Talk:James Penton

Anti-JW bias

Another article's Talk asked about Penton's bias against Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems best to simply reference verifiable scholars on the matter, and put those here. Penton himself wrote in one of his books, "Whether I have succeeded in being fair and reasonably objective in my presentation is a matter for my readers to decide."

• "Review" by Richard Singelenberg, Journal of Church and State, vol.47 no.3, page 627, "However, to conclude...as Penton does...is demagogical rather than the result of solid analysis. [...H]is presentation suffers from his aversion against his former religious community. ...If Penton would have been able to transform his seemingly personal vendetta into a detached analysis, this study would have rendered considerable surplus value. As it is now, the...scientific community will frown upon the author's lack of objectivity."
• Between Resistance and Martyrdom: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Third Reich by Detlef Garbe, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2008, page xx, "I would like to refer the reader to my comments about Penton's previous publications... His statements, source selection, and interpretation reflect a deep-seated aversion against this religious association, of which he had once been a member. ...from a historiographic viewpoint Penton's writings perhaps show a lack of scientific objectivity."
• "Book Reviews" by Kevin P. Spicer, Church History, July 2006, ©American Society of Church History, page 205, "Penton is a bit too reproachful in his evaluation of the Witnesses' actions...the weakness of Penton's study shows itself"
• Against the Draft by Peter Brock, University of Toronto Press, 2006, page 447, "More controversial is Penton's belief that 'the Witnesses...were in part responsible for their sufferings' in Nazi Germany... [Penton]'s main concern is to refute JW 'hagiolatry' and the sect's scholarly 'apologists.'"
• Histories and Stories from Chiapas by Rosalva Aida Hernandez Castillo, University of Texas Press, 2001, page 93, "Many researchers who are former Witnesses, such as...James Penton...represent converts as automatons controlled and homogenized by the religious group's ideological strength, a position belied by their own personal experiences."

One independent researcher claims that Penton is not merely a dispassionate academic, but a key anti-JW leader:

• A Brief Guide to Beliefs by Linda Edwards, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001, page 440, "In 1981 the Jehovah's Witnesses experienced a series of schisms that led to a large number leaving the organization. The leader of the opposition to the Brooklyn, New York, headquarters group was Professor James Penton, whose family had been among Russell's earliest converts. Penton and the people who sided with him sought to reemphasize the doctrine of justification by faith and return the group to its original interest in Bible study. The intention of Penton and other Witnesses who shared his ideas appears to have been reform from within. The Brooklyn leadership rejected their views and expelled anyone who supported them."

In May 1981, Newsweek magazine called Penton "one of 50 ex-Witnesses in Alberta, Canada, who are now working actively to debunk the sect's teachings".

Bryan Ronald Wilson was president of the International Society for the Sociology of Religion and had researched and published about Jehovah's Witnesses; Penton's JW books quote from Wilson. Wilson published these pointed comments in 1994:

"[A] member who departs is likely to be regarded as apostatizing, and all the more so, of course, if that member then proceeds to ridicule or excoriate his former beliefs and to vilify those who were previously his close associates. [...The] apostate becomes a central figure in the formation (or misformation) of opinion in the public domain concerning these movements. ...The disaffected and the apostate are in particular informants whose evidence has to be used with circumspection. The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. ...The apostate...seeks to reintegrate with the wider society which he now seeks to influence, and perhaps to mobilize, against the religious group which he has lately abandoned. ...Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem”. – Apostates and the New Religious Movements by Bryan Wilson, Freedom Publishing, 1994

Interestingly, Penton's 1997 book quotes from Wilson's words above, but concludes (page 233): "It may well be true that what Kliever, Melton, and Wilson say is correct about certain apostates, but it is difficult if not impossible to believe that their generalizations are true of all apostates.[italics retained from original]"
It would seem Penton felt stung by the universally-respected Wilson.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• You have evidently gone to great trouble to cherry pick adverse comments about Penton and ignored those complimentary of his books. In any case this talk page exists to discuss the content of the article, not your views on his books or his motives. BlackCab (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should describe all view point complementary or independent views on his motive. These points should be included in the article in addition to any positive reviews by independent scholars--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The article already quotes one author who describes his motives in writing a series of letters to the Jehovah's Witness leadership expressing his concerns about what he saw as increasing harshness and fixation with field service. According to Beverley, it was those letters that led to his expulsion. I'm still puzzled at why this cluster of quotes was added, apropros nothing, to this talk page. There are five negative comments about a book that is given only a passing reference in the article, a quote from a book that confirms that the Watch Tower Society purged its membership of anyone who agreed with Penton and a quote from Bryan Wilson that does not refer directly to Penton at all. It seems to be here with the sole purpose of denigrating the subject of the article, without addressing anything in the article itself. BlackCab (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A fairly pointy attack on the motives of the subject of an article is not appropriate, per WP:BLP (which also applies to Talk pages). The article subject's status as a former member of JWs is clearly stated. Characterisation of Penton as "a key anti-JW leader" (if such a thing exists) is not consistent with Linda Edwards' more specific comments about Penton's involvement in a single incident.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider WP:BLP. An "attack" is unreferenced or disingenuous. Tam's comments are neither, but wholly relevant to the article. JP is held up throughout WP as an "authority" and a reliable refererence for many of the negative assertions in the JW-related articles. So questions like 'is he biased' and therefore 'is he a reliable reference' are important and encyclopedic questions for WP and for the rest of the world who may consider using him as a reference. Biographies of living persons here at WP "should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject", and that is exactly what Tam is doing. It's reasonable to argue against his individual sources, but is not the job of Wikipedia to whitewash an article by calling the facts an "attack", just so that it doesn't include negative information; that would be a distortion of policy. Currently this article fails to accurately represent what reliable secondary sources say about the subject. --Tom Hulse (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam raised comments from other authors about a specific book by Penton, in order to make a point about unrelated discussion on a different Talk page, and also took Linda Edwards' statement entirely out of context, and he speculates about Penton's attitude about Bryan Wilson. Penton is consistently mentioned as a 'former member' when cited in other articles. This article correctly states that Penton wrote various things that were supportive of JWs while he was a member, and that he later left and wrote things that were critical about them. AuthorityTam has not suggested any new content for the article, but rather, he decided that unfavourable comments about Penton should be collected here on the Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Including the caveat that he is a 'former member' does not excuse or fix the use of an unreliable/biased reference in the JW articles. That only fixes possible conflict of interest (sometimes), not bias. When Tam said "It seems best to simply reference verifiable scholars on the matter, and put those here", it was a good faith effort to find the best place to discuss this, since it goes without saying that JP is a reference on most of the JW articles and this question of bias is an overarching question that is relevant to many more articles than just the one where the issue was raised. It doesn't really matter though, because things have changed since Tam's comments: I have proposed that the issue is relevant to this exact article and that this article should be changed to include what the reliable secondary sources have said about his authorship, per Wikipedia policy.

I actually agree with you about the interpretation of Linda Edwards' quote. The use of the word "key", as part of "key anti-JW leader" is technically not supported. A small overreach though. She does call Penton "the leader of the opposition to the Brooklyn, New York, headquarters group". If even one or more persons followed him, as Linda is saying, then the main point Tam is making, that he is not a dispassionate academic, is relevant. On other sources above, however, Tam perhaps did not go far enough to include the full force of their case for Penton's bias. If the secondary sources say he is biased in relation to his authorship on JW's, then it is Wikipedia's job to reflect and reference what they are saying; not whitewash it to remove anything we may consider negative. --Tom Hulse (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam's cherrypicked criticism refers only to Penton's Third Reich book (which gains only passing reference at this article). If this criticism is added to the article, how does Tom Hulse propose the article treat the greater number of academic sources that cite Penton without any negative comment? BlackCab (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We would want to be careful not to confuse actual academic reviews of his work, by indivividuals who may be in a position to recognize accuracy or bias, and whom perhaps have the experience to review his work; with any joe-schmoe who happens to just cite him without commenting on accuracy or fairness. That would be comparing apples to oranges and would not establish reliability. Conversely, it actually would be cherry picking if his body of work includes clear evidence of bias, but we minimized reviewing his worst work here (Third Reich) possibly so that he would appear more like a reliable source, perhaps so we might sneak in his negative comments to the JW articles. If we're truly interested in making Wikipedia neutral and unbiased, then there is no possible way this author could ever be used as a "source" for negative information in the JW articles. It's just plain dishonest to have him there. --Tom Hulse (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to present (or adjust) any references to Penton in Wikipedia articles that employ bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope though that you are not saying bias should be battled out on every individual negative comment of his in the articles, on it's own merits, without view to the author's bias? That would be a backdoor way to include a biased and unreliable source by essentially saying for each individual claim 'but you can't prove this one isn't true, he may have changed his bias'. If we really care about improving Wikipedia in an honest, academic way, then there is no way (with a straight face) we can include him a reference as he has been in the JW articles. --Tom Hulse (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On examination, by far the majority of references to Penton in Wikipedia articles are used for sourcing uncontested history and development of Bible Students (mainly) and JW doctrine; many of these are supplementary to primary sources supporting the same statement. Only a few references to Penton make negative statements about JWs, and those generally seem to be cited as the views of a former member. There is no reason at all to remove entirely uncontroversial citations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are several neutral references from him, but there are also many negative claims from him, and even some that should be factually neutral are presented with unnecessary negative-skewed wording. A highly biased source cannot be laundered by also using him several times for harmless minutiae; we can't change that he is an unreliable source and not worthy of Wikipedia. I saw several where negative claims appeared to supported by other sources, but a closer look shows they are circular referenced back to Penton. Your claim that these are "uncontested", even if it were true, is certainly not an appropriate reason to reason to be seeking facts for our neutral encyclopedia from a highly biased individual. He is just not a reliable reference. I of course don't want to wholesale-remove simple uncontested facts, but he just cannot stay as a reference for them. I think we all really need to be careful here that we are not more interested our personal axe to grind than in improving Wikipedia. --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are many neutral references from him, and some negative claims. I didn't specify which are uncontested (though it is certainly the case for the great majority of them), so your attempt to cast doubt on my supposed "claim" about uncontested points is disingenuous. It appears that someone has an "axe to grind" regarding presentation of Penton's bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tom Hulse is laying it on too thick. He claims Penton is "not a reliable reference", "highly biased" and "not worthy of Wikipedia" — on the basis of what? Critical book reviews by Singelenberg and Garbe? Spicer's criticism is mild at best, Brock takes issue with one of Penton's conclusions and Castillo dislikes Penton's dismissal of converts as automatons (a reasonable view of someone who, like me, has been inside the religion). It's highly relevant that among authors and academics who have freely cited Penton in their own works is Singelenberg himself as well as Wilson. Another author cites his books on JW relations with the Nazis. In just a few minutes I found these sources who cited Penton without demur:

• Robert Crompton, Counting the Days to Armageddon (James Clarke & Co, Cambridge, 1996). Crompton's exhaustive treatment of the development of eschatalogical doctrines cites Penton many times, mainly on historical facts, but also several times when dealing with the failed predictions for 1975.
• Richard Singelenberg, "It Separated the Wheat from the Chaff: The 1975 Prophecy and its Impact among Dutch Witnesses" (Sociological Analysis, Spring 1989, Vol 50, No.1), cites Penton along with Beckford, Zygmunt and others on defections post-1975, the religion's survival despite that prophetic failure and the willingness of church members to abandon jobs, sell property and defer medical treatment in the years leading up to 1975. Singelenberg also cites Penton on the purge of dissidents from the late 1979s on.
• Matthew N. Schmalz, "When Festinger Fails: Prophecy and the Watchtower", (Religion, October 1994, Vol. 24, No.4,) cites Penton on the failed 1975 predictions and post-1975 defections.
• Ronald Lawson, "Sect-State Relations: Accounting for the Differing Trajectories of Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses" (Sociology of Religion, 1995, 56:4). Lawson cites Penton on the persecution of Witnesses and their issue of conscientious objection, their rejection of secular law as "demonic", Watch Tower Society dealings with the Nazis and subsequent persecution of German JWs at the hands of the Nazis. Lawson cites Apocalypse Delayed as well as a 1990 paper in The Christian Quest on JWs, anti-semitism and the Third Reich.
• Bryan R. Wilson, "The Persistence of Sects", (Diskus, 1993, Vol 1. No.2, reproduced from Indian Missiological Review). Penton is included in the bibliography alongside Wilson himself, Beckford, Niebuhr, Rowe and others.
• Rodney Stark and Laurence R. Iannaccone, "Why the Witnesses Grow So Rapidly: A Theoretical Application" (Journal of Contemporary Religion, 1997, Vol. 12, No.2), citing Penton on issues of persecution of JWs and their view of formal eduction.
• Gary Botting, Fundamental Freedoms & Jehovah's Witnesses (University of Calgary Press, 1993. Botting cites and quotes Penton's Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada repeatedly, sometimes at length throughout the book and also cites Apocalypse Delayed
• Thomas Berger, Fragile Freedoms: Human Rights and Dissent in Canada (Clarke Irwin, 1982). Botting notes (p.164) that Berger favourably reviews Penton's Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada; Berger describes that book as "an authoritative account of the persecution of the Witnesses during the First and Second World Wars". Botting (pg 139) adds: "Berger gives high praise to Penton's text, which Berger cites liberally."

Academics are free to criticise Penton in book reviews, but the liberal use of him as a source in academic journals on issues on which Penton, as a prominent defector might well be expected to demonstrate bias undermines Tom Hulse's rather exaggerated claims of unreliability. BlackCab (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is also unclear from the criticisms of Penton located by AuthorityTam just what it was those authors were criticising. Singelenberg and Garbe were clearly reviewing Penton's Third Reich book; the Spicer book review was evidently published two years after that book was released; the specific works by Penton that attracted criticism from Brock and Castillo is not stated. The condemnation of Penton as "highly biased" and "not worthy of Wikipedia" on the basis of those criticisms of unknown context is hasty and undeserved. BlackCab (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And another update as I read his book: Detlef Garbe's criticism of Penton, cited at the introduction to this thread, is undeniably restricted to Penton's Third Reich book, and only a passing paragraph at that. Garbe cites Penton's Apocalypse Delayed several times and on pg 558 commends Penton for his interpretation. BlackCab (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is also unclear from the criticisms of Penton located by AuthorityTam just what it was those authors were criticising. I may be wrong, but as for me, it results quite clear that at least Garbe and Brock were criticising Penton's interpretation of the Declaration of Facts, especially Garbe, who is a Nazi-era historian (in fact he specified that from a historiographic viewpoint Penton's writings perhaps show a lack of scientific objectivity."). So I think it would be useful and appropriate to indicate that he's not reliable "from a historiographic viewpoint". For the rest, as Tom Hulse remarked, most of the comments are simply citations without any judgement about accuracy, and furthermore the subject of those citations is doctrinal, therefore highly subjective. Anaheim 94.34.102.53 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Toronto Star quote

The relevance of the lengthy section on a 1976 Toronto Star article is far from clear. The depth of discussion of that article by far outweighs its significance. I'd recommend deleting the lot and noting only that Penton wrote the book the Star article referred to. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

File:James Penton portrait.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:James Penton portrait.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:James Penton portrait.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed

This italicized portion of the following sentence in the James Penton article needs a citation. Otherwise, it is hearsay or false opinion: "...talks by the circuit and district overseers in Lethbridge warning that those who opposed the religion’s Governing Body would be destroyed by God." If no corroboration of the content of those talks is provided other than Penton's assertion, it should be viewed as a false statement and that portion deleted.

Beverley's book on Penton appears to be the basis for much of this article. There's no evidence he would have been present to hear any of the talks. G.Larson (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The statements are not Penton's assertions, and Beverley makes no claim to having been present at either of the meetings where the statements were made — the Lethbridge Galt Park congregation on 6 January 1980 (by circuit overseer Jack Danley) and a circuit assembly in Lethbridge on 1 December 1979 (by district overseer Larry Gray). Nor, it seems, was Penton present at either meeting. Beverley presents transcripts from recordings of both talks. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of his transcripts. I note that you have made, and then removed, the claim that Beverley "is also an ex-Jehovah's Witness"[1][2]. It's a bizarre, mean-spirited and completely unfounded claim, presumably made with the intent to denigrate Beverley because he criticized the JWs in his book, and implying he had a personal axe to grind. The preface to the book explains clearly the circumstances in which Beverley became interested in the Penton case after he joined the faculty of Atlantic Baptist College. A link here lists Beverley's credentials and his extensive list of published works on world religions. BlackCab (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

First: I had already edited out the thought that Beverley is an ex-Jehovah's Witness, as I discovered later it was an error I'd gleaned from an ex-Witness site. So, why are you now bringing up a statement I'd already removed? What purpose does your pointing out a deleted sentence serve? It looks "mean-spirited" and appears you have "a personal axe to grind" with me. Further, you read more into my comment than it deserved.

At first, I had thought that a past Witness background would be a reason why Beverley was interested in writing about Penton's case, (as well as his letters to others about Witnesses). But Beverley was not a Witness himself. So I removed the error. And you brought it up. Why?

Second: The part of the sentence: "warning that those who opposed the religion’s Governing Body would be destroyed by God" is a wrong idea and "a bizarre claim" itself. It would never be said by anyone who is a Witness, especially by one taking the lead--and even more especially--by more than one person in the lead. Is that a direct quote from Beverley's book? If so, it needs a citation. Or that part of the sentence needs to be removed. Anything else is only one editor's opinion of the talks' contents. G.Larson (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I put this under another topic but it bears repeating here: "Did you know that the very same James Beckford [you, Blackcab, cited in the other discussion] also states this in an affidavit dated in November 1998: "It is wrong for Mr ... to say that Jehovah's Witnesses regard their own organisation as 'the only absolute spiritual and political authority'. On the contrary, they proclaim their loyalty to God: not to an organisation." G.Larson (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I see a "citation" appeared. Since the closest library copy available to me is in a foreign nation, I am attempting to order it from there. The claim that idea could have been stated anywhere in a talk is bizarre and outrageous. G.Larson (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I, too, think its outrageous and bizarre for a circuit overseer to publicly suggest that a person who questioned the dictates of the Governing Body could be described as "speaking evil against the representatives of Jehovah God" and warned they could "become like Miriam and stricken with leprosy and he might lose his life". Many in the Lethbridge congregation clearly felt the same way and chose to leave the organization. It is in the transcript, however, and the circuit overseer later issued a very qualified apology for other comments he made in that speech. Your disbelief that a circuit overseer could speak like that is no reason to delete the statement, however. It's sourced and verifiable. BlackCab (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to verify the statement. Aside from the questionable use of the word "Governing Body" within that statement, saying someone "'might' lose his life" is quite a different statement than your absolute statement that they "'would' be destroyed by God". (They can have even more divergent meanings to Jehovah's Witnesses.) Finally, the article gave the impression that more than one person said those words. The assertion should be removed until it is verified. I am ordering the book and will read the talks' transcriptions for myself. G.Larson (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW: Beverley has called Jehovah's Witnesses a "cult" in one letter he wrote, and wrote other denigrating things in the same letter. So he's not a "neutral" resource. G.Larson (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove properly sourced material just because you don't believe it. Regardless of the language Beverley uses to describe the JWs, he remains a reliable source. Many other academic writers use the same word; it does not disqualify them as a source. BlackCab (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I will reword the sentence to include a quote from one or both the speeches, removing any ambiguity. BlackCab (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course despite your inclusion of Beverley's sarcastic and/or foolish comment, (which apparently underscores his own lack of scriptural knowledge), Witnesses and ex-Witnesses would know that the talk's words "stricken with leprosy" is a metaphor for being expelled from the congregation and shunned. (Under the Law given to Moses, persons with leprosy had to stay far from other Jews. The Law provided that the person could rejoin others after the disease was shown to be cured.) In that account, Aaron was upset that Miriam looked "like someone dead", and a concerned Moses interceded with God. Her quarantine only lasted seven days. (As God said, the same would have been imposed had her father merely spit in her face.) It's an apt figure of speech for disfellowshipping. So I'll read the talks when the book arrives. G.Larson (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have looked through the Watchtower Library and can find no articles anywhere that claim Miriam's seven-day bout of leprosy is a metaphor for disfellowshipping. That must be your own interpretation. The articles I have located claim the leprosy was a punishment for (a) "murmuring" against Moses and (b) her desire for greater power. The circuit overseer's reference to Miriam and leprosy was logically a response to Penton's criticism of a doctrinal position by the Governing Body. The GB, though just humans like the rest of us, clearly believe they are above criticism and think it is (as he explicitly said) "blasphemous" to question them. (My god, the arrogance!) The circuit overseer has therefore reached into the Bible for an account in which God, having heard Miriam's complaint, has directly, personally intervened to punish her after angrily demanding, "How then have you dared to speak against my servant Moses?" What was intended was an implicit threat that God could also physically punish Penton for his temerity. As far as I know, he is still in good health. BlackCab (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you were once a Jehovah's Witness as you've said you were, I would have thought you'd remember that Witnesses do not expect God to intervene to give bad health or punish someone in modern times, though Miriam, Herod and others in the Bible received punishment for their acts. They do not believe that God is currently dealing directly with individuals especially to mete out punishment, though--granted--one 1950 Watchtower indicated that could have been the case with one clergyman prior to the article's publication. The magazines I saw stated that the idea that God reaches out to punish people now is a false one that comes from the churches' clergy, not from JWs. One magazine article I saw said the false belief turns men away from God. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God gives only good gifts, and allows things to happen to people by their own actions and inherent imperfection. That is also in the magazines.

I spent a only few minutes looking. I was going to cut and paste sentences to show you what is written, but then decided it's not worth it. I figure any time I spend looking through the magazines, reading and pasting citations in a post will only amount to more disagreements. As I said, I will wait til the book arrives and read the talks for themselves. G.Larson (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree: it's not worth it. I have quoted the overseer to support the statement in the article and that's about where it ends. BlackCab (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab wrote: "The GB, though just humans like the rest of us, clearly believe they are above criticism and think it is (as he explicitly said) "blasphemous" to question them. (My god, the arrogance!)"

Highly unlikely. Arrogant people usually don't last all that long as Jehovah's Witnesses. The ability to subsume one's own ego is key to effectiveness in the door-to-door work and in home Bible studies. And willingnesses "to conform" and "to obey" are not traits of arrogant people. They generally weed themselves out.G.Larson (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Twenty-two separate edits to arrive at a two-line statement. Please, no more: you've misunderstood the comment anyway. BlackCab (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you worried about the number of edits? I'm not. G.Larson (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It suggests indeciseveness and obsessive compulsion. You make a comment, then keep nibbling at it for the next day! BlackCab (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So, why would that affect you? (I also have a few thoughts about your own personality, but I keep them to myself.) Dissecting editors' personalities is obviously not pertinent to the discussion of articles anyway. By the way, you evidently misunderstood my response re: your perception of an arrogant attitude within the Governing Body.G.Larson (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What we think about each other's personalities is likely moot anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_%28psychology%29 G.Larson (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: the quote: Author James Beverley observed: "It is not often that preachers use the threat of leprosy to keep the flock in line."

BlackCab stated: "I have quoted the overseer to support the statement in the article and that's about where it ends."

The paragraph doesn't end there. If it's supposedly only my "personal interpretation" that leprosy is a metaphor for disfellowshipping, what about Beverley's "personal interpretation" that prompted his ridiculous remark? Thinking that leprosy is a literal curse meant for Penton, (or anyone else in his position), is clearly not at all JW belief. So why would Beverley's "personal interpretation" of the talk's reference to Miriam's leprosy carry any more weight than my own? Beverley teaches at a Baptist College. His personal understanding of the overseer's remarks is something that only another religion's adherent might think. A JW knows better. Beverley's comment is clearly his own false impression of the talk's words. And Beverley displays his ignorance. The book still hasn't arrived, and I will read the talks; but, that is not what any overseer or any JW would intend to convey with the reference. There's no reason to include Beverley's remark unless there's an intent here to give a false impression to readers who are not familiar with the religion's beliefs.G.Larson (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW: I have had persistent problems with my home internet connection being lost multiple times a day. At times it's happened every few minutes. So unsaved work disappears. Rather than leave something on the screen while I think about it--or leave the computer to do other things--I've been in the habit of saving my work so it's not lost and coming back later. I've not been at all concerned when someone else has seen what's onscreen and has responded to it before I knew my comments were how I had wanted to word them, and had been reasonably sure that the typing and punctuation were correct.

I don't know why an editor would bother to take any time all to sift through someone else's past revisions in "Talk". To me, past "Talk" revisions are unimportant. "Talk" is not a public article. I can't think of any reason to bother looking through them--unless I would want to try to find something written in a previous "Talk" versions as a pretext to discredit or try to "shame" another editor. What rationale could there be?

That's all I'm going to say on this subject, or on the prior related subject of any editors' perceived personality traits. None of it has to do with anything important to Wikipedia articles. G.Larson (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(To be nice, I thought I'd let you in on something: Besides the current situation at home with a frequently-lost internet connection, I'd never learned how to type. I managed fine without typing proficiency at all university levels and as a business executive. And now, there are eyesight issues. It takes quite a while for me either to read anything onscreen or to type something out. (The white editing page is particularly difficult to read.) So, I don't compose my thoughts onto the screen quickly and I save frequently to prevent their loss. It's going to continue. Just get over it. Thanks.) G.Larson (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Leprosy

In his book on the expulsion of Penton, religious professor James Beverley quoted a public address given by a circuit overseer in which a comparison was made between "the man who seeks to destroy this organization" and the divine punishment of leprosy that was delivered to the biblical character of Miriam. User:G.Larson has repeatedly deleted the observation by Beverley that " "It is not often that preachers use the threat of leprosy to keep the flock in line." User:G.Larson has claimed: "Beverley's observation has nothing to do with how the words would have been received by Penton or the audience. Article is about Penton, not about Beverley's personal religious views." [3]. As a religious academic, Beverley is fully justified in making such an observation about a religion's response to dissent within its ranks. And that comment is entirely salient to this article. It is not up to a Wikipedia editor to decide "how the words would have been received by Penton or the audience" and to delete them on that basis. BlackCab (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As I have already observed, an inclusion of Beverley's comment would give a reader unacquainted with the religion the erroneous view that the reference of Miriam's curse was intended to be taken literally in the modern day. That would be false.

Beverley is evidently a Baptist, and the comment must reflect either his personal understanding of how God deals with people--as has already been pointed out--or an erroneous belief that JWs hold the same view as some Baptist churches. Though not all Baptists hold the belief that God punishes humans at this time,( http://www.rrcb.org/2013/03/does-god-punish-you-for-your-sins/ ), some extreme examples of that belief are here: http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/04/16/boston-bombing-funerals-will-be-picketed-westboro-baptist-church-says http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=88262 — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Larson (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you are trying to second-guess Beverley's belief set. It is ludicrous to think that a religious academic who, even at that time, specialised in the study of new religious movements, would be unaware of the beliefs of other religions. Indeed an appendix to the book accurately lists a set of beliefs unique to the JWs. He quotes from the tape of the circuit overseer's speech. The threat and warning contained in that speech is crystal clear. Whether the circuit overseer meant it literally or not, he issued that threat. Beverley rightly reflects on that statement. BlackCab (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've done my best to explain the remark's likely understanding by most readers unacquainted with JW's beliefs. I've explained my objections to retaining Beverley's personal thoughts about what meaning was intended. If you must leave the comment in for whatever reasons, then leave it. My conscience is clear. G.Larson (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"schism"

I think "schism" usually implies a division into two groups. Did those who left the congregation with Dr Penton start a new group?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight

The lead says that his expulsion caused a schism. If one reads more, it only mentions 80 of so members separating. This religion has millions and millions of members, 80 people is nothing. It shouldn’t be mentioned in the lead. By that measure, my family could be considered “a schism in the Catholic Church”. I removed it from the lead. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph in the body says it caused a schism among Lethbridge Witnesses, from which 80 was a significant proportion. But the statement in the lead did imply a much more significant departure from the denomination generally, which was not an accurate summary of the statement in the body. What do the cited sources actually say?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)