Talk:Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses

Mansikka

An anonymous editor added reference to a book by Pekka Mansikka (a self-taught and self-published researcher), along with some tedious POV editorial about Jonsson. I have already deleted blatantly POV editorial, but for now I have left reference to Mansikka, with the required templates for the necessary verification at a minimum. However, because Mansikka cites Furuli as a source for the relevant periods, it is at best circular reasoning to suggest Mansikka's research represents any kind of secular support for the JW chronology. Additionally, no basis was provided for the original editor's claim that Mansikka provides "strong evidence" in support of his position. From the limited extract of the book I have been able to review, it appears Mansikka is incapable of defending a position that requires that Simanu began in July, as would be required for Mansikka's (Furuli's) interpretation of VAT 4956.

If elaboration is not provided in a reasonable amount of time, perhaps a month, reference to Mansikka will be deleted as fringe and undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

A month? This seems pretty clear cut to me. I'd give it a few days at most. Vyselink (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a month is generous. And the 'perhaps' would depend on whether there were no explanation given for retaining the information, or just an inadequate one.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 Whether we wait or not, it seems like this would still be considered fringe? Personally I lean a bit more towards removing the content in question and we can discuss it further here if necessary. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t think it would be fair of me to unilaterally remove it but I’m not opposed to its removal either.—Jeffro77 (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it. If someone wants to challenge it then they can do it here, but it's not a RS and adds nothing to the article. Vyselink (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

GB as anointed for generation change

An IP added this " which included all the then members of the Governing Body" to the end of the 'The "generation of 1914" (1976–present)' section. Jeffro has removed it, stating "tangential, and unverifiable that any person is actually anointed". (see here)

I am not necessarily arguing that it should be put back in, but I think there should be a discussion on it, as I believe it is relevant. To be a member of the GB, one must be of the anointed, so the GB of the time essentially made themselves even MORE sacrosanct than they already are by saying "we are the last of this important time period". If any other ruling body (be it religious or even just business oriented) made a new rule that directly elevated a subset of the organization into a higher status (regardless of any actual power increase), and ALL of the members of that ruling body just so happened to be a part of this newly elevated subset, I personally don't think that's tangential. That to me sticks out as being potentially very important, and therefore notable.

As for the "unverifiable that any person is actually anointed" argument, I argue that is entirely an irrelevant point. The JW's believe in the anointed, the organization revolves around a subset of the anointed as being in charge, and acceptance of the idea of the anointed (regardless of an individual being accepted as such) within their religion is nigh-on universal. It makes no difference that it can't be "proven". That's like arguing that because it can't be proven that the Pope's papal supremacy is approved by God that we shouldn't talk about him as having it. It's there because the followers of the religion have accepted it as being there, and the power that the title confers is a de facto power, irrespective of its "verifiability". Vyselink (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society itself says that people claiming to be anointed may not actually be anointed, rather than it being some external opinion, so the analogy does not apply. It is the official view of the denomination that claims of being 'anointed' cannot be verified (despite the fact that the claim of being 'anointed' by high-ranking members must nevertheless be accepted by other members). In reality, to be a member of the GB, what is actually required is that a sufficient number of current GB members accept the claim of a prospective member that he is anointed.

The GB a few years ago changed the definition of the 'faithful slave' to apply only to the 'Governing Body'. As such, neither term is considered equivalent to the 'anointed' and nor do the GB members claim to be the 'last of the anointed'. Hence it remains tangential to the point.

The cited Watchtower article for the statement that was modified does not mention the Governing Body at all. The video cited in the same paragraph (thanks for making me have to listen to it 😔) only briefly mentions the Governing Body once right at the end of the video, saying the members of the Governing Body are also members of the 'generation', but it also makes no comment at all about people who were "then [in 1992] members of the governing body".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

1914 or 1913?

2520 years after 607 BC is 1913 AD. So why 1914 is stated?! Aminabzz (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No. There was no ‘year 0’ between 1BC and 1AD. You can think of 607BC as -606 (this is how BC years are handled in contexts such as calculations for astronomy), which should resolve the confusion.—Jeffro77 (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Aminabzz (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)