On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 06:54:16AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:

...

It is of note that the Changing Doctrines material was a straight dump of material RK had already written and put on another page on the Wikipedia, so it consisted of paragraphs and paragraphs of duplication. Secondus, the material wasn't even directly related to the topic of the article that he dumped it in. RK's information dump would have been appropriate in the talk page, but not the article proper.

I don't agree with you on this. The Changing Doctrines material is directly applicable to the subject of the article, "Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues". That material is about the Jehovah's Witnesses. And it is a controversial issue. So it belongs directly on that page.

I have to apologize to RK, and everyone else. What I said about the Changing Doctrines material in that particular article was wrong.

I was confusing it with material in the "Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses" article, which is as I described.

I do stand by what I said about the material in the Changing Doctrines section having been resolved. The fact that it is already covered in the "Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses" page and hasn't undergone any edits in a long while seems like prima facie evidence to me that it is NOT controversial, and so doesn't belong in the "Controversies" page.

Characterizing copying and pasting of legitimate information as an "information dump" is not very helpful.

I have to apologize to RK again, because it was not him, but someone from the IP 165.155.128.132 who added that material. I believe someone once told me that was RK's IP, but I can't be certain.

I will let you judge for yourself. Here is the material from the Doctrines page I was referring to.

Controversies about changes in religious doctrine

Many religions (e.g. Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses,* Orthodox Judaism, Islam) teach not only that their followers should accept a given set of doctrines as true, but also that these doctrines have never changed, and never will change. In stronger or weaker terms, religious authorities in these faiths have repeatedly stated throughout history that their doctrines of faith are infallible,* and that the group has never reversed or significantly changed their position.*

For those people who do not have an agenda of preserving institutional religious authority, these changes are clearly seen to be a major change or reversal of position. The claims are held to be false. For example, Roman Catholics completely reversed their official position issued during the Middle Ages that "there is no salvation outside the church". Vatican II clearly reversed this position, and more recent statements concerning salvation for Jews, not to mention Protestants, has also clearly stated an opposite position. Similarly, Orthodox Jews hold beliefs based on the medieval works of Maimonides, which they claim are identical to the beliefs expounded in the Torah (five books of Moses). However non-Orthodox Jews, as well as non-Jewish historians, have shown that many of these did not develop until over a millennium after the time of Moses.

It is virtually impossible to get a Catholic Christian, Jehovah's Witness or Orthodox Jew to admit that there was a change or reversal in their basic religious doctrine. This dispute occurs because it is ingrained in their theology that doctrine never reverses itself. Most traditional religious believers in Christianity, Islam and Judaism hold that they are the recipients of an authentic revelation from God. In their view, it is imperative for them to maintain that the received revelation was accurate. (Some might admit that the initial revelation was limited, thus allowing the possibility of a subsequent revelation to offer additional details or clarification.) However, according to the traditional religious view, once someone claims that the revelation was in error, or not really divine at all, the belief system would then no longer be internally consistent. In this view, religion falls apart if a doctrine is changed or questioned. This is the view of Fundamentalist Chrisitianity, most branches of Islam, and Ultra-Orthodox Jews today.

Religious liberals, as well as people not involved in any religion at all, reject this position as being logically flawed. The flaw is that many fundamentalists are unable to admit the possibility of any position between completely right and completely wrong. No in-between state of affairs is considered. In the non-fundamentalist view, religion is not damaged or compromised if a belief is changed or questioned. This effect could only come about if one set up an absolutist system in the first place. In other words, if the religion teaches that "All these doctrines must be accepted in toto, or the entire religion will crumble", then of course the religion will crumble as soon as an error is found or a change in doctrine comes about. The flaw is that this is a case of circular reasoning.

Another criticism of the claim that doctrines do not change is that such claims are not intellectually honest, and instead are self-serving. This view is held to be self-serving because a group gives to itself, and in particular its leadership, a putative divinely sanctioned role that is denied to those outside the power structure. The resulting suppression of dissent is thus self-serving. In hierarchical religions, such as Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, this can set up a chain of command, and claim that divine revelation is reserved to a powerful few who then set up a self-perpetuating system to make sure that the power hierarchy is never challenged.

Could our scientists and philosophers take a look at [[The Logic of Scientific Discovery]], [[Ideological assumptions http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_assumptions]], [[Pre-columbian transatlantic contacts http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-columbian_transatlantic_contacts]] and other contributions of 200.149.93.63 & 200.149.94.243

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=200.149.94.243