Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses
edit
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | The filing party confirms the dispute is resolved at the article talk page. Amadscientist (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
18 July 2013 Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute is "They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs, although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible" Corjay believes that Holden should not be included in this article but rather in the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that it is not accurate. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talkpage and ANI discussion. Corjay has refused to discuss with user's who are former witnesses on grounds it's against his beliefs. How do you think we can help? Review for Neutrality, verify that the sourcing is correct and not inflammatory. Opening comments by BlackCabeditPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Holden's comment is presented as the observation of an unbiased academic who is widely cited in academic literature for his work on the religion. It is clearly labelled as his viewpoint, and is not presented as a "fact". It is not presented under the "Sources of Doctrine" section as criticism per se, but as part of an editorially-neutral presentation of exactly what JW beliefs are based on. JWs in their literature state that the Bible is the final authority for their beliefs, but Holden, like other academics, has noted that where the Bible may provide a shade of grey, the Watch Tower Society provides a black and white. In cases where the Bible provides no absolute directive, individual JWs are generally not permitted to arrive at their own interpretation: for the sake of "unity", a definitive answer is provided in church literature, which would most certainly "carry almost as much weight as the Bible", as Holden concluded. It is therefore appropriately presented and appropriately positioned. BlackCab (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening comments by Jeffro77editPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Holden's statement is accurate. Watch Tower Society literature frequently provides interpretations about matters not directly stated in the Bible, which must be accepted by JW members. When new doctrinal 'understandings' are published in Watch Tower Society publications, the new views must be accepted as 'Bible truth'. Dissenting members may be subject to shunning. See my other comments at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by CorjayeditPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
DiscussioneditPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|