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.
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw(a)reactor-core.org
Webpage:
http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2