an article comparing WTS calculations with those of other religions? Explain the origin of each of those major dates? The sandbox has to be the starting point, and from there see if it's worthwhile. BlackCab (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The article would have to be titled along the line of "Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine on Bible chronology". It would be a version, I suppose, of Chronology of the Bible, where Willietell has had a fairly fractious relationship with other editors as he attempted to add JW versions of history. He would also have to deal with the inevitable suggestions (already raised at the other article's talk page) that he is presenting fringe views. BlackCab (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I may be the only one to say anything, and to be honest as BlackCab and Jeffro can attest I'm probably the last person expected to say anything, but I'm not sure I agree with changing "Restoration of True Christianity" to "Restorationism". If this was in the straight history section of JW's, I'd agree. But this is about their beliefs, and while my direct involvement with JW's ended many years ago, I'm pretty sure they still believe/are taught that they did in fact restore true Christianity. I'm not going to change it because I wanted to get a discussion on it but I thought I'd mention it. Vyselink (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to find a less NPOV section heading, can you suggest one? We discourage scare quotes. Anything that doesn't look as though Wikipedia is asserting that they restored true Christianity will probably be ok. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A simple one would be to put "True Christianity" in quotes, clearly denoting the belief that they have. This way Wikipedia isn't saying anything, just stating the beliefs of JW's. Vyselink (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change to Restorationism, which is the correct term for the belief that a group represents a so-called 'restoration' of 'true' Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's why I changed it. Scare quotes are deprecated and since I've criticised their use elsewhere I'm not happy about their being used here. Restorationism seems as NPOV as we can get. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Vyselink (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the publication "Should you believe in the Trinity" appears to have been withdrawn by the Jehovah's Witnesses, the section "God", which includes a reference to it (Footnote 74) should be revised, and whatever doctrinal changes have precipitated the withdrawal of the publication should be documented. Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if the book has been "withdrawn", the doctrinal statement that uses it as a source is probably unchanged. If you are aware of a change in Jehovah's Witness doctrine about the trinity, please advise of the source. BlackCab (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you deleted following addition in the section "Bible": Other differences are, e.g., the translation of "all" or "everyone" in John 1:7, John 1:9 and 1Tim 2:4, as it is in all known English Bible translations, as "people of all sorts" or "every sort of man" in the New World Translation.<ref>http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/john/1 John 1 in the New World Translation</ref><ref>http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/1-timothy/2 1 Timothy 2 in the New World Translation</ref>

The reason for this edit is that it is a further example where the New World Translation is in contrast to all other known and used English translations. That is not by chance. Why shouldn't such a fact be mentioned? Nikil44 (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can establish that these specific differences are discussed in reliable sources, then your addition constitutes original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will do. But with a different passage, for which it is easier to find sources which can be checked on the internet itself. Nikil44 (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The additional source you provided—the website of an anonymous non-denominational group—fails the criteria for reliable sources, and also poses WP:NPOV problems.

Also, the level of detail you're trying to add is probably not suitable to this main article anyway, and is already covered at the main New World Translation article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not cite this kind of source, such as an article from a non-denominational group, for the article itself, but thought it was possible for the section External links. Doesn't have the term "reliable source" vague borderlines? I think we cannot say that even a famous scholar is absolutely neutral while writing about some topic, argueing and explaining his point of view. Isn't the content of his writing decisive. In the same way an article from a noname group can provide helpful information if its writing is well-elabourated and on a high theological level. Furthermore, it is clear in this case here that it is not completely neutral because it is a criticism. My thought was that because the doctrine of heavenly hope only for 144,000 Christians is unique for the Jehovah's Witnesses and is one of high importance among their beliefs (the title of this article), it is sensible to provide a criticism from mainstream Christianity. That article makes the point well.

So, my first question would be: Do you expect the same level of reliability of a source within the article as well as for the section of external links? My second question is whether, in this article, you reject critical links in the external links section. Nikil44 (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the other point: I agree that it is too detailed, but can you imagine to add a short sentence in the text with some details in the footnote? I do not see a problem if it is somewhat covered in another article. Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible translation is the base of their beliefs. One of their main beliefs is that Jesus is not God, in this connection Joh 1:1 is the most discussed passage. I find it very appropiate to mention the opposing explanation which is held of most of nowadays Christian churches. Nikil44 (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem quite desperate to make your point at this article. The article already states their belief that Jesus is not god. Special elaboration about the NWT is not necessary at this article, and is already present at the NWT article. It is not necessary to provide 'criticism from mainstream Christianity' here (even though your anonymous non-denominational source isn't identifiable as 'mainstream Christianity' anyway), which is an unnecessary break from a neutral point of view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your questions about external links, please see WP:ELNO, particularly the parts about blogs and personal websites. The anonymous website you're promoting can't readily be identified as anything other than a personal website, and the views of that particular group do not constitute a benchmark for 'mainstream Christianity'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I simply think a bit beyond the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, e.g. in the question of reliability. And, does not criticism / different perspective add to a neutral representation of a topic? Nikil44 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to think beyond the rules and guidelines all you like. There is a place for notable criticism, but you're yet to provide anything we can even use as a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

just a quick fact check the article says the world governments will be destroyed and all non witnesses "cleansed" by jesus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.113.160 (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not say non-Witnesses are cleansed by Jesus. Is says human governments and non-Witnesses are removed, and that the removal of those results in a cleansed society. But yes, it's basically genocide.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a sexuality header because I was curious what the JWs view on homosexuality. Do they view it as "you are born with it" or do you develop it? What do they do with members who are homosexual?Zigu28 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

JW views of sexuality are addressed at Jehovah's Witnesses practices#Morality and Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline. But to answer your question, their view is that it 'doesn't matter' whether it is innate or not. They view it as 'wrong' irrespective of the causes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

On 14 July 2015 (UTC), two consecutive edits were made to this article from IP 2601:406:4D03:EC99:2169:1248:CFCB:531E. The second of those has been undone, but the first has been not been undone by the time of the latest revision. Either this was unintentional, or the editors managing this article have decided to leave the added text in the article.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. BlackCab (TALK) 22:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Willietell has claimed that his recent edits have been unfairly reverted "by pov editor". However, as has previously been the case, there were specific reasons for reverting his edits.

In his first of the two edits, he claimed that stating that JW beliefs are based on scripture as interpreted by the Governing Body is original research and a misrepresentation of sources. However, the cited source explicitly states that questions of interpretation are decided by the Governing Body; the source further asserts that JWs 'recognize' the 'arrangement' for the 'slave class' (which is considered to be synonymous with the 'Governing Body') as their source of 'spiritual food'. If necessary, additional sources could be included to further demonstrate that the Governing Body decides interpretations of scripture that all JWs are required to accept, including whenever they change their mind. Hence, Willietell's first claim is false.

In Willietell's second edit, he added an extraneous clause about avoiding the terms 'Old' and 'New Testament' "because they consider the description to be a truer representation of the bible as one complete work". This addition is redundant for two reasons (in addition to the minor grammatical issues of using singular terms to describe two descriptions). Firstly, it is already stated that the reason JWs do not use these terms is to avoid a perception that the 'Old Testament' is outdated (even though JWs, like many Christian groups, assert that various 'Old Testament' edicts 'do not apply to Christians'), hence promoting the Bible as "one complete work". Secondly, all Christians regard the Bible as a single work, so it is not necessary to elaborate about the fact that JWs also accept the entire Christian Bible, and it is self-evident that JWs believe their preferred terms are more accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

After converting the harvnb citations to sfn, when I was rereading the manual of style I noticed that such conversions should not usually be done when the referencing style is already consistent. It seems to have been the case, if other editors object to this change I could revert back to harvnb (although the state is still a consistent, but different, one now). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 09:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Consubstantiality is usually the superficial merger of the trinity, but Jehovah Witnesses don't accept the trinity. Ok with that. But consubstantiality - Greek: to homoousion means also that the person-god Jehovah the father alone is internally non divisible - doesn't have internal constituents.

Some people say he has, some say no. Is the second definition (not about the trinity) of the ομοούσιον accepted officially by the Jehovah Witnesses? Add data about the innate consubstantiality of the person-god Jehovah as interpreted officially by the Jehovah Witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411B:BA00:B547:9A81:559A:8897 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

JWs have no position themselves on "consubstantiality", which is a subset of trinitarian belief, other than that they don't believe in it. It is not necessary for this article to elaborate on JW views of Catholic views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm thankful for everyone who took the time to explain the technicalities of Wikipedia. My intentions were never to buck the system or to misuse what I know. There used to exist an entire project dedicated to correcting the bias that crept into articles on religion here because there were contentious disagreements about how religion articles should be written on specific denominations because people with bias could hide behind user IDs and pretend to be in favour of improving an article while they sabotaged it with their edits. So when I read in the intro that this denominations activities were being minimized, "some news" which could mean anything rather than the Christian gospel "good news," I was struck with how what they do was being misrepresented, and I looked for help where ever I could, because it surprised me that this false bit of information and misrepresentation had been in the introduction of the article for so long, for 12 years it turns out. Whether it was added by a real JW or a false JW 12 years ago who can know. But my RfC was not about user conduct specifically. My point is the single most important bit of teaching/doctrine of this denomination had been misrepresented for a very long time, right in the introduction, and who knows how many other JW articles have this kind of sabotage in them? You can see from the above discussion that I tried to highlight that it was a concern for me, and it was just brushed under the carpet. My edit wasn't just adding an internal link, my edit wasn't just a small rewording, an addition of an internal link which had yet to be contested, but that I had to make it in the first place after 12 years. If you don't care about the correctness of the information in the article then it wouldn't matter to you that it had been wrong for 12 or so years. But the point is that all of Christianity revolves around "the good news" (AKA The Gospel) and if you take that away from Jehovah's Witnesses you're sabotaging their place as a Christian denomination, their place as Christians and Christianity. And that this article was misrepresenting an entire denomination's prime doctrine for 12 or so years, is a shame on this encyclopedia. Technically what I did may have been the wrong approach, backwards approach, but the record now exists of how my intention was received and how my points were minimized and/or twisted. Like saying it was "just a link" (paraphrase, see above) is taking what I wrote out of context by ignoring the other half. So I am thankful that this record exists, I'm sorry I'm not perfectly fluent in Wikipedia syntax & procedure, but I have no doubt in this case that the ends justifies the means. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You're still complaining about a perceived problem over the inclusion of a link and one word, which has already been addressed. There is no actionable request here. Just to be clear, your claim that "the single most important bit of teaching/doctrine of this denomination had been misrepresented" is completely false, as the source added 12 years ago included a quote stating very clearly that the "good news" refers to the Christian 'gospel' and not some vague general sense. Perhaps, if you imagine there to be some broad problem with the way the denomination is presented in Wikipedia, you could focus on what you imagine to be the most serious concern rather than this ultimately mundane oversight that has already been corrected.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. JWs would deny that their organization is a denomination of Christianity, as they believe they are the only Christians in the universe. What most people call "Christianity" they would denounce as demonic. And they would deny that their belief system constitutes a religion. 2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:28EF:2259:6821:F44A (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't matter that JWs don't consider other Christian denominations to be 'real Christians', for the same reason that it doesn't matter that some other Christians don't consider JWs to be 'real Christians'. Your statement that "they would deny that their belief system constitutes a religion" is simply false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)