Should Jehovah's Witnesses be added to the Wikipedia article on Doomsday Cults?

by jwfacts 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • jwfacts
    jwfacts

    There is discussion of Doomsday Cults at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult, and much of it aligns closely with Watchtower predictions and behaviour, so I was wondering why Jehovah's Witnesses are not mentioned. Here are some quotes from the article:

    Doomsday cult is an expression used to describe groups who believe in Apocalypticism and Millenarianism , and can refer both to groups that prophesy catastrophe and destruction, and to those that attempt to bring it about

    ....

    Others have used the term to refer to groups which have made and later revised apocalyptic prophesies or predictions, such as the Church Universal and Triumphant led by Elizabeth Clare Prophet , and the initial group studied by Festinger, et al.

    ....

    Lofland laid out seven conditions for a doomsday cult, including: acutely felt tension, religious problem-solving perspective, religious seekership, experiencing a turning point, development of cult affective bonds, and neutralization of extracult attachments. [7] He also suggests that individuals who join doomsday cults suffer from a form of deprivation. [11]

    ...

    Social scientists have found that while some group members will leave after the date for a doomsday prediction by the leader has passed uneventfully, others actually feel their belief and commitment to the group strengthened. [31] Often when a group's doomsday prophesies or predictions fail to come true, the group leader will simply set a new date for impending doom, or predict a different type of catastrophe on a different date.

    Would it be accurate to add Jehovah's Witnesses, and if so what should be included?

  • cptkirk
    cptkirk

    I think people generally know that Jdubs aren't overall into gun ownership, and as long as that is the case, there are just too many other fish to fry, for now. Their anti violence and general anti gun stance will keep them from being technically defined as a cult, even though they are. it would be clear that there was too much personal animus if they were "technically defined" as such, at this point in time. be careful not to hand your enemies leverage against you by over-stepping. I can cut down the biggest jdubs right now like minced meat, why? because we are on the defensive and they are the aggressor....as long as that angle is secure, they fall like dead wood. if the balance gets pushed too hard at the wrong time, then leverage can be lost.

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    I think the fact that they are not their , just emphasize`s how insignificant they are and how ineffectual they are at getting their message across to the general public.

    smiddy

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    Would it be accurate to add Jehovah's Witnesses, and if so what should be included?

    Only if there are 'reliable sources' (per Wikipedia's definition) that include JWs in such groups. Otherwise it would be 'original research', which is not permitted there.

  • whathappened
    whathappened

    Hell, yes.

    You know what to say and you will do a great job. As a reader of your website, you have what it takes to handle this job. Can you put in a link to jwfacts.com?

  • whathappened
    whathappened

    Hell, yes.

    You know what to say and you will do a great job. As a reader of your website, you have what it takes to handle this job. Can you put in a link to jwfacts.com?

  • Defianttruth
    Defianttruth

    "Reliable sources" ? Just quote WTBS publications. No wait a minute................ I was wrong it says "reliable". Not everchanging "new light" sources.

  • jwfacts
    jwfacts

    Interesting answers. I think it could be intervowen as part of resetting dates, rather than emphasis on the cult part. It is good advice to try to get a quote from reliable sources, so if anyone can point to some, please do.

    I like the idea of adding part of Sagan's quote.

    "One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and -- while the events of that year were certainly of some importance -- the world does not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, "Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014.' A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way." But they did not. They could have said, "Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth." But they did not. Instead, they did something much more ingenious.

    They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. "

    Broca's Brain , Carl Sagan (New York: Ballantine Books, 1979, pp. 332-33)

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    That quote of Carl Sagan is not in the condensced version of his book .

    smiddy

  • ÁrbolesdeArabia
    ÁrbolesdeArabia

    I think they should be added to the group, how much study did you do on the UFO Cult or BO and Peep of "Heavan's Gate"? The big books on psychology only mention the Doomsday Cults modestly. The theory of Cognitive Dissosance originated with the UFO Cult, I remember studying that as a JWin college"group psychology" and it flew by my head without thinking "hey you know we fall into this pattern with 1914?" and the other part "God is being good to us all by extending the time for more to fill the ark." UFO cult "We prayed to god and he spared the earth" when her prediction failed. I love those doomsday cults!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit