Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

LInks to Forums?

Is there a limit to the number of forums we want to have linked in the Resources sections (positive and negative)? What do you all think? Dtbrown 05:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well.. I can only think of one forum that mandates civility (http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl) (run unofficially by several active Jehovah's Witnesses). Rob Bowman's (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evangelicals_and_jws/) is usually civil, but can get very heated. Beliefnet and CARM are bottom rung Witness bashing forums. Beliefnet isn't really set up to be like that, it's predominately the users, CARM however, is set up to specifically trash Jehovah's Witnesses (and all other religions that aren't Evengelical Orthodox). Beyond that, I am unaware of other forums that get any traffic that have active Jehovah's Witnesses who post there. Those are just my thoughts, I don't see a problem with posting any or all of them, however I agree with Jeffro that there is a rediculous amount of links already on the main Jehovah's Witness page. Duffer 06:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that sound's like sound advice we do not want it to be become trashed up. www.jehovahs-witness.com seems to be the main that everyone in or out of the society goes to and the one with all the good facts and most up to date news.--Greyfox 02:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Cross at top of main page

I'm just wondering if we should ask Wikipedia to remove the cross from the top of the main page? It's a symbol that's offensive to Witnesses and might hinder Witness participation here. Any other thoughts? Dtbrown 23:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That was added without comment by Tomtom941 [1] - perhaps the template could just be removed - this template is highly POV & causing problems --JimWae 00:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The cross is used generically as a symbol of Christianity. The Christianity template is used to indicate that the article pertains to a Christian religious group, not that it specifically endorses the use of the cross. If people feel that the template is inappropriate, then the article should not state that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion, which would be ridiculous. It would also be inappropriate to modify the template that uses a generic symbol simply because a particular offshoot of Christianity doesn't use the symbol. Though there may be a perceived conflict by some individuals, the presence of the template is appropriate.--Jeffro77 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a JW. I do not find this cross symbol offensive as this entire website is not supported by JW's. A few JW's contribute here and we should realize that as a "worldly" resource we will have to deal with some uncomfortable things or else not be here. George 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with George. Also, any Witness who does not understand the context of the cross is also not likely to be an editor here. Witnesses are not likely to use Wikipedia as a resoruce to undertstand their own faith. The belief about the cross is noted on the first list of beliefs in the article. - CobaltBlueTony 03:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Heck, maybe there's a way to add something near the box on the page that serves as a disclaimer specifically stating that Witnesses do not believe in the cross.Tommstein 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

They're other Christian religions which disapprove of the cross. I frequently edit the Iglesia ni Cristo article, and its talk page also voices the problem with the cross on the template. But Jeffro already stated the issue with the template. However, there's also the ichthys which can be used as well. I'm thinking about proposing a change at the {{Christianity}} template talk page. I'd like to know your input on it. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

this need to be added to the other article please

blood issue

A peer-reviewed essay entitled, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," found in the Autumn issue of Baylor University’s Journal of Church and State, published December 13, 2005, discusses the potential vulnerability of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ legal corporations to significant claims for compensation because of the religion’s possible misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions. According to the essay, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not remove the legal responsibility that every person or organization has regarding misrepresenting secular fact. If actual court cases follow the legal argument suggested by this essay, the total awards to those who have lost relatives as a result of the doctrine could easily total hundreds of millions of dollars, crippling the organization financially. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has decided to now issue a new directive on blood to all congregations from January 2006, and this replaces the 1995 directives, which are to be removed from organizational files and "be destroyed".--Greyfox 04:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer review means very little to me in this instance as the author's "peers" are other Tort lawyers attempting to expand Tort law beyond it's current boundaries by witchhunting the WTB&TS. Give me some MDs and/or MD blood specialists to vouch for it. I'll take a closer look into it later, i'm sick. Either way I think that quote (or preferably a more accurate summary of the actual contents of the article) should either be reduced to just two or three concise sentences, deleted entirely, or relegated to the appropriate page: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood. (Yes I do have a copy of this article, and I have read it.) Duffer 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of the process of peer review and accusations regarding the motives of tort lawyers mean very little, and absolutely nothing to anyone but you and others trying to defend the practices discussed in the specific essay. Greyfox, if you find any other article where the paragraph would be appropriate, feel free to insert it.Tommstein 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is worth a paragraph - probably in the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood article - but it hardly appropriate for the main article, nor should it be spammed into every possible JW article.

Tommstein said "If you find any other article where the paragraph would be appropriate", to which CarbonCopy has replied "nor should it be spammed into every possible JW article". This is an unwarranted and confrontational reply.--Jeffro77 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps immoderate language - although exceedingly mild language given the general tone of this talk page -- but I stand by my opinion that wide replication of a section on a controversial legal theory not adopted by any court in any jurisdiction is not appropriate. It belongs in a detailed treatment of the issue (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses and blood) but not in this summary article. Note, however, that I have not actually removed it from this article, pending a discussion. But I do think it should be removed unless and until it becomes an actual legal precedent. CarbonCopy (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you have missed my point. It is not simply 'immoderate language' that is the problem. You said that Tommstein wanted to 'spam every possible JW article', when all he said was that it should be inserted in articles where "appropriate". That is imputing bad motive.--Jeffro77 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If it goes where appropriate I have no objections at all. Given that I feel it is already in an inappropriate place (this summary article) and it has been deleted outright at times by some editors, both here and in the blood article, I think it is fair to say there is some honest disagreement about where it is appropriate. I really don't impute any bad faith motive, nor do I say that Tommstein "wanted to" spam (those are your words, not mine.) However, the section title does say outright that "this need to be added to the other article", which sentiment I heartily disagree with. Any comment on the substance of my points rather than the word choice or things I didn't actually say? CarbonCopy (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if I misinterpreted your intent, however if you weren't implying that Tommstein wanted to post the information on all JW pages, why would you say "nor should it be spammed into every possible JW article" at all? But regarding the actual substance of the query, I think the comment would be appropriate in the "Jehovah's Witnesses and blood" article, and possibly also in "Jehovah's Witnesses and governments" and "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses".--Jeffro77 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would we start paying attention to what people say instead of how they say it now, given that Witnesses that can't assault my arguments invariably do the exact opposite with anything I say all over Wikipedia? Some people have a bad case of 'my shit don't stink' syndrome.Tommstein 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I do regret using that language, and I can see how it could reasonably be misinterpreted. It is clear that working in this article requires more careful choice of wording than I might need to use on a less controversial subject. Jehovah's Witnesses and governments seems to be focused much more on the civil liberties aspects, particularly official actions of governments. A liability claim (as opposed to a criminal prosecution) is a private, civil action. The issue would be driven by private litigants, not a government official. So I don't think it really fits there. It does, in my opinion, fit into Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. CarbonCopy (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe that criminal cases are topical in the article and civil ones aren't? Just because the penalty is money instead of something like jail time doesn't change that the cases are still on whether the law was broken; the only differences are who starts the case (as you mentioned) and the possible penalties. The cases still involve lawbreaking in both cases (whether real or just alleged); you don't lose a lawsuit if you haven't broken the law, just like you don't go to jail if you haven't broken the law.Tommstein 22:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The distinction is critical in the US legal system, and in many others. Without going into a complete treatment of the issue: A criminal proscecution is undertaken by the government, when someone is alleged to have broken a specific law. A civil case is brought by a private individual, and in fact may not involve "breaking the law" in the normal sense at all. The procedures and standards of proof are very different. Anyone can file a civil complaint based on almost any theory they wish, as long as certain proper procedures are followed and you make some particular (but exceedingly general) assertions. Winning a judgement is another matter, of course. A prosecution against the JW organization for criminal fraud based on their blood teachings would be exceedingly significant. A lower-court ruling based on the theory proposed in this article would be significant, at least until an appeals court got hold of the issue. Filing a case would be a little bit significant. As far as I know, none of these has happened. The term "non-notable" gets misused a lot, but it truly applies to this topic. Until a court rules, it is just speculation and thus should not be given great prominence in the articles. CarbonCopy (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither comment on peer review above is on point (or helpful in tone.) Plenty of MD's disagree strongly with the JW position on blood transfusions, I would hope that fact is not in dispute. The important fact about this topic is that this is a legal argument in a journal - peer review just means some other legal scholars thought the article was worth publishing. It has not been adopted or rejected by any court which means it is almost entirely speculation at this time. If a court ever does adopt this line of reasoning, then it becomes very significant and would definitely belong in the main article.

Inserting complete arguments on all sides at every mention of a topic results in articles that are nearly useless for the reader. A summary article should fairly indicate the existence and nature of the controversy. It is not, however, appropriate to insert lengthy debates, especially if there is fully coverage in another article. CarbonCopy (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I apparently missed the memo declaring that the article is now strictly about court rulings. Most of the article needs to be deleted, in that case.Tommstein 08:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue I am raising about court rulings applies only to legal theories. Peer review doesn't quite mean the same thing as it does in scientific journals. The only "peer review" that really counts for a legal theory is whether or not courts adopt or reject the line of reasoning. Until either occurs, there isn't much to this article but speculation. I'm not aware of any cases that have even been filed under this theory. CarbonCopy (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the same can be said about scientific peer review: the only "peer review" that matters is whether the science is truly good and flawless, which only time can tell; I need not point to all the things scientists have thought over time that turned out to be bad and flawed. In both cases, peer review means that those with expertise in the subject at least find the article tenable; whether the subject of the article turns out to be ultimately valid in either case requires waiting and seeing. In any case, I think that Greyfox has made the paragraph much smaller and provided a link to 'the real deal'.Tommstein 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I added to the main article please if you would make sure I did it right, thank you.--Greyfox 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I also shorten the paragraph if they want more info they can go to the main article which is were the whole paragraph is now.--Greyfox 05:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, the shorter paragraph is an improvement. CarbonCopy (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's initial response

Greetings, I provided some initial response to these issues at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Mediator.27s_initial_responses. Please let me know of your agreement with these initial observations. Thanks, SteveMc 00:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved mediation comments to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Jehovah's_Witnesses.) Let's continue on that page. Thanks, SteveMc 18:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stay in tune with that page. I still have some questions. Thanks, SteveMc 18:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Origins - Jeffro77's comment

To the statement: "As time went on, beliefs needed to be continually readjusted to align with how continued Bible study and research changed their views," Jeffro77 wrote on 18:21, January 3, 2006, "This is masking the fact that some beliefs were changed because the passage of time (not "continued Bible study") proved some of their beliefs to be wrong."

This is definitely a point we can address. "As time went on, beliefs needed to be continually readjusted to align with how continued Bible study and research changed their views. With some expectations of prophecies' fulfillment not realized, some other beliefs were reexamined and, at some point, reinterpreted abandoned, or forgotten." - CobaltBlueTony 05:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to other descriptions. - CobaltBlueTony 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony is right that is less pov than "This is masking the fact that some beliefs were changed because the passage of time (not "continued Bible study") proved some of their beliefs to be wrong." --Greyfox 05:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Greyfox, my ** in the article was not POV. It is indeed a fact that certain beliefs were changed because the passage of time proved the prior interpretations to be false, e.g. Armageddon in 1914, the definition of 'generation'. CobaltBlueTony's alternative might suffice (but with "fulfillments" correctly pluralized consistently with "prophecies'"). ("Fulfilments" only has two Ls in Australian English, but I can live with an extra L.)--Jeffro77 06:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My contention was in the opinionated inference that was perceived from your use of the word "masking the fact," quite likely implying some effort at deception. I do not object to the notion that ideas and beliefs changed because time ran out on them. - CobaltBlueTony 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement that it was only "continued Bible study and research" that instigated changes in beliefs does indeed mask, cover over, obscure, the fact that unfulfilled expectations were a specific reason for changing certain beliefs. It is not an "opinionated reference", and whether the editor who put the original statement in the article intended deception or not, the fact remains that the original statement was not comprehensively correct.--Jeffro77 03:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, such wording suggests you perceive, or would like others to perceive, an intent to deceive on the part of the original editor. A less "loaded" phrasing could have been, "this thought is missing a part that addresses the fact that some beliefs were changed because their expected coming-to-fruition time frame passed uneventfully." Or some such, that does not infer a POV bias against an editor on your part. Further to the point, I hope. - CobaltBlueTony 04:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now we're arguing over how we're arguing? Is that what we're doing here now? Do some people just take joy in picking fights with people for fun's sake or something?Tommstein 06:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am no more responsible for what others errantly infer from my true and correct comments than is the Watchtower Society for implying that all non-Witnesses will be killed at Armageddon.--Jeffro77 05:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's just priceless, man.Tommstein 06:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Note my small edit in italics. - CobaltBlueTony 05:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A problem that occurs to me is that, while the Witness point of view is undoubtedly that all changes have been because of Bible study and research, I can think of at least one instance where this was obviously (to a non-Witness) not the case: the making of association with a disassociated person a disfellowshippable offense to serve as a reason to disfellowship Raymond Franz. No, I don't expect any Witnesses to agree with that point of view, but it is a point of view nevertheless, and must be accounted for per WP:NPOV. I don't propose an exact way of dealing with this discrepancy, but something should be done about the current paragraph that makes it seem like everything has always been the result of Bible research. Strictly speaking, the current sentence is correct, in that it covers some subset of changes, but it is incomplete, as its subset is a proper subset (there's also the problem that Jeffro77 has been talking about, and probably others no one has brought up).Tommstein 08:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree not everything the society has done is from bible study, (I.E. pioneers explain that from the bible it's the culporter tradition continued under a new name) uncritical witnesses need to understand that the world is diffrent when you take off the rosey colored glasses the society gives you. Somethings are profit motived, survival motivated, or insanely motivated.--Greyfox 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I did the bold more npov in my opinion. just in case you want to no which belief i am refering, organized religion is a snare, and a racket--Greyfox 16:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's redress this, then, with even more accuracy: "As time went on, beliefs needed to be continually readjusted to align with how continued Bible study and research changed their views. With some expectations of prophecies' fulfillments not realized, some other beliefs were reexamined and, at some point, reinterpreted; and thereafter abandoned and subesquently forgotten, or never taught to newer members." Keep in mind, older doctrine is available to anyone that wants to do the research.

CobaltBlueTony, for "obedient sheeplike ones", a clear view of some "older doctrine" (such as the pre-1925 view of 1874 and 1914 or the vitriol expressed against the "devilish practice of vaccination") is NOT available, as they are not allowed to read such information from the Internet, and clear information is not available from current Watchtower Society publications.--Jeffro77 23:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I usually just review the material from my own collection of older literature, or from some borrowed from friends. The Watchtower Society does not directly deny older teachings, but does not teach them now as such might distract from the current views. Nevertheless, I can access older publications any time I choose. - CobaltBlueTony 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How good and comprehensive is your and your friends' collection of 1800s and relatively-early-1900s literature?Tommstein 08:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain that there is anything I cannot obtain if I really ask around. I live on the east coast, naer NYC, so there's lots of congregations within a certain radius, and friends of friends of friends are always available. That's irrelevant to my point, though, that nothing is being deliberately hidden officially or unofficially. - CobaltBlueTony 02:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Joe Bob Billy in the middle of Nebraska, not near the world headquarters in New York City, that recently became a Witness and has a considerably smaller network of Witness acquaintances? I would posit that changing publications without informing people is in fact hiding stuff, namely, what was changed.Tommstein 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Change for the sake of refinement, clarity, or a better understanding is not a bad thing. - CobaltBlueTony

Changing your words to make it look like you said something else, forging evidence of what you said, is a bad thing. Suddenly, your defenses of Retcon's lying, evidence-forging ways are starting to fit a profile.Tommstein 02:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Some [sic] things are profit motived, survival motivated, or insanely motivated - Grey, all things being equal, I'd say this was true. But all things are NOT equal.

Tommstein, Ray Franz's statements are only one side of a many-sided event and point in time. To claim that his words must be given credence is to imply that all sides are right from their respective viewpoints. Therefore, it remains in each person's purvue to accept or reject his claims.- CobaltBlueTony 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So you think he made up the reason for his disfellowshipping, which there has even been a Time article about, and the Society never even made a peep about it? What is your theory for why he was disfellowshipped? NPOV means including all (non-stupid) views, even those of Raymond Franz that some might disagree with for whatever reason. In any case, I'm not proposing inserting mention of his disfellowshipping in the paragraph in question, I'm just saying that it should be changed to take into account things like these, without necessarily having to explicitly mention what "these" things are.Tommstein 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant nothing more than what I said, but just so there's no confusion, let me explain why I am taking an academic approach: from the outside, this is a disagreement between two parties. And unless one has personally witnessed all events and heard clearly every conversation directly relating to the disagreement, it is next to impossible to determine what really happened. So in describing this event, one can only document the differing perspectives, without drawing to a conclusion; since doing so would be a patently opinionated POV wither way. Disagreements of this intensity and noteriety are from those that are de facto not Witnesses, by Witnesses' own self-definition. - CobaltBlueTony 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Who does Raymond Franz have this disagreement with over the reason for his disfellowshipping, you? The Watch Tower Society? The tooth fairy? His imaginary friend?Tommstein 08:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually asking this question? If he did not disagree at any one or more levels (and subsequently feel the need to publish his contentions), we more than likely would not be talking about the reasons for his disfellowshipping, now would we? - CobaltBlueTony 02:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not an answer.Tommstein 06:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's my answer. - !!!!

Tommstein, your questions to Tony here can be perceived as rude and condescending. If you have a legitimate question to present to Tony about this issue, please phrase it in a less confrontational way.

Any question can be perceived as rude and condescending. No one is above questioning on Wikipedia. Thank you for your input.Tommstein 06:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is above questioning true but we should strive to do so within the guidelines of Wikipedia civility policies. Your form of questioning was more rude and condescending than a legitimate attempt to seek clarification. That is the last I will say on this matter. IP law girl 07:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion regarding rhetorical questions. Fortunately, the vast majority of mankind does not find them to be an uncivil crying matter. The first two questions, which were not rhetorical, however, have not been answered, regardless of your big diversion probably intended to distract from that fact.Tommstein 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

IP law girl, Do you pride yourself on extracting the imaginary minute spec of dust from Tom's eye, when you have half of the Californian Sequoia National park stuck in your own? Remember your sickening words of hate you posted not long ago? Want a reminder? Jehovah's Witness representative IP law girl said:

(he . . an anti-Semite; . . . a racist; . .a misogynist, you get my drift? . . .who you are . . . go isolate yourself from society in some secluded place and become a hermit. ….er uh but then you would still just be labeled as a "hermit"…..a maladjusted, anti-social, recluse/hermit. ha-ha. . :-) IP law girl 18:18, 16 December 2005")

You have still not apologised for your hate filled tirade as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in your religion's name. I hope the pubic take note of the astounding hypocrisy you are demonstrating at patronisingly trying to provoke Tom over nothing. Central 13:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Central, when you have a clear and consise point to make that does not involve emotional ranting and taking my comments out of context, yet again, I will be happy to provide a response. My comments were not addressed to you directly but they were specific to your articulated comments regarding labels such as "apostate". (Unlike this post which is clearly directed to you and I am not using terms such as "Central's comments") Furthermore, the "you" in my statement about if "you" don't like it (labels), was referring to the general public as a whole, as labels are a part of our society as a whole. (Oh yes and I inserted humor about if one were to not like labels they should avoid society but the irony is, they would still be labeled, as a hermit. The irony of that was humorous to me but was obviously missed by you.) Please desist in your practice of misquoting myself and others. Thank you. IP law girl 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you're the only one allowed to rant on here without a point, no one else. Gotcha.Tommstein 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change your words after they have been responded to.Tommstein 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did not "Change" my words, but added clarifying content, in parentheses, before I read your Response to my comment. Thanks though, I'm happy to clarify. IP law girl 05:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's called a change, whether adding, removing, or replacing.Tommstein 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Change is good. - CobaltBlueTony 17:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it tiresome that when someone has a point to make that differs from either of yours; it is automatically discounted by both of you as being "without point/merit" or even better still; your standard label of "Theocratic Warfare" rather than just responding with credible and unbiased facts if you have them. If you have a logical point or argument to make, please make it without your standard practice of combative rhetoric, if you have a good argument to make, you don't need the banter or labels. Tomm, please take this as constructive criticism, I actually enjoy your sense of humor, I'm just over the hostility and would like to see a more productive collaboration on this topic. IP law girl 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your rant and personal attacks on something that you started (and the compliment, even if my humor often seems like attacks to people who appear to have no human contact outside of Wikipedia, and I'm not talking about just this page).Tommstein 05:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in addition to accusations about my making "personal attacks", now you are going to make personal insinuations about editor's social lives? Oh good grief, this isn't going anywhere positive is it? Okay, have a good night Tomm, I hope that if we meet up again and we're back on topic somewhere, we'll have a few laughs and interesting debates. You certainly keep it interesting around here. Take it easy. IP law girl 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for shattering your illusion that every misfit on Wikipedia parties at the Playboy mansion. Oh yeah, there's no Santa Claus.Tommstein 04:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the fact that only Raymond Franz has spoken out about the reasons for his disfellowshipping, the rules on privilege are being overlooked. As outlined in evidence law, privilege mainly refers to a rule that prohibits a party from divulging or testifying about private communication expressed within the context of a protected relationship. Most people only think of “privilege” in terms of attorney/client or doctor/patient privilege. However, there is also the matter of clergy/penitent privilege. The fact that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did not reveal reasons as to why Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped does not make his published account and allegations true. Had the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publicly disclosed any of the reasons for the disfellowshipping, this would have been a breach of clergy/penitent privilege. One party asserting their perspective against another party’s silence (especially within the confines of privilege) does not give evidence that the vocal party’s allegations are a true and correct representation of fact. IP law girl 06:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

IP law girl, according to The Watchtower, 15 February 1994, page 7: "They [Jehovah’s Witnesses] reject the concept of a clergy-laity distinction. The Encyclopedia of Religion aptly states about Jehovah’s Witnesses: “A clergy class and distinctive titles are prohibited.”" Therefore since Jehovah's Witnesses by there own admission and tenet have no clergy, how can they be rightly covered by clergy/penitent privilege?--Jeffro77 12:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

good job got my vote--Greyfox 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

IP, you are correct; however, an equally important point is that it does not make his statements false. It simply means that one party to the privilege has spoken and the other has not. As an aside, it would seem that in your scenario, if accurate, the penitent has relinquished privilege and no longer has claim to it from clergy. The clergy in question is free to speak should he/they choose. In this case, silence has been chosen. Storm Rider 09:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I will respond to each of your comments one at a time, in subsequent order:

1.) Choosing to distinguish oneself from affiliation with a specific group or their practices does not absolve anyone from the legal responsibilities that come with being a member of a specific legal entity. For example; in the legal field, being a lawyer can carry a certain unfavorable stigma that leaves many attorneys feeling as though identifying oneself as an attorney can leave you open to stereotypes and identification with unfavorable characteristics, e.g. lying, manipulation, greed, and so forth. While there are most certainly lawyers out there that exhibit the aforementioned traits, it’s not fair to make a blanket statement or generalization about all attorneys being horrible people, but it definitely comes with the territory. Thus, the plethora of bad lawyer jokes. If an attorney made a public claim that they did not want to identify themselves with the word “lawyer” because of the stigma associated with that title and instead only wanted to be identified by the use of terms or titles such as attorney, counselor or Grand Pooh-Bah; so long as they are an active member of at least one State Bar, they are under the statutory requirements that come with their profession and would still be held to the rules regarding privilege, mandatory reporting and so forth. So it is with religious organizations in the US. Whether you call yourself Priest, Reverend, Rabbi, Elder, or Grand Master Wizard, if you are a recognized religious group/organization with members/parishioners, you are bound by the rules of clergy/penitent privilege.

2.) Waiver of privilege by the client, patient, penitent or otherwise is a far more complex issue than you are making it out to be. Clients, patients and penitents are not bound under the rules of privilege as are the legal entities that are legally bound to uphold it. Disclosure by the patient or client doesn’t necessarily give the practitioner freedoms to divulge personal information. Professional liability is a much more serious issue and just because an individual chooses to rant about or disclose their own personal details, it would never be in the best interest of anyone if the professional party involved were to do likewise. You rarely, if ever, see this happen with any legal groups or sectors that are bound to rules of privilege because there are still potential legal repercussions that could result. Additionally, it is always the better choice to take the high ground in such issues. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did the correct thing in not responding to Raymond Franz’s statements and allegations. Also, as to your point regarding the fact that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did not disclose and Raymond Franz did, doesn't "make his statements false" is understood, but relying upon one party's information in order to assert it as a factual account of the event would be a one-sided and incomplete representation of said event and could not be relied upon as fact but merely allegation and/or conjecture.

Regards, IP law girl 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you just finish saying this wasn't the law page? In any case, we have Raymond Franz's account, and no conflicting ones. You can sit here and make up your own theories out of the blue on Wikipedia Talk pages, but such personal theories are irrelevant. Also, if Raymond Franz was actually lying, the Watch Tower Society didn't have to 'tell their side,' they could have just sued him (and 'spoken' through that, as it were). They have not done so, and they certainly are not shy about going to court.Tommstein 06:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take comments out of context or misquote editors. This happens so frequently on this topic's pages and it's getting old. To clarify: I actually said (in a previous section above); this is not the “Jehovah’s Witness/Intellectual Property Law page”. Clergy/penitent privilege is most certainly relevant to this topic since the topic is about a religious organization and as such, it is bound to specific legal regulations. Evidence law and patent law are two entirely different subjects. Your "out of the blue" POV that "they could have just sued him" still doesn't make Raymond Franz's allegations true. IP law girl 07:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, I was not aware that this is the page of a different area of law, that it's just not the Intellectual Property Law page. The fact that... uh... you haven't actually offered any supporting facts, doesn't make your personal theories true or change the fact that a court-happy organization has not sued its 'leading apostate' for supposedly making up crass lies under your personal theory. See Central's post below for some published facts that weren't just made up by some random Wikipedia editor that wants to discredit Raymond Franz.Tommstein 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

IP law girl said: "The fact that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did not reveal reasons as to why Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped does not make his published account and allegations true. . . . factual account of the event would be a one-sided and incomplete representation of said event and could not be relied upon as fact but merely allegation and/or conjecture". You are incorrect on two points. The Watch Tower made it very clear why they were excommunicating Raymond Franz, and that was for eating a meal with his employer, who had previously left of his own accord. Secondly, the letters sent back and forth are in his book, Crisis of Conscience, and they have never been refuted. If they were fabricated the legal department of the Watch Tower would be on him in a blink for misrepresentation and possible libel, but they cannot do a thing, as they are genuine letters. They are also proof of what happened to him, not "merely allegations" as you incorrectly try to pejoratively insinuate. You can read sample chapters of Crisis of Conscience here:

Chapter 1: PRICE OF CONSCIENCE

Chapter 9: 1975: 'THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR GOD TO ACT'

Chapter 10: 1914 AND "THIS GENERATION"

Chapter 11: POINT OF DECISION

Chapter 12: AFTERMATH

Chapter's eleven and twelve have several letters in them. Central 14:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues page

Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues

I have restarted this page

I think that this page should deleted

Jehovah's Witnesses sex abuse scandal

because, it has been merged to the new one.

also a link from the main page to it would be nice as well.

Oh and please help me clean up the new one.--Greyfox 17:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started taking a look at it. It needs major copyediting, which I've started helping out with. I'll try to find a suitable place in this article to put the link to it. If you want a page deleted, there's a whole process you have to go through, involving voting and all that, unless the article qualifies for speedy deletion, and I don't remember anything off the top of my head that it would qualify for.Tommstein 22:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the link has already been inserted by someone else.Tommstein 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I did it I forgot to log in thank you this new page is basicly all the other minor pages as well as so of the stuff that is on any page I've seen so far, and some new stuff that has not been covered but I'll probaly change all the sub titles to some other than controversy. I amit I did go overboard with that, and delete some of the things that I am having a hard getting stable info pages to back up.--Greyfox 23:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yay!!! I got my scandals page and no one has thrown a fit yet.--Greyfox 15:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Yet" being the key word.Tommstein 06:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I know all too well master. --Greyfox 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Linking to copyrighted works

(this discussion is over and moved to Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/archive_20#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Thanks for the clarification. The disputed text is back on the main page. SteveMc 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

The C6 citation still wasn't back, so I just replaced it. Thanks --Krich (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Cited works

There are at least five different styles of citations on this page (harvard linked, harvard unlinked, complete in-line, footnotes, some aberration style unique to this page). Is anyone interested in trying to modify the styles to create uniformity over the entire page? SteveMc 03:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I say stick with footnotes no one looks at the bottom much anyway may keep a few major refrence sites there. all those minor refrences at the bottm junk it up.--Greyfox 03:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Greyfox I think you mean, "stick with the inline", as footnotes are at the bottom of the page. This problem did not exist until DannyMuse decided that he only wanted pro-JW material on the page and started to sabotage the inline links and move them to the bottom of the page with no link, just an abbreviated reference. Eventually many references ended up appearing at the bottom. The most irritating problem is the links are not numbered to correspond to the information at the bottom of the page (except for the C links/references in Eschatology notes). All the others are a mess, and do not help any user find information quickly, especially when they lead to the bottom of the page and all they get is a unnumbered mass of links and references (except the C numbered links). Personally, I prefer inline links that go with some quote. Change is only good if it improves the page, if it does not, I would rather leave it as it is, instead of rushing in making rash changes that just mess the whole thing up and cause animosity and edit wars. Central 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean the ones like this ---->[2]

--Greyfox 03:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)And I agree phase the ones at the bottom out slowly.

Categorizing the articles

The categories need attention. I note that many articles have been put in the main category as well as one of the sub-categories, which is something I feel is wrong because it makes the whole thing more complicated and mixed up than it needs to be. An article should be in a sub-category only, if it is not very good reasons to make it otherwise. Furthermore, the sub-category Jehovah's Witnesses people is meant for people who ARE Witnesses, or have been Witnesses all their life, not for those who have left the Witnesses. The sub-category Former Jehovah's Witnessses is meant for them. Summer Song 13:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

WARNING about user Summer Song. This user has a clear agenda for removing any material that is not Watch Tower friendly. Here are some of examples out of many of his vandalism on JW pages:

This user has been trying for some time to surreptitiously remove any non–flattering text from the main JW pages and have it either removed from public view, or deleted altogether. Now he is back trying this again. The wording he used above is enough to see the motives; the 'them and us' groupings, trying to segregate all non-rosy factual information into oblivion while leaving PR propaganda on the main page. Summer Song this is not the purpose of Wikipedia, you have repeatedly vandalised, created new pages and then tried you best to trash the main page, removing anything that does not fit your wants and religious agenda. Please stop your biased behaviour, and also please stop vandalising pages. You have been warned about this several times before. Central 13:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If he's surreptitious about it, that's at least more than can be said about some editors who there's no need to name.Tommstein 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is wrong. I have not wanted to move anything that is not "Watch Tower Friendly". I wanted the critical links to be in the article about Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. I have not tried to vandalize anything. Neither I have tried to proselytize at Wikipedia. I have tried to explain everything. Summer Song 13:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I was actually the one who started the category Jehovah's Witnesses people. I meant that category to be for people who are JW, no one else. Summer Song 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Summer, to play Devil's advocate for a minute, this is an academic series of articles, so all viewpoints in proper porportion and perspective should be represented. I agree, though that, with the amount of information the actual opposer-editors want to include, they would do much better with their own set of articles, in spite of the fact that such extensive and exhaustive criticism is rarely, if ever, seen on Wikipedia. To the point, though: criticism of JWs is part of an article about JWs. We do not want to appear to be proselytizing or doing PR work. - CobaltBlueTony 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we currently have any edit wars going on about how much criticism of something to include? I believe that all that is going on now are disputes about what beliefs actually are. The closest thing I can remember in recent history was Duffer1's assertion that making something from hemoglobin means it's not derived from blood. If everything that could be said in criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses were actually added to this article, it would increase 50-fold in size instantaneously. Obviously, no one is exactly going wild loading the article up with criticism. The reverse argument, about Jehovah's Witnesses trying to load the article up with touchy-feely PR stuff, could be raised if it were desired.Tommstein 08:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Summer Song does pandora' box ring a bell. This place was and is not controlled by the watchtower not only that but it is open to edit from any one what did you think would happen, not only that but you are opened to dfing if you are caught here with freethinking people like me.--Greyfox 00:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean like this.

Adolf Hitler was the fuehrer of Germany, who reformed the German economy in the 1930s. He enjoyed painting and playing with his dog. He married his lifelong sweetheart, Eva Braun, two days prior to his death.

HemoPure derived from cows' blood

Duffer removed "(derived from cows' blood)" from the definition of HemoPure, with the reasoning that "Hemoglobin is a fraction of a blood component, thus it is not based off of "cow's blood". It is based off a fraction of a component of." Regardless of whether it is considered to be directly "based off" cows' blood, it is indeed derived from it. Bovine hemoglobin cannot be synthesized from scratch, and therefore can only be "derived from cows' blood". Regardless of whether Hemoglobin is considered a fraction, according to the Watchtower, "It would be right, of course, to avoid products that listed ... hemoglobin." Furthermore, by what justification do Witnesses accept products derived from blood fractions (which require both the use and storage of whole blood in their manufacture), but deny the use of blood (stored or fresh) or its components?--Jeffro77 02:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer is that to avoid "pharisaical" meddling in members' lives, the faithful slave decided that trying to define what blood is beyond its' four main compnents would be inappropriate. they therfore made it clear that accepting whole blood or the four main components would obviously be in violation of the Bible command to abstain from blood. Anything else is a "conscience matter". Therefore the faithful slave is not approviing or disapproving. They do make it clear that conscience matters are an opportunity to show our love for Jehovah and respect for his standards. - george

The enforced medical standards are indeed pharisaic. Making up specific rules about which components are and are not a conscience matter is pharisaic. Telling people that blood cannot be used, and its main components cannot be used, and stored blood cannot be used, but they can accept products that are made from those components. Even more pharisaic is the Witness view (from The Watchtower 15 June 1982, p. 31) that leeches cannot be used medicinally because it would be "deliberately feeding blood to these creatures", even though that's what they eat anyway or (from The Watchtower 15 February 1964 p 127) that a pet cannot be given a blood transfusion, and that fertilizers containing blood are not permitted (nor are any other commercially benefitting uses of blood). (Indeed in a fine example of pharisaic behaviour, that article goes from saying "The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten" to concluding without basis that "It should not be infused, therefore, to build up the body’s vital forces", and then continues in another saltus that "either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian.") More humorously, the allowance of the minor fractions (as a 'conscience matter'™) is indeed rediculous because the products are made from the prohibited blood components that were made from stored blood, for which companies have commercially benefited. The entire issue should be a conscience matter, since blood transfusions are not mentioned in the bible, just as organ donations are not, and people receiving blood transfusions are no more eating the blood than is a donor-heart recipient eating human tissue (and it's been years since the Watchtower Society stopped calling that cannibalism).--Jeffro77 07:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point I should have been more exact.

Q by Jeffro77: '"by what justification do Witnesses accept products derived from blood fractions (which require both the use and storage of whole blood in their manufacture), but deny the use of blood (stored or fresh) or its components"'

A: The "justification" comes from each individual witness. You would need to poll each one who has accepted a product derived ultimately from blood. Some have resolved to accept no fractions as they feel it is better to avoid the problem altogether. Many feel differently.

-George

George, it seems you have missed the point. It is the Witnesses as an organization (i.e. the Watchtower Society) that determines whether something is a 'conscience matter'™ or not. Individual Witnesses deciding whether to accept one of the products that the Society deems as a 'conscience matter' is subsidiary. Your "justification" is actually only a "concession". That the Society permits products that can only be derived from products that it prohibits (and it specifically prohibits storing or commercially benefitting from blood) suggests that such concession is to reduce the stigma of disallowing all blood products.--Jeffro77 10:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro77, making subtle or overt accusations of pharisaic behavior, and using the trademark symbol over phrases used by Witnesses gives the impression that you are not aiming at NPOV editing, and amy be using this forum to take exception to Witnesses' beliefs, not merely documenting them. Given the hostile mood that usually pervades these articles' talk pages, one would think that a serious editor would be more careful in engaging editors from opposing viewpoint so as to facilitate the progress of the editing. - CobaltBlueTony 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony, my response to 'George' reflected reality, and as they are on the Talk page, they do not have to be NPOV. The language used in my response to 'George', including the use of the trademark symbol, demonstrated that the points made by 'George' were not accurate regarding how issues that can and can't 'conscientiously' be decided by JW members are dictated by the organization. If you have anything valid to add to the topic, do so, but I am not interested in your above comments.--Jeffro77 08:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro77, the statement "suggests that such concession is to reduce the stigma of disallowing all blood products" is POV. We are not here to discuss POV, especially when such is intended to malign. We are here to present only facts, not facts filtered through anyone's belief system, or nonbelief system. FACT: "The GB prohibits whole blood use and major component use." FACT: "The GB concedes to the use of products derived from major blood components only, not from whole blood." Whatever their reasoning is irrelevant unless they so state it, or a verifiable source states it. No speculation, especially that which adds interpretive or hypothetical meaning. Again, we are contributing to this article to present a neutral point of view and document the facts, not interpret them to mean things that are not expressed and verifiable. Continuous expression of POV intent in a talk page for an article suggests bias could occur in one's editing, a volatile practice here, as can be seen up to this point in time. - CobaltBlueTony 02:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Which part of "on the Talk page, they do not have to be NPOV" did you not understand? Regardless of my personal views, I only make factual edits in articles. Your POV statements above "suggests bias" towards me, and your comments are not appreciated. As I said before, if you have something valid to add to the topic, do so.--Jeffro77 09:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your pseudo-intellectualism. Unfortunately, I cannot find the article edit where Jeffro77 stated the quote that you ascribe to him. Discussions and opinions on Talk pages do not have to conform to NPOV standards, or discussion would not happen. Also, please review what NPOV stands for, and that whole policy generally, and do note that N does not stand for "No". Lastly, pre-insinuating bias on the part of editors for future edits which have not yet happened is a violation of WP:AGF. Thank you.Tommstein 05:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually make any useful edits any more, or is it now all about pseudo-intellectual looking down your nose at anything anyone that is not a Jehovah's Witness says?Tommstein 05:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Then learn to phrase your questions properly. Write the Brooklyn headquarters and ask them. I'm tired of these arguments. This is nothing but aan attempt to start a flame fest. - George

'George' (68.254.110.239), your response is a little surprising. Even if my intended meaning was not clear from my initial question (Jehovah's Witnesses' literature has for some time stated that it is published by "Jehovah's Witnesses" - the ambiguity is their's, not mine), it was made quite clear in my first response to you. Writing to the Society results in a reply via the local elders, and that is not something I want, and in my experience with writing to the Society, satisfying answers are not the result. If you're tired of arguments, then don't participate in them. My query was not an attempt to "start a flame fest", it was a request for logic for what appears to be an inconsistent belief.--Jeffro77 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is derived from cow's blood. This has to seriously be the least ingenious argument I have seen in a long, long time. It's basically the equivalent of saying stuff like 'hamburgers aren't made from cow, they are made from beef, and beef comes from a part of the cow, ergo hamburgers aren't made from cow.' This is the kind of stupid crap that should just be reverted on sight without discussion, if anything ever should.Tommstein 06:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Tomm, you restored my edit. So, of course I agree with the substance of the edit. However, I think the way in which you did it (calling the previous edit "stupid crap") is inappropriate. Dtbrown 07:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that 'comment on the content, not the contributor' has been extended to 'do not comment about the content nor the contributor.'Tommstein 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I misread it. I took it as infering that more than the hemoglobin was derived from "cow's blood." As usual Tomm there is no need for the hostility. I removed "bovine" to avoid redundancy, fixed various grammar problems with the paragraph, and added a link to Biopure's official website. I feel the end result is far more concise, and readable, than the original. Duffer 11:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No one was hostile towards you, only the content of your edit, which even you now disagree with and claim was caused by a 'misreading' (which must have happened about four times).Tommstein 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You called it "..the most asinine argument ever seen on wikipedia or, indeed, the world" in the edit summary. How many times do you need to be banned to realize that is not proper behavior? Read: WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF. Duffer 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the key word being "it." Read WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF.Tommstein 05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I am concerned about the veracity of the claims made about Hemopure on that Wiki. None of it is sourced, and the wording is dubious at best. Duffer 11:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at what less than a minute, and I do mean that literally, of actual research reveals: http://www.biopure.com/shared/home.cfm?CDID=2&CPgID=53. It's like search engines are hard to find and 30 seconds of actual research is hard to do.Tommstein 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who linked to that page Tomm. Read it, then read the Hemopure wiki. Duffer 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That linked to what page? I found the link on Yahoo.Tommstein 05:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Duffer you said in your notes on the main page: "Hemoglobin is a fraction of a blood component, thus it is not based off of 'cow's blood'. It is based of a fraction of a component of" and "It is not derived from 'cow's blood' it is derived from a fraction of a blood component. The fraction Hemoglobin from a Red Cell."

Duffer Haemoglobin is not a fraction, is the major component to blood. Liquid blood is 45 percent red cells, and over 95 percent red cells in dry mass (with no water). And haemoglobin makes up over 95 percent of the content of red cells, so it's a massive part of blood, not a fraction of a component as you kept saying. Again, you have been told many times to do your research before you start edit wars, when will you learn? And how can you not know this stuff? Your religion is supposed to be educated on its blood knowledge, and yet the most basic facts seem to evade you.

I think there also needs to be some text in their saying how they changed this teaching in 2000, and that it still directly contradicts their teachings on animal blood, and the scriptures they use for "pouring animal blood out on the ground" not keeping thousands of gallons of it, then processing it, and then using it on humans. Central 14:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The moral of the story is, don't shave your head, because the 95% that is left just wouldn't be human any more.Tommstein 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What I said in my edit summaries, were just that: summaries. There was not room for further explication. I believe you are missunderstanding the technical terms of blood catagories. "Component" refers to one of the four main components that make up a whole blood cell; Red cells are one of those four 'components'. "Fraction" refers to the various stuff that makes up a 'component'; hemoglobin is a fraction of the Red Cell component. Indeed it is "a fraction of a component." Duffer 17:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

Let's be careful in our definitions.

To say that "derivation from bovine hemoglobin" is the same as "from cow's blood" is inaccurate, and therefore an academically irresponsible idea to knowingly promote. Bovine redirects to Bovinae, which designates the term to apply to 24 distinct species in 9 genae. "Cow" identifies only one species, namely cattle. Usage of the term "bovine" gives the impression that other bovine species besides cattle are included in the "bovine hemoglobin"; since the manufacturer does not clarify, we must stick with the definition given to us by them, unless and until verifiable information can be garnered which indicates which species is used, or most used.

Blood is a circulating tissue, comprised of four components, of which Witnesses are specifically forbidden to partake. Derivations are left to conscience (See Questions from Readers, Watchtower October 15, 2000.) [3]
Said derivations can be seen as more acceptable if they are found in other parts of the body. (need WT source for this statement)

Hemoglobin is the most important component of red blood cells, not one of the four main components of blood prohibited by the Witness belief. The percentage of "95 percent of the content of red cells" should be sourced.

Positive or negative claims as to the medical accuracy of the basis of the Witnesses' position (whole blood and its major components are unacceptable; derivations and fractions can be left ot the conscience of the individual believer) is best suited to the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood article, and should be sourced, not from Central or any other user here, but from a medical resource, and perhaps even edited by a medically qualified user.

Additionally, medical objections to this belief should be addressed in the aforementioned article by medical resources, not users' own personal interpretations of things they've read. I again propose that a medically qualified editor is best suited to address this issue so that personal interpretations of regular users does not interfere with the accuracy of the articles. - CobaltBlueTony 15:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding the pretentious waffle above, here are some facts:

"We obtain bovine hemoglobin from one abattoir and from herds that are located in two states of the United States. We cannot predict the future effect, if any, on us of the recent discovery of "mad cow" disease in the United States. Any quarantine affecting herds. . ." http://www.biopure.com/Legal/Legal.cfm?CDID=0

"Medical | If you think you have marketing headaches, try selling patients on cow by-products. . . The bad news for Rausch and Judelson is that Hemopure is derived from cow's blood. . ." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0709/056.html (if that link doesn't work, you can see the article here: http://www.dejong.org/clients/gbi/news/2001/forbes010907.htm)

"Hemopure, the only artificial-blood product currently licensed for use in humans, is derived from cow blood - it was approved in South Africa in 2001, although its manufacturer, the US company Biopure, is yet to secure approval in the US and Europe." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8123-1971468,00.html

"said it will file for approval of Hemopure, derived from cow's blood, by the end of the year." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_41/b3752051.htm

"In addition, some have been concerned because this is a product that comes from cows; the recent highlights on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease). . ." http://anesthesiologyinfo.com/articles/02032002.php

I will revert the edit back to reality, rather than pseudo-academic JW babble (let's look good in the public eye) version from CobaltBlueTony. Why does it always take a non-JW to correct a JW on their religious doctrines?

Your next comments are rather inane: "I again propose that a medically qualified editor is best suited to address this issue so that personal interpretations of regular users does not interfere with the accuracy of the articles" Are you for real? Anyone can edit here, and that's the way it should be. The "personal interpretations" you speak of are nearly always from JWs, just look at Duffer1's and your own! Maybe we should propose a new rule, that only the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses or the officially approved writing department of the Governing Body should edit any positive JW material, and only non-JWs or ex-JWs can edit the rest. Would you like that? No? Then stop making up such silly rules. We see again with you that you know very little of your own religious practices, and are willing to lose your life for doctrines that you don't even understand, including blood's components! I will make you a badge so you can wear it on your door to door conversions: "My name is Tony, I'm a Jehovah's Witness, and I'm dangerously uniformed—so beware!" Send me your address and I'll post you one! LOL Central 17:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil here. That comment was unnecesary and counterproductive. My suggestion was not as a rule, but as a request for outside medically qualified assistance for the purposes of accuracy.- CobaltBlueTony 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Central, the only thing you have proven above is that those articles make the same mistake as this one. The only instance of "cow" you see on BioPures' website is the name of a disease. Read the first sentence of the heading Mechanism of Action from their website, specifically the part that says: "Hemopure consists of chemically stabilized bovine hemoglobin..". Since they do not specify domestic cattle as the source, you cannot in good conscious say that domestic cattle (which is the very definition of "cow") is the source. CBT is right. Duffer 18:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how Central has proven that all those articles are in error. Your baseless assumption is that the authors of every single one of the articles just looked on Biopure's website and made the personal assumption that 'bovine = cow', engaging in no further research, let us all forget for convenience's sake that they have quotes provided by people at the company. And that their concern with a disease that affects cows kinda hints at cows. Your assumption requires proving.Tommstein 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Duffer, there we have it! All the articles are incorrect—why? Because two Jehovah's Witnesses don't want the word 'cow' or 'cattle' to appear on the main page! Is that your best? So, what are these mystery herds being slaughtered in two US states? The articles say cows, where is your alternative evidence? Are they giraffes, walruses, or maybe really big guinea pigs? If you cannot prove all those, and many more articles are incorrect, then they stand as evidence that cows/cattle are the source, not your imaginary other creatures what ever they might be. Hemopure is still made from animal's blood, and that blatantly beaches the scriptures and the whole history of your religion in demanding that animal's "blood be poured out on the ground" (Reasoning book pp.70-73; Leviticus 17:13-14; Deuteronomy 12:16, 24; 15:24). Central 19:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I could really care less "cow" or "bovine", however, CBT does have a legitimate point regarding the definitions of "cow" and "bovine", and the term Biopure chooses to use is: "bovine". Above I even deleted "bovine" instead "cow's blood" for the sake of redundancy (since both were in the article at the time), it wasn't until CBT brought up the accurate point of definitions that it actually started to matter. Why does it bother you so much that you don't want the word "bovine" over the word "cow"? Why can you not afford Biopure the accuracy they deserve? They specifically say: "chemically stabilized bovine hemoglobin", not "..stabilized cow hemoglobin." Duffer 19:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Duffer, the site that uses the term 'bovine' uses scientific terminology for a specialist client base. Just as the scientific name for 'Mad Cow Disease' is bovine spongiform encephalopathy, but who the hell would know what you are talking about if you choose to use purely scientific terms like that on a general website, or in public? Wikipedia is supposed to conform to readability, not blinding readers with science. The only reason you and CobaltBlueTony want to use the term 'bovine' is because you want to confuse or deceive the average reader, who you know will not know what it means, and probably won't care enough to look it up, which is your aim. CobaltBlueTony appears desperate to hide the Watch Tower’s new policy, so he drags up this bogus argument to try and remove the word 'cow'. Why do you think all those articles use the word 'cow'? It's because every reader will know what they are talking about, and that's why common usage should be used, especially in a non-specialist reference site like this one. If you want a long-winded explanation, then link that to another page, but don't put it on the main page when you know most readers will not know what it means. Central 19:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Central wrote:

The only reason you and CobaltBlueTony want to use the term 'bovine' is because you want to confuse or deceive the average reader, who you know will not know what it means, and probably won't care enough to look it up, which is your aim. CobaltBlueTony appears desperate to hide the Watch Tower’s new policy, so he drags up this bogus argument to try and remove the word 'cow'.

Please stop assuming you know my motives. In harmony with Duffer's suggestions, please read WP:Rules, WP:NPA, WP:Civil, and WP:AGF. I will not engage you in pointless debate on these talk pages. Again you intefere with the purpose of our collaboration. Is there a reason you prefer using the word "cow" rather than the designated "bovine"? I could impune wrong motives to your own arguments, given the hostile and insulting manner in which you address this issue. However, I will allow others to do so through arbitration or another means. - CobaltBlueTony 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What wrong motive would that be, accuracy?Tommstein 05:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Dearest fellow, Mr CobaltBlueTony. I would be most honourably delighted and privileged if you would subordinate your superior gaze on us mere mortal worldly sinners, we are but mere birdseed peasantry in your holy eyes. It would be so gratifying if you would submit the phraseology 'cow's blood' along side to the scientific terminology 'bovine'. It would most please me to see the Standard English term aside it's brethren in scientific terminology. Just as bovine spongiform encephalopathy would be elucidated to the uneducated layman as 'Mad Cow Disease', so ought the avowal that Hemopure, is made from cow's blood, not reindeer, moose, nor any other beastly creature that may enter the human imagination. I would be most obliged if you would lend your welcome cooperation, lest I lose my temper and make horrible utterances most unbecoming and shameful like a uncouth guttersnipe. Yours most sincerely, kindly regards, Central 23:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Here are some more usages for your highness to peruse at his leisurely pleasure:

Animal hemoglobin is obtained from cows. This source creates some apprehension regarding the possible transmission of animal pathogens, specifically bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The Biopure Corporation, which uses bovine hemoglobin, has an affiliation with a local breeding farm, allowing close monitoring of the health and diet of the animals. The company is very confident about the safety of its product. Forty units of hemoglobin solution can be obtained per slaughtered cow. http://www.baylorhealth.edu/proceedings/14_2/14_2_kresie.html

"The cow hemoglobin is extracted from a protected herd," [Dr.] Mueller explained. "The cows they use are only raised for this artificial blood product. They aren't used for any other purposes." So, Biopure, the company that produces Hemopure, is able to control its source -- something you can't do with human blood."http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBP/is_12_46/ai_95791154

"Hemopure is derived from cow's hemoglobin, the molecule that transports oxygen to tissue. Since its founding in 1984, Biopure has spent about a half-billion dollars to bring Hemopure to market. ."

"An experimental drug derived from cow blood may provide a life-saving alternative to human blood transfusions. . . known as polymerized bovine (cow) hemoglobin or HBOC-201" http://aolsvc.health.webmd.aol.com/content/Article/52/49951.htm

"L Bruce Pearce, Virginia T Rentko, Paula F Moon-Massat and Maria S Gawryl Biopure Corporation: Cambridge, MA. . .Objectives: Hemoglobin based oxygen carriers (HBOC), like HBOC-201, have a high potential for use in the management of hypovolemia and anemia associated with both preterm and term blood loss during pregnancy. Current observations indicate that the pharmacokinetics of HBOC-201 (Biopure, Cambridge, MA) in the dog may predict its behavior in man (Pearce et al, SAEM 2003 abstract)." http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/5/494-a

It turns out in the end that "cow" is the more accurate term and this somehow justifies your previously baseless edit war, on top of your verbal abuse, sarcasm, harassment, and NPA violations? Thank you for demonstrating beyond doubt that it is "cow" hemoglobin, instead of the ambiguous "bovine" hemoglobin noted on Biopure's website. These past few weeks it has gone from: "how many times must I point you to WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA", to: "how many times a DAY do I have to point you to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA." Stop with the hostility, harassment, and sarcasm; there is absolutely no call for it. Duffer

So, in a concession that Central was right in an edit war which you started, you call it not only his edit war, but his baseless edit war. Interesting. Please do read WP:NPA and WP:CIV at your nearest convenience.Tommstein 22:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Who doesn't know what "bovine" means?! I'm reporting you for NPOV, civility, violations as well as harassment as soon as I figure out how. You assign malicious intent to every single one of my edits, I'm tired of it. Type in "bovine" in the Wiki search, the main picture is of a Water Buffallo, that is NOT a cow. Duffer 20:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well ain't that the pot calling the slightly old gray crayon black.Tommstein 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well nevermind.. this website's ability to handle conflict resolution between multiple people is infuriatingly ineffective. Please read: WP:Rules, WP:NPA, WP:Civil, and WP:AGF. Duffer 20:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I find it effective. You need better arguing skills.--Greyfox 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Or a valid point. Or preferably both.Tommstein 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll settle for "bovine blood." Seriously, I think at this point the article could use a sentence or two explaining the rationale for accepting these derivations. I would attempt (using info from Tony's post above) but not sure I would get it right. And, I'm not sure of the WT source to cite. Perhaps one of our JW editors? Dtbrown 19:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as relevance to the Witnesses goes, it doesn't really matter what animal the blood is coming from. The products are made from blood that has been stored and used for commercial profit, all aspects that supposedly make it unsuitable for Witnesses. The misdirection of the issue is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be superfluous. Bovine is a more correct term - we all know also that little if any buffalo or bison blood will be used to develop bovine blood based products. (Did I just say that?). Let's get over it, use "Bovine" since the most reliable source uses the term, and move on. (insert your favorite expicative here) -George

How is "bovine" more correct than "cow"? Isn't it the other way around, the latter being a specific type of the first?Tommstein 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is more correct because the company that makes hemopure says it is "bovine". The only way "cow" could really be used is if someone went through the trouble of writing the company and asking if it is specifically cows blood, even though asssumption would lead us to that conclusion. Please, could we just decide, I don't care how it is stated. Aside from sounding less academic, "cow" is no worse than "bovine". george

Bovine, cow, what do you see in the pictures? Duffer 11:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Just skimmed over this discussion. As I have some relatives in the dairy farm industry, I'll just add that they sometimes reserve "cow" to mean a female bovine who has had at least one calf, and is therefore presumably milk producing. Females who haven't had a calf yet are heiffers, and then there are the bulls. But when they're not making that distinction they're just as likely to talk about how many total "cows" they have, including all of the above. I won't say they never say "bovine," but I don't remember hearing it at the dinner table during any of my visits to their farms. With regard to this article, the intent is to educate a reader unfamiliar with the subject, right? It seems from skimming the discussion that the distinction that's important to the JW's is what part/fraction/component of the blood is used, rather than whether it comes from a milk producing cow or just any old cow, so since they don't appear to be concerned about that distinction (correct me if I'm wrong), it seems that clarity to new readers tilts in favor of "cow." Wesley 05:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

One other thing. Everyone, please remember to discuss the article content, and not other editors, at least on this page. Ignoring Wikipedia:Etiquette and friends is a sure way to undermine what might be an otherwise strong case for your favorite choice of words. Wesley 05:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Look in the mirror first Wesley and research before you take sides. First if you would have looked at duffer quotes you would have seen that a cow is in the bovine family. Hence hemopure can be made from bovines, but the choose to make it from cows for control reasons. So they could get this from water buffaloes if the wanted, but they prefer cattle. Go with bovine. Oh and duffer quotes are a two edged sword be careful with them. You look stupid when you don't read your own first. The pictures were nice you should have read what was under them. --Greyfox 15:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation at Second Proposal

Not sure if everyone is aware of the status of mediation re: the bullet in "Doctrines" re: surviving Armageddon. I've seen most names over there but not all. The mediator has proposed a second proposal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

If you have a thought on this, get over there and make it known. Dtbrown 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Call for a vote

Please register your vote on the topic at Mediator is damaged? Thanks, SteveMc 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

JWs believe in Incarnation?

In the section under "beliefs similar to most Christians" the article reads:

Jesus is the incarnate "Word made flesh" (based on John 1:14, 18, 34)

My understanding is "incarnation" is a technical term relating to the Trinitarian understanding of God. (See the Wikipedia link in the text.) I don't believe the Watchtower Society has ever used the word "incarnation" to refer to its belief.

I propose we take out this bullet and put in the JW distinctive belief section after the bullet on Christ being created, something like this:

Jesus was known as the Archangel Michael in his pre-human existence; his birth on earth was accomplished when God transferred Michael's life force from heaven to the womb of the Mary (based on Daniel 12:1; John 1:14, 18, 34)

Any thoughts? Dtbrown 03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That about right I see nothing wrong.--Greyfox 03:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also include, "He is also the 'first-born of all creation', and all other things were created 'by means of him,' meaning he was the first thing created by God, and everything else was created through him." (based on Colossians 1:15, 16) - CobaltBlueTony 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm like a witness and of course its no 100% no. i know what your gonna saybut chirst spirt was in mary's womb well we have no answer so ask jesus when the end of the world is over. (Benjida january 21,2005 8:59 PM

A vote to all

Is Duffer using ad hominem attacks, is he violating WP:AGF , and, is He a Jehovah Witness?

please vote and timestamp

From Duffer:

I cannot agree to it, it is not accurate. For it to be accurate it would have to read: "Though the majority of citations in Witnesss publications infer that they...", and: "a few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those who may not have heard their message (the 1998 WT does say that specifically), or those incapable of moral reasoning..". The problem with saying you MUST be a Jehovah's Witness comes when you ask the next logical question: "to what degree of Jehovah's Witness must one be in order to survive?". You must be baptised to be considered a Witness, and we only baptize those who are fully aware of Witness theology. Does this mean that we believe Unbaptized Publishers (those who go door to door with us, yet havn't received baptism yet) will perish at Armageddon? What of their children? Absolutely not, and if user:Greyfox ever was a Witness he would be able to verify that. This point really underscores the problems that arrise when people, who have never been a Jehovah's Witness, read things from WTB&TS literature that they do not fully understand. Our theology is very indepth, very nuanced, and in many instances, not nearly as 'hard line' as some WTS quotes may infer.

Contrary to what Greyfox above may have been infering (I can't really honestly tell), if I came here and starting teaching things that were not inline with what the WTB&TS actually teaches, I would be up for removal of congregational privilages and or excommunication as an apostate. At the very least my brothers and sisters here would have approached me and set me straight; this has not happened because they know what I say is the truth of the matter. Back in October user:uberpenguin was telling them (Tomm and Central) the same thing as I'm saying now. On top of this I have provided an article written by Witnesses on the Touchestone forum that explicates the biblical interpretations of the WTB&TS. I'm not calling Central a liar about how many Witnesses he, may or may not have talked to about this, I'm saying he has no verifiable evidence of their words at all. Duffer 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Read up on ad hominem you direct attacks away from me. You have and might, I ad you are associatng with Disfellowshiped brothers ( I am not one, yet! )which will get you disfellowed or have you ever attended a meeting yourself. You by being here violate the governing bodies direction to stay away from internet chat rooms because it has dfed ones. Did you attend last years convention they talked about the internet several talks were you there and awake. You must have not !!!!! Sorry, for shouting this is touchy,and a another thing The Watchtower Society has said this site Official Web Site of Jehovah's Witnessesis anuff no witness is to set up there own site which technicaly you are doing. Read your KM's man. Greyfox 00:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I offended you, that clearly was not my intent. You said you are (were?) a Jehovah's Witness (trying to get yourself excommunicated?); I was saying nothing more than the fact that you can verify what I have said about Unbaptized Publishers if you were (are?) indeed a Jehovah's Witness. Duffer 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the ad hominem article your are still doing it. I am one in I am late to my book study by the way it is the Daniel's Prophecy book I will get the page and chapter we are on to you when I get back.--Greyfox 01:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)thank you read the article while I am gone.

OK I,m back tonight was page 210-218 chapter 13 title: Two Kings in Conflict paragraphs 1-15 sub paragraphs are Against the Kingdom of Greece, A Great Kingom Divided into Four, and Two Rival Kings Emerge.--Greyfox 03:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) What did did you learn from the article ad hominem? This is a two way door are you a witness what is on page two of the KM under to be discussed on January 9, 2005

Greyfox, using a "hostile witness" (courtroom talk), to underscore the fallacy of someones' misconcetptions is not Ad Hom. Contrary to that, your suggestion that I am setting up my "own site", is ad hom. Duffer 13:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1. You did not answer my question on about KM. A current witness should easily answer that.

2. This is not a courtroom. You are violating WP:AGF.--Greyfox 15:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

3.ad hominem is when you attack the person to try to weaken there argument. Which is what you are doing. Consentrate on the argument attacking me makes you look stupid and hardheaded.

Don't be silly as to try to get a proof by citing the km. I am out now for two years, but here is the answer to your question what's on in week 1/9:--Mini 16:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Song 10

10 min: Local announcements. Using the suggestions on page 8 or other presentations appropriate for your territory, demonstrate how to present the January 15 Watchtower and the January Awake! In one of the demonstrations show a publisher working business territory.

15 min: "The Bible Teach Book - Our Primary Bible Study Aid." * Generate enthusiasm for starting Bible studies in the new book.

20 min: "How to Start Studies in the Bible Teach Book." Audience discussion with demonstrations based on page 3 of the insert. we can begin using the Bible Teach book immediately to start and conduct Bible studies with those who show interest. Arrange for three well-prepared demonstrations showing how to use (1) pages 4-5, (2) page 6, and (3) the first paragraph on page 7 to start a Bible study when making a return visit. Outline each presentation beforehand, and review it afterward. The consideration of the paragraphs in the Bible Teach book may be abbreviated as needed. Conclude each demonstration with the publisher arranging the next visit.

Song 125 and concluding prayer.

Limit introductory comments to less than a minute, and follow with a question-and-answer discussion.

Vote Bellow

Yes to all three even without the KM. He is to hardheaded not to be.--Greyfox 15:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me, specifically, what it is that has made you so angry towards me. I honestly do not know. If you believe I have attacked you personally, please specify how and where. If you believe I have engaged in an Ad hom argument, please specify how and where. If you feel I have violated CIV and AGF, please specify how and where. Duffer 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Yes to at least the first two.Tommstein 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Truce to this war between Greyfox(me) and duffer

Condition of truce stop insinuating that I am not A Jehovah's Witness and will stop calling you hardheaded. No party admits to wrong doing.

Both party's do this in good faith.

party's sign here

--Greyfox 21:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am truly sorry that my inference that you may not be a Witness angered you. That certainly was not my intent, and I really am sorry. Duffer 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just remember attempting to destroy an opponents credibility is ad hom. Try destroying the argument with better info or point out how it is illogical. Attacking the indivdual or infering something against them is a quick way to a war. --Greyfox 05:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not attempting to destroy anything, or be condescending in any manner. Please accept my apology. Duffer 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Spiritual Insight"

I propose the removal of a sentence that is not accurate on the organizational structure of the main page. It reads: ". . .Therefore, no one member asserts any more spiritual insight than any other member of the Governing Body, nor has any more spiritual insight than anyone else in the organization. . ."

This statement is not correct due to the fact that the Governing Body teaches it is in a special relationship with God and Jesus and used as a "channel" to mankind, and also given information "spiritual insight" from God on the interpretation of scripture. This is definitely not the position taught for the general rank and file members. This is why the above sentence is not accurate. Central 12:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's actually inaccurate, because that says factually that they don't have any more spiritual insight, not that they don't claim to have any more spiritual insight. A statement about their claims to be especially tight with God could be inserted without contradicting this.Tommstein 03:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A simple solution is NPOV sourcing. - CobaltBlueTony 17:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this topic is that Jehovah's Witnesses often play every side of the fence so they can point you to a convenient place when questions arise.Tommstein 03:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited this phrase without reading this section. Feel free to revert or change it. Dtbrown 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole section could be re-organized. It starts out talking about the Governing Body and then goes on to branches and elders, etc. And then it goes back to the Governing Body and the anointed. Perhaps we could keep most of these points but follow a more logical sequence for the section? Put all the statements about the Governing Body (and the anointed?) together, followed by the rest? Dtbrown 18:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Section "the question of blood"

What is the understanding of editors here regarding the section "the question of blood"? My understanding is this is a section that is part of the "Beliefs and Doctrines." If so, then it should discuss what Witnesses currently believe, right? An historical evaluation would be interesting to read but would be out of place in this section, wouldn't it? Thoughts? Dtbrown 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

JW's and Court cases expanding freedom of religion and other such rights

I would like to see a section added that discusses dispassionately or at least lists some of the landmark cases that the JWs have either instituted or been party to in The United States that succeeded in either affirming or expanding freedom of religion or speech. I've been doing some reading on the subject and it it appears that going back to pre-Civil Rights days, JWs were active in this area of litigation.

Citing cases would be enough so long as a one line description of the case appended each citation. Thanks Lisapollison 03:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a page dedicated to this: Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses, though it is far from finished. Duffer 03:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Term Apostate Changed in 1980

Central contends the definition did not change. There is no example in watchtower literature that refers to a former member as an "apostate" until 1980. I believe my change to the entry saying the term apostate to describe a former member is accurate. Please show me an example of this term being used this way pre-1980.

Joshbuddy 01:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have access to documentation at the moment but my recollection is that what changed in 1980 was the idea that apostasy could include just believing in what the Watchtower Society said was false doctrine. Prior to 1980, one had to be a promoter of what they said was false doctrine. I'll do some research and see if I can come up with statements to that effect. Dtbrown 03:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a small update, the first use of the word "apostate" to refer to a former JW was in the Watchtower of 1980 8/1. Joshbuddy 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

the Watchtower of 1952 November 15th uses the word apostate this way. I suppose a more accurate statement would be that the term apostate to refer to a former member did not come into wide circulation among JW's until 1980. Joshbuddy 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And what a morally bereft article it was. It expresses a sense of shame that apostates aren't allowed to be killed today: "We are not living today among [supposedly] theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy ... The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. ... God’s law [Watchtower law] requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof."--Jeffro77 08:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. The article was comparing Israel's commandments regarding apostasy to those of the apostles: "as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine." It then cites Deut. 13: 6-11. They were to stone to death those in violation of the law; the Apostles' solution to apostasy was to excommunicate and shun so that the perpetrator of the shunworthy act might become ashamed and return to the truth. The conclusion of that article (in direct contradiction of your summary):

"The purpose of observing the disfellowship order is to make the disfellowshiped one realize the error of his way and to shame him, if possible, so that he may be recovered, and also to safeguard your own salvation to life in the new world in vindication of God. (2 Thess. 3:14, 15; Titus 2:8) Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation’s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course."

Duffer 23:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the attempt of the 'warm and fuzzy' "we want them to recover" disclaimer at the end, making the statement that it was "possible" (in the context used) under the Mosaic Law to acceptably kill one's own relatives for apostacy indicates an attitude that it would be a desirable action if permitted. (Also relevant is fact that the Witnesses distort the definition of the word "apostate" when referring to ex-Witnesses that is not applied to persons who leave any other religious group.)--Jeffro77 10:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree with that assessment, I believe you are reading into the article something that just isn't there. Witnesses ardently and actively abhor violence of any form. Do you have the whole article? It states, in a matter-of-fact tone, God's law and man's law in regards to several aspects of dealing with apostasy. Saying that "killing apostates" "would be desirable.. if permitted" is extremely offensive and the conclusion for such a preposterous notion has ZERO basis in fact. Duffer 12:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do have the entire article. That the article states that killing was "possible" in the past, and that today, action can be taken "only to a certain extent" suggests that more severe measures would be preferred. Why is that assessment "extremely offensive"? Do you not believe that your God wanted 'apostates' killed by their own family members under the Mosaic Law? Do you not believe that all 'apostates' are going to be killed soon by your God? Do the rules, actions, and prophecies of your God offend you?--Jeffro77 14:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Why is that assessment 'extremely offensive'?" Just venturing out on a limb here... because having it revealed that you look forward to someone's death isn't conducive to making new recruits out of them, hence the need to put on a show in public? Just taking a wild stab here....Tommstein 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You do not see that you are attempting to see what you want to see without see everything that is there? Where is the neutral point-of-view? You are also discounting decades of advocation of nonviolence in nearly all circumstances, based solidly on multiple Scriptural directives -- a "vast majority" of quotes is available, if you will. Witnesses have died rather than go to war, or even put on the uniform of a soldier, or even support warfare in a material way. You seriously want to promote the idea that Witnesses want their own family members dead, when they won't kill strangers "everyone else" says are evil? That is an academically treacherous position in which to place yourself. - CobaltBlueTony 14:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a talk page - I don't need to use neutral point-of view. I merely reported what the article suggests. I did not say that Witnesses are violent, however there is a general sense of 'joy' by Witnesses about impending destruction of most of the planet's population, mostly for those who simply don't accept their religious beliefs. The killing of family members under the Mosaic Law is not seen by Witnesses as an injustice on God's part.--Jeffro77 21:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I need to 'talk' to you through this venue, as your points are nothing more than your hostile viewpoint. I am here to edit these articles as faithfully to NPOV standards as I can. This type of discussion (and below) is irrelevant to my goal. - CobaltBlueTony 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My points are indeed simply stating what is believed by Witnesses contrasted with the logisitics of their beliefs. As such they are neutral point of view. However, I repeat that I am not bound by neutral point ot view on talk pages. Whether you want to continue to discuss the issue is not important, and I'm getting a bit tired of it too; I will be monitoring the article for statements that put a biased Witness slant on things though.--Jeffro77 22:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're threatening to shut up? Uh, it seems that you have somehow, unexplainably, managed to ascribe more value to your words than that associated with day-old vomit. I don't know how Jeffro77 would ever get his fix of overcompensatory pseudo-intellectualism then.Tommstein 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cobaltbluetony, are you suggesting JWs do not ultimately expect and desire apostates (along with all non-JW humanity) to be killed? Though JWs have taken a non-violence stance with regards to warfare, and in personal areas of life, you can hardly call the expectation promised to be non-violent. Quoting from Dec 15, 2005 WT: "After false religion's end, Jehovah God will turn his attention to all humans who make up the secular parts of Satan's world. These will also be destroyed, preparing the way for a righteous new world." "Act decisively now, and you may be privileged to be included among the "great crowd" of human survivors of "the great tribulation". Then you will be able to look back with joy, and you will praise God for executing judgment on "the great harlot who courrpted the earth with her fornication." Here is it even mixed with joy. And there are numerous references to not feeling sorry for any who were destroyed in "the great tribulation". I think there is a need for a balanced view here. Joshbuddy 15:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We expect it, because it's been prophesied. We do not necessarily desire anyone to die, in harmony with the words, 'God does not desire any to be destroyed, but desires all to attain to repentance.' (paraphrased) This is one of the main motivating forces behind our ceaseless ministry: concern for our neighbor, as is required of Christians. But once the deed is done, once the angels in heaven have executed God's judgement, we are joyful, not singularly at the loss of human beings, but at the destruction of those who refuse to obey God (John 3:19) and inhibit humanity's progress back towards its original design. How long does one wait for a bad person to change their ways? How much suffering must be endured at the hands of wicked people? How many millenia must we wait for justice? It's in God's hands; it's His timetable. We believe that most anyone can be saved, because of their ability to make their own choice. Therefore, we believe that anyone who dies at Armageddon will be those given the sufficient opportunity by God to demonstrate some worthiness, and thus it's by His hand that they will die. "'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' says Jehovah." So if there's no pity, no leniency, no mercy any more from God, it is because His righteous standards dictate it. So no, it's not joy at the death of our fellow man; it's joy at the end of those who resist God, who spoil His creation, who cause suffering because of their own stubborn refusal to allow God's ways to better their lives and the lives of those for whom they are responsible. - CobaltBlueTony 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a very distrubing response from someone who is supposed to be impartial. You said, "So no, it's not joy at the death of our fellow man; it's joy at the end of those who resist God." The difference is semantic. w95 4/15 "God’s people take no part in destroying the wicked. How, then, do they “tread down the wicked ones”? This they do figuratively by sharing in a great victory celebration." w97 8/15 "We may likewise yearn for the destruction of this wicked world and rightly so! (2 Thessalonians 1:8) " w94 3/1 "Imagine the future joy that will come to those who continue to do God’s will. They will see the destruction of those who insist on doing their own selfish will even if this causes suffering to those who endeavor to do God’s will."

The point is, one can hardly call the witnesses nonviolent. Though for the most part, JWs will not use violence, they still hope for the greatest act of violence in the history of the world. They believe that violence is the only solution to real social change. Joshbuddy 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cobaltbluetony, impartial? That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. I mean, we are talking about the same rabid Witness, right? What's next, Duffer1 is impartial too? See, that's where your premises went awry. His latest story there is about the equivalent of the time I beat someone at pool and they accused me of wanting them to lose instead of for me to win. If you continue having discussions with these two bozos in the mistaken belief that they have more sense than a warm bucket of piss (or even a cold one), prepare to have your intelligence insulted and dragged through the mud in a way that probably hasn't happened to you since kindergarten (which quite possibly neither of these two managed to get socially promoted through).Tommstein 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Very much the opposite. Witnesses practice nonviolence (not pacifism) as a matter of course. Scriptures such as "as far as it depends upon you, be peacable with all men," "return evil for evil to no one," "keep conquering the evil with the good," all barely touch on the seriousness Witnesses strive to hold to in being nonviolent.

We do not rely on nonviolence for social change so much as personal change. We hope to demonstrate the superiority of God's counsel by living it to best of our ability, partially to gain the attention of right-hearted people. We do not expect most of the world to change because the majority of people are becoming "past all moral sense," belligerant -- well, 1 Timothy 3:1-5, to save space -- and prophetically will not change. Nevertheless, this does not change our goal of trying to reach as many as possible with the message. Love for God and for our fellow man are requirements of our faith.

You define 'right-hearted' as only those who accept Witness beliefs, and teach that everyone else will most likely be slaughtered by your vengeful God. Anyone who points out the problems with Witness doctrine is defined as 'stubborn', 'blinded', and is implicitly considered by the Witnesses to be doomed as they arrogantly 'shake the dust off their feet' in the presumption that the 'goat-like' person will be soon be killed if they don't start agreeing with the Witnesses.--Jeffro77 21:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The violent end comes to those who defy God to the very last, who practice violence -- indeed, even love it. It is God who repays them for this, not us. We will not be cheering at the sight of it, but be grateful when it is over. We accept this because it is God's perogative to judge humans when and to what extent as He sees fit, and we trust implicitly in Him and that this is the wisest solution for all. It is the rebellion, it is those on Satan's side, that have fomented unrest, suffering, violence and hatred. It will come back on them to their end.

The perception that Witnesses are violent is incorrect, but there is some academic irony that they believe that violence will finally bring peace to humanity. However, it is God that is justified in doing so; no one else.- CobaltBlueTony 20:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you read the article nonviolence. From the first sentence: "Nonviolence (or non-violence) is a set of assumptions about morality, power and conflict that leads its proponents to reject the use of violence in efforts to attain social or political goals." Witnesses do not reject the use violence to attain social or political goals, hence, they do not practice nonviolence. Whether they perform the violence or not is immaterial. My point (and I think you agree with this) is that witnesses do support the use of violence by a third party, in this case God, to attain goals. This is not meant as a criticism of the witnesses, please do not take it as such. Joshbuddy 20:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget that Witnesses are politically neutral and socially segregating. We don't support the use of violence for social and political change -- we support only God's use of it, including for social and political destruction. All elements of this world -- life as we know it -- are targeted for destruction: the whole world order. Armageddon as a means of socio-political change is like Katrina as a means to wash the streets of New Orleans. Armageddon is total destruction. If you are going to reference violence, then a point would read something like this: "Witnesses do not believe in violence as a means to accomplish any goal, but they do support God's inherent right to do so directly as He deems necessary as expressions of justice." - CobaltBlueTony 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, how could we forget that they are social segregating. The destruction of the world is viewed by Witnesses through rose-coloured glasses. Most simply do not understand, or do not truly want to consider, the ramifications. The murder of billions of people for not accepting Witness doctrines is glossed over with such terms as 'washing the streets'. Witnesses do indeed accept that individuals being killed by their family members under the Mosaic Law was 'a means to accomplish a goal'. Also, the statement you offered suggests that Witnesses view God's destruction of billions of people as a 'necessary evil'.--Jeffro77 21:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You said "We don't support the use of violence for social and political change -- we support only God's use of it." This by definition is *not* non-violence. Armageddon *is* violent.

w53 10/15 - "Truly, preliminary to Armageddon and its violent removal of all nations..."

w68 11/15 - "This persecution will soon end with the violent end of all our persecutors!"

w68 10/15 - "...who pray for his kingdom to come, will survive the violent end of man’s rule in the earth"

w66 12/1 - "...Jesus Christ who will come into violent conflict with his enemies and defeat them in a final, decisive war..."

w65 4/1 - "This much is certain, we are living in the last days of this old system of things and soon now it will suffer violent destruction in the “war of the great day of God the Almighty.”"

The statement more accurately would read, "Witnesses do not believe in violence as a means to accomplish any goal" is simply wrong. A more accurate statement would be, "Witnesses do not believe in violence as a means to accomplish any goal, except by God, who they believe has the inherent right to act violently (and direct others to act violently) as he deems necessary only as an expressions of justice." Joshbuddy 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How about, "Witnesses do not believe in violence as a means to accomplish any goal, except by God, who they believe has the inherent right to act violently (and direct others to act violently) as he deems necessary only as an expression of justice. Witnesses do not accept graphic or needless expressions or representations of violence as a form of entertainment." Or something else that reflects the importance of this position. - CobaltBlueTony 21:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I appreciate your civil tone and ability to work with someone you may not necessarily agree with. - CobaltBlueTony 21:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we've reached a consensus, though I'm a little unclear how this relates to "Term Apostate Changed in 1980" anymore. :) Actually, just thinking about this, JWs very much believe that Jesus (as appointed by Jehovah) will act as executioner (Ps 2). Can it be worded in such a way to reflect that? And where are we putting this little gem? Is this currently covered by beliefs? Also, deriving entertainment value from violence seems unconnected with whether violence is an acceptable tool to effect change.

P.S. I too appreciate your civil tone. :) And who said lions and lambs wouldn't have peace? Joshbuddy 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Aw, look at him trying to 'prove' my description of him and Duffer1 to be wrong, minutes after I posted it. He's so cute. He probably thinks it's non-obvious too. What was it that I just said about warm buckets of piss, the amount of sense associated with said warm buckets of piss, and getting (or not getting) socially promoted through kindergarten?Tommstein 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The 1952 quote:

"God's law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. . .The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. . . The faithful marriage partner would not discuss religion with the apostate or disfellowshiped" Watchtower 15 Nov 1952 pp. 703-704

This next quote is an interesting point, and one that Raymond Franz brings up in his book Crisis of Conscience on page 123 onward, under 'alternative service' covering the same rules in regard to work. If you work for a company that say, cuts the grass outside a church once a month, you will be marked as not a good Christian and lose privileges, but if you own the grass cutting business and take work from a church, you are an apostate! Franz used other examples that show the mind bending and absurd pharisaic reasoning of the Watch Tower Society. Anyway, the example below referrers to JWs who breach or disagree with the Watch Tower's pharisaic rules on work, and who are then labelled apostate.

"If a person who professes to be a dedicated Christian witness of Jehovah were to accept a job in the direct employ of such a religious organization, he would, in actuality, become a part of that organization. If the one who did that knew what such a thing meant and did it anyway, what could we conclude but that he was an apostate and should be disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation?"–Watchtower 15 November 1964 p.703

Other examples:

"The disfellowshiped one may have become apostate, teaching unscriptural doctrines" –Watchtower 1 June 1960 p.351

"Of course, instead of being spiritually ill, the mature Christian may go bad, become a delinquent or an apostate" –Watchtower 1 Nov 1971 p.664

"On the one hand, associating with advocates of false doctrine and accepting their views can result in loss of a favored relationship with God and may lead to expulsion from the Christian congregation as an apostate"–Watchtower 1 Feb 1977 p.67-68

I don't see any point in putting in text about frequency or use of the term apostate, because it does not add any relevant information. The only change post 1980 was the new merciless and controlling stand on their thought crime bill they introduced, although it has always been there, but not demonstrated in such a brutal and unchristian way until 1980 onward.

PS. I've noticed that they use two spellings of excommunication, "disfellowshipped" and "disfellowshiped" (one 'p' and stopped being used in 1993). Does anyone know why they had two versions? Central 10:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree Central. I was mistaken. (Though it is interesting to see just how drastically the frequency did change from that 1980 8/1 article, which I would guess to be 1000% increase, albeit not relevant to the article) Thank you for correcting me. Learning new stuff is neat. :) Joshbuddy 16:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

JWs and Governments section

Currently, the JWs and Governments section has this paragraph:

Regarding the intensity and argumentation used by Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization in defending their claimed basic "legal rights, Human Rights, and Freedoms of Speech" within the nations in which they have a presence, some criticism has been expressed regarding the internal organizational practices and their effects on the same Human Rights and basic freedoms of individual members. Citing a Witness publication, the contention is that divergent views expressed, or even just thoughts rejecting non-scholarly organizational doctrines by baptized members, will result in disfellowshipping (excommunication), or strong threats thereof on the grounds of "apostasy" with accompanying removal of congregational privileges, communication with family and friends, and respected name and reputation: "Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." (Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock p. 94 Apostasy). According to a letter sent to all Circuit and District Overseers, dated 1 September 1980: "to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. . . Therefore, if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave [Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses], and persists in believing other doctrines, ... then he is apostatizing ... if he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what has been provided through the 'slave class' [Governing Body] then appropriate judicial action should be taken." This is seen by some critics as a major restriction of the basic humans rights and freedoms of speech and thought of the members—rights which the organization demands in its legal battles with some governments of the world—as well as indicative of a severe mind and speech controlling policy directly contradicting scriptural precedents. They criticize the organization's pursuit of its rights before governments as hypocritical because they see the organization violating those same rights when dealing with members. The organization sees this as a perfectly reasonable private internal matter by itself and its followers, and states its right to excommunicate members. The Witnesses apply special meaning to the term apostate in the derogatory context of "antichrist and anti-God" when referring to individuals who were Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not apply this label to people who leave other religions to join theirs, and who are also by definition "apostates".

How does this fit in this section? Whether or not one agrees with the points made, I don't see why this is included here. At the very most, it's an excursus from the topic and is not actually about Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. I personally think it should not be here in this section. What do others think? Dtbrown 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It does seem rather out of place. Though some mention of free speech and the internal hypocricy might be in order, I don't see why it would need to be nearly as long as this. How about?

Regarding the intensity and argumentation used by Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization in defending their claimed basic "legal rights, Human Rights, and Freedoms of Speech" within the nations in which they have a presence, some criticism has been expressed regarding the internal organizational practices and their effects on the same Human Rights and basic freedoms of individual members. Within the Jehovah's Witnesses, baptized members who express divergent views, or have divergent thoughts from organizational doctrines can be disfellowshipped (excommunication)^[4] ^[5].

^ "Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." (Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock p. 94 Apostasy).

^ According to a letter sent to all Circuit and District Overseers, dated 1 September 1980: "to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. . . Therefore, if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave [Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses], and persists in believing other doctrines, ... then he is apostatizing ... if he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what has been provided through the 'slave class' [Governing Body] then appropriate judicial action should be taken."

Does this cover the salient points and seem to cut less of a tangent? joshbuddy 16:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The objection has been made before that shunning is not a violation of basic human rights, and the only critics I've heard of this connecting the two distinct ideas are editors here on Wikipedia. This concept should be properly referenced by verifiable sources. If there are viable scholars or researchers publishing this as a legitimate concern, then I have no problem noting such in this section. Outside of that, the point without any references really doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all. That is my position. - CobaltBlueTony 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody missed the carefully inserted straw man by CobaltBlueTony? He said: "shunning is not a violation of basic human rights. . ." As per usual he casually forgets to inform the readers he is leading them down the garden path, and that the word "shunning" doesn't even appear in this paragraph! Plus all this has been debated before, but of course CobaltBlueTony uses this as another prime time to preach his Watch Tower PR sermons, while he slides in the same old trite red herrings, and straw men diversions. Central 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the irony of JW's promoting free speech while severly restricting free speech within its own membership is the point. Would the last sentence read better if it was

Within the Jehovah's Witnesses, baptized members who express divergent views, or have divergent thoughts from organizational doctrines will face sactions^[6] ^[7].

joshbuddy 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Witnesses are "Witnesses" voluntarily so; no one is forcing them to be Witnesses. Becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses, a student learns what is expected of him/her. It is a voluntary, exclusive organization. Plenty more "freedom" outside, if that is more important than the goals desired by the student in the first place when originally studying with Witnesses. We openly make known our self-restrictions so there is no coersion. Social pressure to conform to this or that exist all over the world, and frequently involve anger, bitterness, harrassment, and violence. Witnesses are more more willing to be let alone the person who first accepts and loves what they've found with them, and then abandons it, if that is their wish. - CobaltBlueTony 17:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "Sanctions" suggests a more criminally or legally binding process. It is only so if you are within the organization, defacto accepting those terms. - CobaltBlueTony 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Saction does carry a legal sense with it, but then again, so does the phrase Judicial Committee. Though being a witness is a choice, once one is baptized, this is interpretted as a legal contract.

When a person becomes a JW, he or she is not told about the legal ramifications of joining the club. If the person decides to quit and says, "Hey, I dedicated myself to God and not to an organization," the Society may write a letter saying something along these lines:

From the date of your baptism and your joining the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, you professed the Christian faith, agreed to adhere to the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses and agreed to submit to the rules and procedures of the ecclesiastical government of Jehovah's Witnesses. [8]

I know its not the best reference, but better ones are available in print (which I do not have available to me at the moment) Also, I would contend the sactions applied against thinking or saying something that does not align with official doctrine (regardless of its veracity) are not generally known to the average bible study.

I'm just not sure why you object to the word "saction". I mean, is there anything in the above statement that is untrue? Though social pressure to conform exists everywhere, we're talking about a formal set of controls which every witness must face, not just the general pressure to conform felt in most communities. joshbuddy 18:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the large majority of this paragraph would survive an official mediation. Not only is it grossly biased, but as DTbrown has accurately pointed out, it is out of place. It's first sentence allusion to an on topic paragraph is quickly destroyed by it's following, inaccurate, diatribe on a subject that is already covered in-depth on nearly every JW related page. Also, the veracity of the alleged 1980 letter to COs is highly questionable as it cannot be independently verified, or it's contents confirmed (even by the 1980 WT it claims to cite), by any official Witness publication. Even the "Pay Attention" book makes no mention of having divergent views, and there is no guideline given for disciplinary action UNLESS that persons starts to stubbornly speak about such things. Also CBT makes a valid point that any allusion to irony, without accredited sources, is original research. Duffer 21:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The letter to the CO's is in one of the Franz books (iirc) and as such is not "highly questionable", simply that it is limited to one source and not verifiable (though I'm sure a second source for the letter could be secured if need be). It should be included in an article somewhere, and its verifiability should be left for the reader to decide.

The entire paragraph is tangential however. I propose the paragraph be removed completely, its completely off-topic.

For the time being, perhaps the last paragraph of Witnesses and Family can read:

Witnesses feel that disfellowshipping and shunning can have the beneficial effect of restoring an errant former member to the religion. Some critics maintain that this policy holds some people captive who might otherwise leave the religion but are afraid of facing shunning from their Witness relatives. Other critics hold that this policy stifles both speech and free-thought, as any disagreement can be used as grounds for disfellowshipping^[9] ^[10]. The psychological impact of shunning disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives can be extremely painful for both members and ex-members. joshbuddy 22:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed it's complete removal previously, but that led to much disruption as Tommstein and Central profusely rejected the notion of deleting it. I agree 100% that it is entirely irrelevant. I must disagree with you on the 1980 letter though, verification of the letters' contents, by any official Witness publication, simply does not exist. There is no mention of anything like this in the 1991 "Pay Attention" elders's congregational guide book. I'm not saying the letter doesn't exist, I'm saying that it cannot be a CURRENT, official, doctrine if not even congregational elders know they must follow it. Indeed, not even the 1980 WT article it claims to cite mentions allowance of excommunication for merely believing differently. In light of this evidence it is entirely plausible that the letter is a fabrication, or for the sake of assuming good faith: an abandoned doctrine (though there is nothing in any official publication that indicates this ever was a doctrine). Duffer 23:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)w

Here we go with the Duffer's wilful ignorance again. He says: "verification of the letters' contents, by any official Witness publication, simply does not exist". I asked you several times to write to the Governing Body about this letter, and you know this very well. You have cowardly shirked this because you are aware they will verify the letter and make you look even more foolish than you normally do. Here is the discussion I had with you (and was deleted by your devious friend that hope no one would notice) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cobaltbluetony/Discussion_with_Central&oldid=34361225

You go on: "I'm saying that it cannot be a CURRENT, official, doctrine if not even congregational elders know they must follow it. Indeed, not even the 1980 WT article it claims to cite mentions allowance of excommunication for merely believing differently." You fail to see the illogical claim in your post; I also liked the bogus "indeed" inserted by you as if you have proven something, when all you did was give a uniformed illogical opinion, and shouted "CURRENT". The letter was new material that was accompanying and an addition to currently existing material in a quoted Watchtower magazine. It has never been reversed in any later policies, unless of course you would like to show us from some Watchtower quotes? How would it be new if it had to already exist? I see you do not posit the same illogical stance with every other new policy, demanding they already exist in previous material. You have also blindly ignored the fact that these were private confidence letters on judicial policy to the Circuit and District overseers, not the automaton nobodies—the rank and file like you. We are all still waiting for you to write to your leaders and show us the letter they send back saying: "Apostate thoughts are fine and ok for Christian Witnesses and can to continue even after counselling has been given to stop or change them." Duffer, can't you afford the postage for you letter? I'm sure we can help you out with the price of a postage stamp.

For those who are interested in the account of the letter, see Raymond Franz's chapter :here on pfd. (This is not for your eyes Duffer, you might spontaneously combust or be possessed by a manic legion of demons according to common Watch Tower mythology. It's only to be read by the free thinking, spiritually mature, and those who are not under the control of fundamentalist religious brainwashing or mind control) Central 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Central, there is no reason to abandon civility in discussion here. Please be more respectful to people here. 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get sidetracked on the issue of the 1980 letter. (I would disagree with Duffer on this but I think that's another issue...perhaps someone might want to start a section on the talk page on that?) The paragraph under question really has no connection to the subject of "Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments." Perhaps some of the points could be used elsewhere but it is way off topic here. Dtbrown 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference to this letters existence is already detailed in the article about Raymond Franz, where there is a seperate a separate scan of it including context. Though its possible that this letter was indeed faked, its far easier to explain it without resorting to that by saying it was a direct reaction to events of the time. The problem with the Pay Attention book, is that any details along these lines would have been given verbally, and cannot be easily searched or verified.

As I see it, the letter is already referenced within the page, this additional reference is off-topic and redundant. Looking at this a little more closely, I would even go so far as to say that both references are unneeded.

I think what I would like to see happen is that the paragraph be removed from governments. Its completely off-topic. I'm actually a little surprised it ever made it in there. Perhaps the beliefs section can be tightened up a little bit more to reflect the smothering effect of thought and speech but I think that can very safely wait until another day, as there is more than sufficient content already available to detail this.

So, if I remove that paragraph... who will undo my edit? Anyone? joshbuddy 00:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

joshbuddy you said: "Its completely off-topic." No, it's not. This has been debated at length in one of the archives. I recommend you read that first. I also find it interesting that you are so quick to make judgements without getting the facts and run ahead to delete large long standing paragraphs. You remind me of another new poster who used to do the exact same thing.

The reason that paragraph is here, is because it was about the conflict between the Watch Tower constantly blowing its own trumpet about civil, human, and free speech rights before Governments, and then reversing these same rights when dealing with its own members. It is quite clear reading the paragraph why it is here and what it is saying. It has little to do with the letter. The letter was just there to demonstrate where this more extreme view originated. Please read the archives first. Central 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll go read the archives about this. Perhaps you can read the logs yourself and realize I didn't delete anything. Assumptions annoy me. joshbuddy 01:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

joshbuddy said: "and realize I didn't delete anything. Assumptions annoy me." You should be annoyed with yourself, as I never said you had deleted anything, i said: "run ahead to delete" (that's is future, not past tense). I was clearly asking you to read the discussion, as your were clearly getting sidetracked by the letter issue. You were also the one displaying trigger-happy inclinations by saying "So, if I remove that paragraph... who will undo my edit? Anyone?" Central 01:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Run ahead" is future tense? I hope you stay away from this article then. I didn't realize asking a question was trigger-happy.

I've read the archived discussion. I need to think about it a bit more before I make a comment on it. Thanks. joshbuddy 01:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I did the deletion based on the responses here. Are there other users here who would agree with Central that this paragraph should be part of that section? Dtbrown 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dtbrown, Why are you doing this? Did you not read anything of the archives on this subject? If you are going to delete that paragraph then all the other governments stuff should definitely go, especially that POV propaganda on Nazis, which was just put there to manipulate the readers. There is also a whole separate page section on governments, how much propaganda do they need? Central 08:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Central, it's because I believe the clear consensus of editors here (both JW and ex-JW) is that that paragraph is off topic. Now, if Wikipedia exists for us to counter JW "propaganda," then, of course, we should at every chance harrass the JW editors and make everything as negative as we can. But, that's not the reason for Wikipedia. No other editors (JW or non-JW) have spoken up to say that paragraph is on topic. Dtbrown 14:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a thought-in-progress, but to me this really indicates the need for a section on JW Community/Culture. Perhaps this would be a superset of JW & Family. joshbuddy 01:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for an edit war guys, lets just take this to mediation. I can start the process if you all want me to. Duffer 22:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be premature. Let's see if there are any other objectors to removing the paragraph. Dtbrown 02:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Central moved the paragraph in question to the Jehovah's Witnesses and governments (Motivations heading). I believe this paragraph is nothing but propaganda regardless of where it's found. Do you guys agree? Duffer 08:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I usually just hang out on the main page and hadn't seen the "JWs and Governments" page before. I, of course, approach this differently than a Witness does and I can see some merit in the thought behind the poorly worded and extended paragraph. I may go over to that page and start editing and I'm not sure what to say at the moment. To be honest, I was greatly bothered by the opening line of the motivatins section which implies that "critics of Jehovah's Witnesses" seek governmental bans against them. Most critics I know believe in religious freedom and do not seek to have the Witnesses banned. Dtbrown 02:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-encyclopaedic misuse of scriptures

I have checked several 'worldly' encyclopaedias, and have clearly observed that when talking about religions, they never spatter Bible scriptures all over the place like we see here on the JW Wikipedia article. I propose that all scriptures be removed, unless they are part of a direct quote from the Watch Tower Society's literature. This is in keeping with NPOV, and the standard format for academic works.

The main reasons are:

1. They are not following standard encyclopaedia format.

2. They are not the origin of the doctrines.

3. Many, many Bible scholars do not agree that these scriptures say what Jehovah's Witnesses claim they do.

4. They are POV, and not objective external verification, but are used as proselytising propaganda.

5. The origins of Jehovah's Witnesses elaborate doctrines come from the Governing Body Jehovah's Witnesses, not direct from the Bible. When the Governing Body have decided what is "truth©™" and what is not, they disseminate these teachings primarily through their literature, again not the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses learn about these doctrines from the written word of the organization, not from reading their Bibles.

If any references are needed, they should be, either the original publications, date and page where the teachings arose, or the latest flip-flop version that they have chosen to accept. The use of scriptures in the article should be strictly kept to an absolute minimum, and only used when a specific doctrine is being discussed [not stated] and is based around a certain scripture. All the other mass of scriptures should be changed to the official Watch Tower Society publications that the teachings originate from, and are also used when a teaching is disputed. An example is the massive discussion in regard to who will be destroyed at Armageddon. The teachings come—and are quoted from—the Watch Tower Society's official publications, not from debating the Bible. It's the Watch Tower organization that develops the doctrines, via the Governing Body and their writing department, and it is then published by them, that is why their literature should be the origin and reference source, publication, and page etc., and not the Bible. Central 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

222.152.206.22 11:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC) It would seem that while you claim to be fighting for unbiased reporting, Central, you are infact seeking just the opposite by insisting that your views of things are true and correct, i.e.:2. They are not the origin of the doctrines. And :5. The origins of Jehovah's Witnesses elaborate doctrines come from the Governing Body Jehovah's Witnesses, not direct from the Bible. When the Governing Body have decided what is "truth©™" and what is not, they disseminate these teachings primarily through their literature, again not the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses learn about these doctrines from the written word of the organization, not from reading their Bibles.

Shouldn't you have the humility to at least add in "my opinion" at this point? Because that is all either of those comments are, or are you the authority on what God thinks now? Do you know without doubt what is true and what is false when it comes to matters of religious doctrine? And really if you are going to use this argumentation shouldn't you apply similar reasoning to all other religions that publish additional discussion material on their doctrines and beliefs? Sure if we want to carry it to the extreme shouldn't you also apply this arbitary restriction of yours, to every Minister/Priest that presents a sermon from the pulpit that isn't made up solely of scripture and contained auxillary material of his or his churchs devising? While we are going for this unbiased NPOV thing, I mean.

You are entitled to hold the views as you stated them, of course, but at least recognise that they are just your "point of view" and that they attest strongly to the personal agenda you have manifested (as seen by me as I read this LONG document), which surely can only be termed as a desire to deseminate a similar propoganda to the one you accuse the Witnesses of, i.e. they are wrong and you are right ... The unbiased viewpoint would be to note that all witness litrature is infact liberally sprinkled with scripture, similar to how it is presented in the items in Wiki, though the validity of interpretation is contested, would it not? Rather than to make up the readers mind by making such prejudical claims as that their beliefs do not orginate from the bible ... sheesh!. I am sure no one who has ever read a watchtower would disagree with me that the witnesses are excessive with the scriptures they throw in there, and I am equally sure the witnesses who spend hours a week with their heads buried in the bible, and not just in the publications as you accuse, would vigourously dispute your claim that their beliefs are not from the bible.

Sure you can disagree with the interpretation of the scriptures that they make, and call it all lies, but that would just be your POV again, wouldn't it? Afterall biblical interpretation is something people argue vigourously over but until God actually comes to sort it all out, no one, not even you, can say for sure who is correct and who is misguided. And of course that goes for the witnesses too. But they aren't on this board demanding that your right to claim that your beliefs have merit should be deminished to the point of being laughable. If you want a truely NPOV publication, than shouldn't you keep your very obvious bias in check? Feel free to hate the witnesses but if you wish to claim non-bias then actually show no bias, thats they way it usually works. Just a thought.

Oh and the "its not in other encylopaedias" argument is very weak as this is not a "normal" encylopadia but rather a unique collection of entries by the real people who live what they are writing, rather than being the uninvolved essays by experts or academics contained in "main-stream" encylopaedia, thats what makes it so great. You are just using a lacklustre point to try to push your idea that witnesses have no right to the use the bible to substantiate their beliefs 'cause they dont agree with you. .. grins. Don't like me saying that? Well thats how you are coming across to the unbiased viewer.(<This is not me saying that is what you are intending to do, but rather it is me pointing out how you appear to the casual observer, so please dont take it personally. Its not meant as an attack but rather as an attempt to point out that is this really the way you want your argumentation viewed by all but those who are already committed to your cause?)

- Not directed at Central - Oh and I wished to raise an issue about the letter in Raymond Franz's book alleged to have been written by the Society or Governing Body or whatever regarding the thought-disfellowshiping; Im sure Im doing it wrong but oh well! Again I have no opinion of the letters veracity, but by the best legal definition, it is hearsay. Take this encylopaedia to any court of law displaying the evidence contained in that letter in the manner that it is displayed ... i.e as a factual document, when there is infact no coroberating evidence of its existance or validity, or at least none that has been presented here ... and it would be thrown out as hearsay and pretty pathetic hearsay at that ... If this encyclopaedia wishes its title as a factual and unbiased publication to go uncontested, isnt that something the publishers should watch out for? Sure its fine to have the letter reported here (we do want to see all sides of the story) but not in the manner of an established fact which is how I saw it presented throughout the articles I read.

If I wanted to read (uncontested) anti-witness litrature I would go to freespeech.org whatever it is, if I want to see their own (uncontested) views on matters I would go to watchtower.org or whatever that is, but if I want fair and just information, not attempts to flame or defame nor to sugarcoat, I should be able to go to Wiki. However, right now all I see is that there is a determined fight going on to ensure that doesn't happen, and under those circumstances why would I bother to consult Wiki as an authority on anything but other peoples opinions? Its a pity to see a worthy effort corrupted because people cant tell the difference between fact and opinion.

I dont know how to sign this but I am the "masked avenger", no not really my friends call me Elle! is this where I do the squiggle things?222.152.206.22 11:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be okay with the verses not being in there. I've only added them in bullets I've added to fit the format. Dtbrown 14:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, where did Duffer get you from? I see you have ignored all the post, and focused on a long ad hominem attack towards me. You are also clearly emotionally out of control and demonstrate that you do not want academic or encyclopaedia material here, which is the norm for many JWs. Disregarding the 99.7% of ad hominem, off topic, red herring and straw men in your post, the article should not use POV scriptures to back up POV doctrines, that is original research, leading the reader, and a highly subjective POV. My interpretation of scripture is irrelevant here, but seems to be the bulk of your badly constructed straw man smoke screen. I was waiting for the elephant to appear, but unfortunately we were not to be entrained with him today from your conjuring machinations. You also blissfully ignore the obvious fact that the Governing Body decides the doctrines and their interpretation, not the Bible. Any Watch Tower doctrine should have its source pointed out from the Society's official literature, but you know this already. You do a good job at projecting your own faults onto others. I suggest you buy a mirror and look in it next time

Your words about that letter are also unfounded and illogical. Try writing to the Watch Tower Society before you shoot your posts off next time, and try and be a little more focussed, you wasted a lot of words on nothing but personal attacks, and extremely bad reasoning. None of the documented material in Raymond Franz's books has been refuted or even questioned by the Watch Tower Society, and if you knew anything about your leaders you would know they would be on anyone in a flash with their lawyers, and sue if false information and false documents were put in their name. Even people who have just posted quotes from them have been sued. Raymond Franz hasn't even had a warning from them, and they would rip him to shreds if they had even the smallest piece of evidence to do so, but they cannot, as all his materials are carefully prepared and factually correct. Someone you would do well to take a lesson from. Central 20:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong with this citation style? I thought it seemed like a good idea. joshbuddy 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to put a belief in without putting a POV scripture in. It could go as:

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God has an organization, just one, and Jehovah's Witnesses are this organization. (Watchtower 1 Sep 1998 p.xx; Reasoning book p.xx)

One involving a scripture could be:

They believe that the 144,000 in Revelation 14:1 is a literal number of those who go to heaven (Insight book 1988, p.xx; Reasoning book p.xx)

This way, the beliefs are clearly stated and their origins are also given from the Society's literature, which is important if someone wants to see the reasoning behind this belief. If a particular scripture is mentioned, it should be done in a NPOV way, as above, and also linked to the full explanation of interpretation from the organization's literature. It is not for us to suggest scripture backs up XYZ, that is the job of the Watch Tower's literature, not Wikipedia. Central 20:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

222.152.206.22 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)The facts are, Central that I am not a Jehovah's Witness nor am I affiliated with the organisation in any way, beyond having an acquaintance or two at uni that is. I am, however, a student of philosophy with a leaning towards law, admittedly first year.

And my points still stand. You claim that the witness beliefs have no basis in scripture, which is just your opinion. It is no more factual than the witnesses claim that they have the truth, which is just their belief, but if you are going to prepare an unbiased account of this religion isn't that what should be in it? Their beliefs, supported by the reasoning and methods they use, (which from what I have seen is an awful lot of scripture), and not your obvious belief that their beliefs are crap? As I said until God himself comes down and sorts out this mess, no one has the authority to categorically state your beliefs are true and theirs aren't, and visa versa, it is all about faith as the religious types like to say.

If you are going to be putting your spin on the things written here you should be placing it under another topic headed "Central's beliefs about Jehovah's witnesses". And in fact I would have no problem with that, I would like to see a section on opposition to the Jehovah's Witness with good factual reasons why that opposition exists, but separate from the "hopefully" factual account of what they actually do believe (again I am expressing no opinion on the veracity or worth of those beliefs). And no I don't want to hear their uncontested view of it either; people do have the alarming habit of being short sighted over things they are passionate about, much like yourself, Central ... winks.

What bothers me is things like the letter which is placed right within the context of the "facts" about this religion without any reference to its source or validity, its just there admitted as evidence with the "cops" fingerprints all over it. Then you tell me to write to the governing body about it! Why should I? I come to Wiki to get information, why should I have to provide the research for myself? Shouldn't the writers of the articles be doing that instead of boldly claiming this as fact when it is in fact hearsay: A photocopied page from a book that contains a copied document that no one but Raymond Franz, an avowed adversary of these people, has claimed to have seen an original of, or not that I have seen anyway? One source of material such as this IS NOT fact it is hearsay. As I noted, present this in any court anywhere and it would be laughed straight out again. And talk about faulty reasoning, you use the fact that the witnesses haven't contested this as proof of its reliability? ... Please, that's as weak as saying because the kid down the road insists on calling me Gloria and I don't argue with him, ('cause its not worth the bother and I really don't care that much) that means Gloria is actually my name. Get the letter verified and by all means include it and I will be the first to say well done, but leave it in as it stands and you will get no belief or respect from me for doing so.

I do not mind debate, but when it comes to declaring something as fact I always think of the illustration of the car crash at an intersection. When witnesses (not Jehovah's witnesses ... grins) on the four corners of that intersection are asked for their account of the accident, they all provide completely different renditions. Why, because they all had different viewpoints, coloured by many more things than just the accident itself. To find the truth, or at least some semblance of it, the differing accounts have to be woven together, and obvious bias and distortion weeded out. I see the attempt being made to do that here, but I don't see that coming from you, Central. I personally don't care if the scriptures are cited, I am not going to bother looking them up, I don't even have a bible, but when I saw you assert that the witness beliefs have no basis in the scripture and used that as the reason for removing the citation, I saw bias in big bold letters, big bold flashing letters. You can dismiss me and my "faulty" reasoning as a straw person or whatever it was you called me, but the fact is Central, when you declared on this site that the witness belief had no basis in scripture you went too far and crossed the line between factual reporting and leapt with both feet into opinionated rhetoric, and you made yourself useless to this endeavour because of that. Act as a barricade so that the witness viewpoint is not the only one presented by all means, as one of the people standing on one of those corners that is your responsibility, but don't go into the crash scene and start rearranging the wreakage to suit your view of things, that just turns this whole endeavour into a waste of everyone's time, that of the reader most of all. People who are unbiased will see right through it and those that are already won to your cause (or theirs) don't really need you to bother, they believe what they believe already.

I do not want to read more anti-witness literature here, I have been wading through the stuff for the last few days, and yes it has raised some points with me that I want cleared up, but I really do NOT want to see more of it in the place I cam to for clarification and at least some verification. Isn't that what Wiki is trying to provide? Correct me if I am wrong and I will look elsewhere.

I want unbiased, without personal grievance or prejudice, facts. Oh and before you comment, I am not impressed by the fact that there are detractors and opponents of the witness faith. Even the "good" people throughout history have had those that condemned and hated them, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi and I suppose even Jesus Christ himself comes to mind. I find that hate is just as suspect when seeking the truth as love and devotion is. What I am interested in is the good quality of that opposition, does it stand on its own merits, or does it rely on the passion of its proponents? The same goes for the witnesses, and thats why I want to know what they believe, where they get that belief and why they developed as they did. The fact that witnesses prepare publications outlining their beliefs does not impress me as proof of their fraudulence either. I have seen a couple, and as I mentioned they were chock full of scripture (not making any comment about the interpretation or quality here, just the fact that they are there), and I have seen catholic and seven day adventist literature also - scriptures? Not so much. As an uninvolved observer what is that telling me about these groups of people who claim to believe in and follow the bible?

Admittedly as far as the biased information that is being presented here things are pretty even, the witnesses here aren't doing so well either as far as providing convincing proof, but I don't see them attacking anyone else's beliefs, just defending their own. Considering the venue and the task that is being attempted should they be having to do that? If people are attempting to not show bias, why is one group, especially the group being written about, feeling attacked? Or is that warning bells that the NPOV status of this entry is getting a bit wobbly?

To sum up, from my perspective, the opponents viewpoint isn't all that compelling, inuendo, blatant scare mongering and insult are used freely, with very little to back it up, or if its there its lost in all the "emotion". You quote Raymond Franz's book like its your bible, but in the couple of chapters I read I just saw some people setting out to prove something without a great deal of hard evidence, i.e. that letter which, face it, could have come from anywhere. The copy I saw had no official markings, no letterhead, no address, no signature, is there a more authentic version? I read another book about a woman's escape from the witnesses, and you accuse me of emotion, golly I nearly drowned in the stuff during her ramblings. I'm sure its all very nice to the already converted, as a validation and support group kind of thing, but as someone who at this point doesn't really care one way or another I am not impressed.

I have been given a book that proports to show how witnesses can be defeated by using the scriptures but be warned I will take the book to the witness girl at school and see if she is actually defeated by it. Isn't that what good research and experimentation is? Not making facts fit my beliefs but making sure that before I form my beliefs the facts are there to support them. Give me verifiable facts people! I am not interested in what you think but what you know, and please back it up with evidence. Show me where they say that they changed their mind on blood transfusions and that it wasn't an organisation simply adapting it's policies to deal with medical advances as they occurred. Might pay to remember that in the 70's and 80's the transfusion of blood was still a pretty new thing and not half as advanced and complex as it is now. Why is it unreasonable for them to make changes to their policy to meet the change in circumstances around them, they still refuse blood transfusion don't they? Show me that my logic and information is flawed by all means, but please back it up. Show me the proof of them embezzelling funds from the public and their adherents and that they practice brain washing techniques, etc. etc. not hearsay accusations.

Im not interested in supposition and speculation or conspiracy theories, I want facts, and thats what should be on this site under the facts about Jehovah's Witnesses headings. Place the speculations under other headings that make it clear that is what is so people don't feel hoodwinked and manipulated by what is contained here (Just like I did when I read about that letter presented as it is. I knew about it from other reading and was hoping to find some actual hard evidence for or against what was said in it only to find it here used as support for supposed "facts"! just like in all the openly anti-witness sites). At the same time I don't want this to be a pro-witness site, if you think that is what I'm saying then you are completely misunderstanding the reason I commented here. Chantelle

P.S I just noticed you have revised your approach a bit on the scripture citation thing compared to your earlier note, Central, great. Let them support their beliefs however they wish, they are their beliefs after all. I'm really liking the idea of a for and against section actually, especially as this has to be one of the most controversial religions of the modern era if not ever. Facts, facts, facts, supported facts, researchable facts, verifiable facts ... please.

Oh and Central I'm sorry you felt attacked by me I thought I made it clear that was not my intent in my little perenthecal comment, obviously not. As far as I'm concerned your beliefs are your own and I do not question either them or your right to hold them, what I did and do question is your right to participate in something that claims to display no bias when you obviously do. It's not fair to the reader who simply comes for information to be fed opinions under the guise of fact. And that is my opinion ... smiles. But please accept my genuine apology for my approach, it was 1am and I am not a night person. I was rushing to get my thoughts down on screen while they were fresh, not alot of editing going on. I am sorry. Oh and sorry for the long speel, blame it on the 10,000 word essays I'm used to writing ... grins.222.152.206.22

222.152.206.22 said: "The copy I saw had no official markings, no letterhead, no address, no signature, is there a more authentic version?" You are either a clearly lying, or just you forgot to open your eyes when reading. Try reading it again from page 341. http://users.volja.net/izobcenec4/coc/12.pdf

You said: "I personally don't care if the scriptures are cited" So, you posted that entire ramble for nothing? Do people spontaneously clear the room when you enter?

And more: "when I saw you assert that the witness beliefs have no basis in the scripture and used that as the reason for removing the citation."

It's time to take out your reading glasses. I said: "3. Many, many Bible scholars do not agree that these scriptures say what Jehovah's Witnesses claim they do." Please get it right, instead of making false accusations. I also said points, 1, 2, 4, 5, and an end paragraph.

You go one with this gem: "Even the 'good' people throughout history have had those that condemned and hated them, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi and I suppose even Jesus Christ himself comes to mind." I find it interesting how you lump Nelson Mandela, (a murderous convicted Marxist terrorist) with Jesus Christ. Talk about mind numbing ignorance!

You go on: "P.S I just noticed you have revised your approach a bit on the scripture citation thing compared to your earlier note". Nope. It's exactly the same; you are confusing your delusions with the actual words on the screen.

This made me laugh: "Facts, facts, facts, supported facts, researchable facts, verifiable facts ... please." Unfortunately, we have seen none from you, just ignorant rambling laced with gargantuan ad hominem and off topic waffle, false accusations, and endless straw men. Please read all the 20 past pages of talk for facts.

You said: "As far as I'm concerned your beliefs are your own and I do not question either them or your right to hold them" Really? Is that why you have just posted over 2,000 words of ad hominem attacking me, but not my argument?

And more: "what I did and do question is your right to participate in something that claims to display no bias when you obviously do"

Oh for goodness sakes, everyone on the planet has bias, and so do all the editors here. You need to grasp the simple fact that what is posted in Talk pages is not a NPOV and is not what is posted on the main page, so please stop your exasperating off topic, ad hominem posts, as you are showing your gross ignorance of the processes here. Please also read all the 20 past pages of talk. Central 12:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've begun converting scriptural references into watchtower references. There are subtle changes made to a couple of the beliefs (which I discovered in researching this) and as well, I've removed a couple of points, as they are already covered. Hope its satisfactory. joshbuddy 07:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please no 10,000 word essays!

I don't know about the other editors here, but I don't have the time to read long essays. Conciseness is a real virtue. If you want to start a new talk topic just click on the "plus" "+" tag between "edit this page" and "history." Long, rambling posts that cover multiple topics are probably not being read. Dtbrown 03:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

here here! joshbuddy 04:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

222.152.206.22 Seems a good policy for the editors not to read the comments and suggestions of their reading public ... oh well. 222.152.206.22

Comments and suggestions are very much desired. It just helps if they are broken into topics and, if possible, more concise. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia! Dtbrown 14:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for disputed belief

Here is my proposal.

Jehovah's Witnesses publications vary on who will survive Armageddon. The Watchtower has often stated that the only hope of surviving Armageddon comes through organizational membership and adherence to the scriptural interpretations of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Those "who do not submit to God's rule" face certain destruction at Armageddon^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]. The Watchtower has also described those who will survive Armageddon as "meek persons"^[15], "those who love God's Word"^[16], and those "who dedicate their lives to serve Jehovah and follow through in faithfulness." ^[17]

note|w95_0701_1 Dwellers Together in a Restored "Land", The Watchtower July 1, 1995 p. 21
note|w83_1001_1 Millions Get Ready for Uninterrupted Life on Earth, The Watchtower October 1, 1983 p. 16
note|w89_0901_1 Remaining Organized for Survival Into the Millennium , The Watchtower September 1, 1989 p. 19
note|w56_0401_1 Making All Mankind One Under Their Creator The Watchtower April 4, 1956 p. 207.

note|godcare1 Does God Really Care About Us? 2001 p. 22
note|lookmaking1 "Look! I Am Making All Things New" p. 26
note|w99_1101_1 Benefits From Loving God's Word, The Watchtower November 1, 1999 p. 19
note|w94_0401_1 How Can Man Be in God's Image?, The Watchtower April 1, 1994 p. 28

hm... that got somewhat munged. better now joshbuddy 07:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This very issue is already in mediation though we seem to be at a stand still as our mediator has been absent for several days. Much of what you suggest has already been covered there, please feel free to add your thoughts on the matter. Duffer 10:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My biggest objection is the quote "God's Hands" which isn't referenced at all. joshbuddy 16:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a very understandable summarizing of the words from the 8/15 1998 WT which said, "... how Jehovah will resolve these issues. He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way. ..." I wouted the whole paragraph here. - CobaltBlueTony 16:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. However, I would still object to the quote itself. (It seems like a colloquial expression, and therefore out of place) I think more appropriate wording would be:

A few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning or the mentally ill remains unknown.

I think this captures the tone of the cited article a little better, and doesn't resort to the use of a colloquialism. I hope this is satisfactory. joshbuddy 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay here is a new propsal (wouldn't it be nice to resolve this sooner instead of later?) :)

Jehovah's Witnesses publications vary on who will survive Armageddon. The Watchtower has often stated that the only hope of surviving Armageddon comes through organizational membership and adherence to the scriptural interpretations of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Those "who do not submit to God's rule" face certain destruction at Armageddon^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]. The Watchtower has also described those who will survive Armageddon as "meek persons"^[22], "those who love God's Word"^[23], and those "who dedicate their lives to serve Jehovah and follow through in faithfulness." ^[24] The fate of some, such as small children or the mentally ill remains unknown.^[25]

note|w95_0701_1 Dwellers Together in a Restored "Land", The Watchtower July 1, 1995 p. 21
note|w83_1001_1 Millions Get Ready for Uninterrupted Life on Earth, The Watchtower October 1, 1983 p. 16
note|w89_0901_1 Remaining Organized for Survival Into the Millennium , The Watchtower September 1, 1989 p. 19
note|w56_0401_1 Making All Mankind One Under Their Creator The Watchtower April 4, 1956 p. 207.

note|godcare1 Does God Really Care About Us? 2001 p. 22
note|lookmaking1 "Look! I Am Making All Things New" p. 26
note|w99_1101_1 Benefits From Loving God's Word, The Watchtower November 1, 1999 p. 19
note|w94_0401_1 How Can Man Be in God's Image?, The Watchtower April 1, 1994 p. 28
note|w98_0815_1 Strengthing Our Confidence in God's Righteousness, The Watchtower August 15, 1998 p. 20

Would this be satisfactory? joshbuddy 19:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it but think we might need to dispense of the first sentence to get consensus. Dtbrown 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of going backwards from what we've got on the mediation page though. Witness teachings do not vary depending on which publication you read (in this instance), it's just that only a few publications specifically talk about who may survive. The heart of the issue is that Central believes these few citations are a contradiction of what we teach, rather than a compliment of what we teach. Per every Witness on this website, and every Witness at Touchestoneforum.com, he is mistaken. I believe Central may object to the removal of the first sentence, but removing it is the only way it will make it accurate. Duffer 22:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think thats even cleaner. Better economy of words.

The Watchtower has often stated that the only hope of surviving Armageddon comes through organizational membership and adherence to the scriptural interpretations of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Those "who do not submit to God's rule" face certain destruction at Armageddon^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]. The Watchtower has also described those who will survive Armageddon as "meek persons"^[30], "those who love God's Word"^[31], and those "who dedicate their lives to serve Jehovah and follow through in faithfulness." ^[32] The fate of some, such as small children or the mentally ill remains unknown.^[33]

note|w95_0701_1 Dwellers Together in a Restored "Land", The Watchtower July 1, 1995 p. 21
note|w83_1001_1 Millions Get Ready for Uninterrupted Life on Earth, The Watchtower October 1, 1983 p. 16
note|w89_0901_1 Remaining Organized for Survival Into the Millennium , The Watchtower September 1, 1989 p. 19
note|w56_0401_1 Making All Mankind One Under Their Creator The Watchtower April 4, 1956 p. 207.

note|godcare1 Does God Really Care About Us? 2001 p. 22
note|lookmaking1 "Look! I Am Making All Things New" p. 26
note|w99_1101_1 Benefits From Loving God's Word, The Watchtower November 1, 1999 p. 19
note|w94_0401_1 How Can Man Be in God's Image?, The Watchtower April 1, 1994 p. 28
note|w98_0815_1 Strengthing Our Confidence in God's Righteousness, The Watchtower August 15, 1998 p. 20

I mean, it does literally vary, in as much as there is a variety of statements. But there is no need to state, "Here is a variety of statements..." then dispense with the actual variety. The variety will be self-evident from the content.

I think that is clean and sums up all sides. Is it suffiecently NPOV and short? Does anyone have any complaints around it? Thanks. joshbuddy 22:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No complaints here. I like the style and economy of words. Dtbrown 09:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you input joshbuddy, but that new sentence you inserted weakens the paragraph somewhat. It's this bit below I'm referring to:

The Watchtower has also described those who will survive Armageddon as "meek persons", "those who love God's Word", and those "who dedicate their lives to serve Jehovah and follow through in faithfulness."

Using words like "meek persons. . .those who love God's word. . .serve Jehovah. . ." could be construed to cover virtually any monotheistic religion or group in existence. It was also in the same light like the wording "God will resolve this in a righteous way", has no meaning at all, when no matter what God does, JWs would always say it was 'righteous', therefore neutralising the word into an impotent diversion.

I do agree that the last sentence could go as: "A few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning or the mentally ill remains unknown." But I would change 'unknown' to unpublished, or "may be unknown" because the organization say "may" not "do not know" implying they have decided but choose not to publish this in that particular paragraph, but have done so in dozens of others condemning all non-JWs to death. Anyway, I should not be posting this here, as it's all for the mediation page, and Steve will hopefully get to it when he has time, there's no big hurry anyway. Central 11:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of "unknown" it would read better as "indeterminate" (as in, its been left doubtful, vague) As for my middle sentence weakening it, I suppose to does some extant. I was merely attempting to report the multiplicity of statements around who will survive. joshbuddy 17:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

References and clutter

Hello joshbuddy, I see you have altered a lot of the reverences on the main page including the ones I set out as 'C' group. The problem is Wikipedia does not have a good referencing system, and tends to randomly number reverences. This problem is then exasperated when someone clicks on them only to find a non-numbered mass of cluttering references at the bottom of the page. This does not help in finding or backing up quotes, it actually hiders the process a lot.

The reason I set out and put the 'C' links in the Eschatology section was due to the crappy system Wikipedia has. When they were numbered C1, C2 etc., they were easily visible at the bottom of the page and clearly corresponding to their number in the text, in other words the C2 in the text clearly appeared as C2 in the reference. The Wikipedia link system just causes a shambles and a mess, which is why this has been debated before and left as numbered on the page, and especially in the reverences. The other thing I do not agree with is removing valid inline links and putting them at the bottom of the page, how is this improving the page? When they are inline they can be clicked and everyone knows what they are and where they are from. When they are at the bottom of the page, they get lost in the mountain of other unnumbered references and its makes it time consuming and a disorganised mess. I also think simple references at the end or middle of a paragraph should stay there if that is all there is, and there is no additional information, for example: ". . .this is what they now believe." (Watchtower 1 Sep 1998 p.34). There is no need to remove this small Watchtower publication reverence and put it in at the bottom of the page where it quickly gets lost in the confusing unnumbered pile of others.

I am going to reverse some of them, not to be argumentative, but because they are much clearer as they were, and because the Wikipedia reverencing system is not up to it yet, unless someone can demonstrate how to put a clearly marked numbering system on the page, and the same clearly marked number at the bottom, in order, with the links/quotes? I'm sure many agree when looking through any encyclopaedia, it is much easier finding and more user friendly to have most reverences on the page they correspond to, rather then all lumped in the back index. I know it is not possible with all of them to have them on the page, especially if they are long. But we should aim to have most of them in the text if possible to make them more accessible and relevant to readers. Central 12:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd like to take a pass at cleaning it up today before you reverse anything. My reference conversion was merely a first pass. Ordering them and possibly adding labels to the sections seems like a good approach. I admit the referencing system does seem a bit on the crappy side, but hopefully once its nice and clean, it won't be too much more effort to keep it that way. joshbuddy 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that better? joshbuddy 18:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks very good! Thanks for all the hard work! Dtbrown 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

All in all, I like the way Joshbuddy has cleaned up the page. There are disadvantages as Central has pointed out but it does look much cleaner. I do not have strong feelings about it either way. Is there a preferred way of doing it here on Wikipedia? Dtbrown 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say a big thank you to joshbuddy. Wow, what a labour of love. You are doing a great job with all those scriptures to references. I saw the odd link that didn't work, but I will pick those up if I can remember where they were, but thanks again for your large input. It can't be easy looking up all those references, well done. Central 23:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Central. If you see typo are links that work, its because it *tedious* work. I just want to make a few comments about a) How I chose my refs and b) How to make refs.

a) How I chose my refs

I favored newer publications over older publications
I favored Watchtower references over all others

b) How do you make refs? Here are my formatting rules. Disclaimer. I am by no means an expert in formatting citations, and if I made some terrible, horrible blunders here, please forgive me, correct me and be nice to me. :)

1) To make a citation

{{ref harvard|w02_1215_2|Watchtower 2005b|none}}

The first part 'ref harvard' always stays the same
The second part 'w02_1215_2' is pub symbol, (year)_(month,day) if its a watchtower or awake, and _(unique number). THe unique number is to avoid collisons when citing the same issue twice.
The third part 'Watchtower 2005b'. I used the name of the pub followed by the date, followed by a letter for each time that publication is references (a, b, c, etc).
The forth part is the style, and I have used 'none' everytime.

2) To make a note

{{note label|w02_1215_2|Watchtower 2005b|none}}(Watchtower 2005b). Cheetahs-The Bible's Viewpoint, ''The Watchtower'' December 15, 2002, p. 21.

The note is identical to the citation except the first part changes from 'ref harvard' to 'note label'. This is followed by the reference label in brackets and a period. Then you state the reference.

Now I THINK I got all the scriptures out. (Though iirc, I left a couple in on purpose) Please convert anything that I forgot to. And please by no means, take my word on these references. Most of them were made in a drunken haze (or something like that) and I have no idea if any of them contain articles that have anything whatsoever to do with the point being made. That is, I do not warranty these references. Good luck! joshbuddy 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

btw, I'm going to make a script to correctly re-order and maintain the references. I will post this online once I'm done so that anyone can use it. joshbuddy 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the script and the referencing of the article! Dtbrown 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Template revisited

I think we should come up with a Jehovah's Witness template that encompases all the Witness related articles, similar to the one on Hinduism. The Christianity wiki is a POV, convoluted mess and a link to it serves no real purpose. I suggest removing the template and just having the Christianity Portal button instead (above the template on the Christianity Wiki). What do you guys think? Duffer 22:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If the "Christianity wiki is a POV, convoluted mess", then it should be fixed, however it remains encyclopaedically appropriate that the Jehovah's Witnesses article links to it. While it may also be appropriate to have a Jehovah's Witnesses template, as an organization that identifies as Christian the Christianity template should stay in place.--Jeffro77 03:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If we had to choose between a Witness template and a Christianity template, I think the Witness template (that includes a link to the Christianity Portal) would be more appropriate as the Christianity template references predominately Orthodox beliefs, and religions. It's not bad, but I believe a template encompassing the many Witness related articles would be far more valid, and usefull in getting more information about Jehovah's Witnesses (not Orthodox Christianity). Duffer 08:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. Perhaps some sort of "Tower" design. I believe the Watchtower Society has a registered trademark on the Tower design (with a certain amount of turrets). So, as long as our design did not violate their trademark, I think we'd be okay. Dtbrown 09:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of using the hebrew Tetra like the one found on Cobaltbluetony's main page (the userbox). Duffer 02:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. That would be a template that all JWs would recognize. Dtbrown 04:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried adding a {{Portal}}, but I don't know how to link it to the Christianity portal, it tries to make a Jehovah's Witness Portal. It may be that we can't have a Christianity Portal; maybe we should look at Creating a JW portal (though I don't think our little slice of Wikipedia is nearly big enough to merit a portal of our own), I am really in the dark as to Wiki coding so I'll look into it more. If we can't have a Christianity Portal button then maybe just have a Witness template with a link to the Christianity Portal in it. Duffer 02:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename "Jehovah's Witnesses and eschatology" to "Eschatology"

Would like to remove redundancy in title. Any objections? joshbuddy 22:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "Witness' eschatology"? That would allow us to retain the link to the Wiki article on eschatology? Dtbrown 09:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel this would be more appropriate in a separate link below, such as:

For more details, see the article Eschatology.

Sound good? joshbuddy 09:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with it. Dtbrown 09:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename "Origins" to "History" and start "History of Jehovah's Witnesses" article

I think it would be more inclusive to retitle "Origins" to "History". As well, I'd like to start a History article detailing the history a little better. For instance, I was really surprised to see that there was no article for Olin R. Moyle, a very significant person in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses. I know that some other editors here who have an interest in the history of JW's, and would enjoy writing this article. Sound good? joshbuddy 05:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a history article is way overdue. Question is: we have a big main article as is. Perhaps we should link a "History of Jehovah's Witnesses" article to the "Origins" article that is on the main page? Dtbrown 06:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think article size reduction is a seperate matter, one that I'm going to look at and start to address pretty seriously I hope. :) I have a number of suggestions and ideas, but I just wanted to clean up the article a bit before I moved onto the more serious issues with it. Having said that, please start a history article. I'm gonna go ahead and add the link and rename the title, it seems a pretty harmless change. joshbuddy 06:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Achieving consensus on a size reduction of the main article may be difficult. Thanks for starting the stub for the history article. JW history is one of my main interests. If I only had more time to spend on Wikipedia! Dtbrown 06:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me call it a Long-Term Goal(tm). I know getting consensus will be difficult, but building consensus is FUN! I think as more sub pages get fleshed out, it will be easier and easier to reduce the main page. (I hope) I would say target number one (for me) will be the "Families and Jehovah's Witnesses". Its bizarrely out of place and even saying that title out loud sounds strange to me. It really seems like Practices would be a far more appropriate place for it, and it hardly deserves a sub-section of its own. But I will raise this later once I get my ducks in a row about what to do with its content. :) joshbuddy 06:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Philosophy Paragraph in Beliefs

I would like to suggest we delete the philoshophy paragraph in the beliefs section. Yesterday, I removed the word "Yet" in it. I understand it was supposed to be a logical "gotcha" against the witnesses, but I would propose that explictly pointing out the contradictory nature of certain JW beliefs does not really belong in this a wikipedia article. (Though report

Is there any reason to keep this paragraph? Can (or should) the content be salvaged for another article? The nature of the JW arguments against evolution seem to be pretty common, and covered here.

Look forward to your comments and suggestions. :) joshbuddy 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I see the paragraph was added here. [34]

I don't see any reason to keep it. joshbuddy 20:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw the progress and ultimate demise of the "philiosophy" paragraph, and I have to say, I am impressed. Thank you very much for catching that intentional "gotcha," as you put it, and realized that Witnesses are not as dogmatic as some would have you believe. We can reason and think, like anyone else; we simply hold to a final authority as we strive to pereive it in the Bible. - CobaltBlueTony 00:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witneses & Families section

These paragraphs have only been around for a few weeks. I would agree with Joshbuddy that they seem strange here on the main page. I think the points in the last 3 paragraphs contain important information, however. Is there a place where that could be incorporated? I have to admit I haven't been to all the JW pages so perhaps there is a section that discusses disfellowshipping and family situations already? Dtbrown 00:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A refocusing could include other aspects of Witness family life (and perhaps this could become a main article if enough info is found and verified for it); the tie-in to the DF section/article would be this explanation of how Witnesses treat DFed family members and why. - CobaltBlueTony 00:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we stub an article for this? If so, what should it be called? I have to agree with Joshbuddy that the current title seems odd. Dtbrown 00:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the article Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses could easily take this info, and the little bit of useful NPOV content in the Families section can be moved into Practices on the front page.

Having said that, the Practices article needs some serious cleanup (imho). Its 61k long, has a *huge* section on Blood (whats the point in having Jehovah's Witnesses and blood???) and contains some rather one-sided content. But that can be dealt with later. I think I'd rather move slowly and carefully instead of rushing ahead.

I will re-work the family section, and of course, everyone here can veto/edit it to their hearts content. :) joshbuddy 02:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, dtbrown and I have merged the content into practices. As well, the practices section has been segmented up. (The title names are a bit crappy, and if you feel like altering them to something more appropriate, please do) Please review for accuracy, NPOV and style and of course feel free to alter it as you see fit. joshbuddy 06:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorization of beliefs

The categorization of beliefs is from a Christian POV. I think it might be construed as a bit confusing if you're approaching it with no background in Christianity. The division used in the article Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses seems a bit more sensible from an outside perspective. What is everyone else's thoughts on this? joshbuddy 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. I think most readers of this article will have some familiarity with Christianity, however. Are you proposing we merge all the sub sections into one continuous flow? Dtbrown 06:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not sure if I am proposing that. Thats a bigger question. I was simply using the detailed page as a hint of how the summary could be better structured. I understand assuming that most readers would have a familiarity with Christianity, and it *is* very interesting to compare those sets of beliefs for differences and similarities. I suppose I'm just wondering if readers would be better served by a categorization by function as opposed to relativity to Christianity.

Then again, maybe its good that its different from the sub-page. joshbuddy 06:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this article is a disaster so I feel a need to chime in. Is there a reason why disfellowshipping is listed as a distinctive belief of Jehovah's Witnesses, while it's clearly pointed out that it's very similar to excommunication? After all, if one can relate it so easily to something another version of Christianity does, then how can anyone claim it to be distinctive? That destroys the quality of writing on this article as far as I can see, and comes across with a subtle biasedness. --Ando por Fe 05:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness doctors

Forgive me if this has been discussed, but I can't se it anywhere in the article. Given the issue of blood transfusions, is it possible for Jehovah's Witnesses to become fully qualified doctors? If not, should this be mentioned in the article? In fact if it is possible, could the issue be explained? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult to document, but I can answer your question. In just about every country, different professions have different requirements. They can vary by employer, professional associations, or government regulations, or a combination. Usually doctors have much latitude in which treatments they give patients, and can choose not to give certain treatments because of personal opinion, professional opinion, or conscience. Usually, in a situation where blood transfusions are considered necessary, it is in a medical cafility where there are many doctors; if one chooses not to administer a certain procedure, another may step in. Such would also be the case in which a doctor's personal moral code would prohibit him from performing or ordering an abortion. Witness doctors simply excuse themselves from that particular treatment, or patient; their colleagues are usually already aware of their stance and prepared to act in their stead should the patient choose that treatment.

Blood transfusion is only one of a myriad of medical procedures; there are several non-blood treatments capable of handling the medical goals transfusions are meant to accomplish. So the qualification of a doctor would not be if he or she chose to perform a certain procedure or not; it would be if he or she could treat and heal the patient with methods acceptable by the patient. - CobaltBlueTony 14:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[Not logged in; writing from a College machine] Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. I wonder, though, whether it would be possible to qualify as a doctor in certain countries' training system? Here in the U.K., for example, is it possible to skip part of the training because it's against one's conscience? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Early Eschatology and divine right paragraph.

Hey Central. I edited:

Throughout its history the Watch Tower Society's claims authority as "God's Prophet" and "God's one and only true channel to mankind" has been historically reinforced into the minds of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout the history of the organization. Its dates for Armageddon were repeatedly classed as "of God,", "God's time to act against mankind", "God's interpretations," and the organization describes itself in a unique and privileged position of "God's one sole channel to Mankind" in giving these dates.[71] To questions the dates validity is often negatively inferred to be questioning God Himself. The organization has at times denied being "directly inspired", but has also made multiple claims equalling inspiration [72] in their import. These historical dates were never suggested to be the thoughts of imperfect men, or passing theories of men at the time of their publishing. This is demonstrated clearly in two out of many issues of the Watchtower magazine published by Jehovah's Witnesses: "It is on the basis of such and so many correspondences-in accordance with the soundest laws known to science that we affirm that, Scripturally, scientifically, and historically, present-truth chronology is correct beyond a doubt. Its reliability has been abundantly confirmed by the dates and events of 1874, 1914, and 1918. Present-truth chronology is a secure basis on which the consecrated child of God may endeavor to search out things to come." [73] "This chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct." [74] The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses still holds that it alone has the unique relationship with God, via Jesus, to give the correct interpretation of God's plans and will for mankind.

Down to:

The Watchtower's has made various claims as "God's Prophet"[71], and being "a mouthpiece for [God]".[72] Its eschatology has been described as "God's time to act"[73] The organization has denied having "no powers of inspiration today." [74] However, of these dates, The Watchtower has said: "This chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct." [75][76]

In the edit log you stated: "because the whole basis for the Governing Body's authority rides on this "Divine channel" teaching." My problem with this paragraph is two-fold. First, there are many quotes in here with no references, and as such, are unverifiable. Last night, I tried to verify these quotes with much difficulty. If you could, please reference the quotes properly, or replace them with actual citable quotes. Second, though their being "God's Channel" is important, its off-topic from the subject of eschatology. As such, does it need to be quite this long? I had hoped that my edit still got the point across. Please let me know what you think (or anyone else). joshbuddy 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello joshbuddy, I don't believe the channel bit is off topic, because if you look at their history in making dates and predictions for Armageddon, they used that stance all the time. If these were, "God's dates" via "God's channel" then who dares to arrogantly question God? If they were men's speculations then why believe any of them? The channel doctrine is obviously needed for their claimed authority stamp, especially in their eschatology date prophecies, that's why I gave the two quotes and link to a scanned page. Some references for channel are here. It would probably be better to just have an in-line link to the quotes page; I'll pop that in now.

You have made a lot of progress with the references, but just one point: I would keep some of the inline ones to external links, rather than lump the whole lot at the bottom of the page. In line links are very useful and take up no room at all. The only ones that really need to be at the bottom of the page, are just page number references, which do take up space if they are on the main article. I would also not reduce articles just for the sake of it, if paragraphs are ok in their current form. Smaller is not necessarily better if crucial information is lost, or transferred to pages where it's far less likely to be read by the public. I suppose the best way would be to edit the grammar, and try and squeeze the exact same information into a smaller sentence a bit like a Zip file, and still keep its integrity, meaning and structure, but that is not an easy task, and it cannot go on forever or degradation quickly sets in. Some articles on Wikipedia are naturally large, as the subject matter is complex. Others are very small, as there is not a lot to say. I don't feel there is any major need to cut down size unless it's waffle that actually says nothing, or can be said in fewer words with the same content. That is the important bit, not losing essential content, power or meaning if the sentence were to be grammatically clipped. But again, this is often not possible without corrupting the impact, flow and meaning of the original paragraph or sentence. It's also good not to rush changes, as this can cause more problems than solutions. Sometimes taking time makes all the difference to a good edit, or sometimes realising that it was ok all along, because the alternatives are no better, or even worse. Central 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just don't get it, what does their claim as "God's channel" have to do with Eschatology? Doing a quick lookup on the meaning of eschatology: "The branch of theology that is concerned with the end of the world or of humankind." The information is interesting, granted. The information is relevant to JWs sure. Does it have anything to do with eschatology? Not really. It contains all sorts of quotes that don't actually exists. For instance, "God's Prophet" and "God's one and only true channel to mankind" don't occur in the references cited. The quotes: "of God,", "God's time to act against mankind", "God's interpretations," do not occur in the citation. The paragraph make a couple of claims which have no basis in fact. My edited version replaced the useless citation with actual quotes from actual litrature. Do you think it missed some vital point? Did I trim something out that was essential to the paragraph? joshbuddy 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding weblinks in the copy of the article, I have no objection to them if what they link to is a webpage. However in many instances, they link to a) scans of wt articles or b) pages that contain numerous quotes from wt articles. In both of these cases, a citation would be superior, as webpage citation are weak. If the page goes down, you lose the citation (or ciatations).

You also mentioned "not losing essential content". I don't want to lose essential content, but when you have multiple quotes which all say more or less the same thing, quotes verbatim, I think we can reasonably trim it down without losing the meaning. joshbuddy 23:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Its also a pretty silly paragraph. I mean, just try reading the first sentence without smacking your head. :) (weird weird sentence) joshbuddy 14:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph could use some trimming down and should stay more focused to the topic at hand. Dtbrown 14:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Central, the paragraph reads like a lawyer's brief against the Watchtower Society. It strikes me as a bit shrill. I think it could really be toned down for NPOV. Dtbrown 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

New referencing system

After poking around in the wikipedia (and mediawiki docs) I discovered a very simple way to add references. If you want to add a citation, simple enclose the citation in <ref> tags, and it will automatically get numbered and added to the bottom. I've converted all the existing references to this system, and it should greatly speed up adding citations in the future. joshbuddy 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a big improvement, and now they are all numbered the same as well at the bottom, which was in my opinion to worse thing about the system before that had no numbers. Central 10:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of THE NAME

Would anyone mind if I revised the point about use of THE NAME being in the vernacular to include the additional examples (about 1/3 of a line) someone commented out? Despite the alleged 'obviousness,' redundancy, and obscurity of the additional examples they were originally added for specific reasons. The point was not considered obvious and was contested here when I made the first edit on the subject. The examples were selected to demonstrate the breadth of variation the vernacular shows in the form of THE NAME -- for instance that the "Yawe" form is actually used by Witnesses in some languages rather than rejected as some assert, that the number of syllables changes, that the leading letter may be J,G,Y,or I, and that this vernacular usage occurs even in very obscure languages where the number of Witnesses is close to nil. I don't spell all this out in the article but the additional 1/3rd of a line of examples includes information I think valuable and informative.

I think a few more would be okay. Others? Dtbrown 04:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Move resources to another page and keep only a few?

The resources is getting long. Really long. How would everyone feel about breaking it out into another article and keep perhaps a couple from each category? Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of links and I fear this article is getting a bit heavy with links. At last count there is 44 links in the External links section. What would a reasonable number be? 10? I think we should save some from the broader categories, for instance, while anti/pro 607 links are fascinating and interesting, do we really need to list them in support of a seemingly insignificant point to people reading the article?) joshbuddy 03:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Getting consensus on this might be interesting. I'm assuming 10 would mean only 5 from each point of view (favorable and critical). That might be hard to get agreement on. Perhaps 10 from each point of view? Dtbrown 05:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking 5 of each (not 10) and move over more specific ones to more specific articles. joshbuddy 05:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see what others say.Dtbrown 05:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been brought up a few times, and usually led to edit wars and mass spamming from JW multiples IDs/sock puppets. There is no logical reason to limit any numbers, but if there were, I would say 10 from each section as a minimum, that's pro sites, critical sites, and miscellaneous. The "neutral" section should be renamed 'miscellaneous'. Central 12:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Central, it doesn't help consensus building efforts to bring up what you feel are past wrongs. Dtbrown 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments from any other editors? Dtbrown 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved over a small number of links to the Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues article. joshbuddy 21:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we're down to 10 positive links and 10 negative links. Comments? Are we okay here? Dtbrown 08:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better. I'm not sure I agree with Statistics of Jehovah's Witnesses as being a negative resource. Any thoughts? joshbuddy 09:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is because that page is hosted on a website that is critical of the JWs. Dtbrown 05:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's get some consensus on the opening paragraph

"Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international religious denomination who identify themselves as Christian".

I have taken an exception to this sentence before, the matter was not settled adequately. Religious denomination does not really apply to Witnesses, though I think sect is a more accurate adjective in function, but not definition. I believe my proposed sentence: Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international Christian, restorationist religion." avoids these problems. Witnesses are an unorthodox, Christian, Restorationist religion. Just as there are Sunni, Shi'a, and Sufi, they are all still Islamic religions regardless if they consider their counterparts to be so or not. I object to the phrase: "who identify themselves as Christian". Every Christian religion considers themselves to be Christian, the difference is if the religion adheres to established orthodoxy or not, if not, then they may not be considered by orthodoxy as Christian, but this does not necessitate the implication that the non-Orthodox group has become 'un-Christian' (as the current sentence implies). Just as Witnesses don't consider Orthodox Christianity to truly be Christian. Perhaps have the sentence say: "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international, non-orthodox, Christian, restorationist religion." This reflects that they are not orthodox but are still catagorized (by secularists) as a Christian religion. Duffer 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Active membership is over six million, with over eight million others attending an annual service."

Josh, you and Dtb are both technically right, how about: "Active membership is over six million, with an additional eight million (or more) attending an annual memorial." Or perhaps we could exclude this line as it is semi reduntant with the same information found in several places in these articles. Duffer 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why "religious denomination" does not apply to Jehovah's Witnesses?

I think stating that the Witnesses active membership is "over 6 million" gives the wrong impression to the average reader. Statisticians normally state that Mormons number over 12,000,000 but you really can't compare the JW 6 million and the LDS 12,000,000 figures (even though each group has differing ways of identifying members) as indicators of the influence of the movement. Dtbrown 04:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the current phrasing imply that Witnesses are un-Christian? I think one could say it implies some think that but the current phrasing seems to be a way in-between both positions. Duffer, are you saying we must decide that question? Dtbrown 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just had another thought. How about this for an opening paragraph:

Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international religious organization and believe themselves to be the restoration of first-century Christianity. Active membership is over six million, with over ten million others attending an annual service. They are known for their extensive preaching and publishing activities, with The Watchtower and Awake! religious magazines being their most widely known publications.

Would that work? Dtbrown 05:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this bit: "with over ten million others attending an annual service"

Why is that in the opening paragraph if it is not purely there for propaganda reasons? The memorial figures are already there lower in the page. Those extra who attend are not JWs. It's like one of Christendom's churches taking figures at midnight mass once a year where many people only appear once a year and do it out of tradition or get dragged along by others, and then publishing the numbers as if they are church members. I know JWs who have dragged along unbelieving husbands/wives, and even work colleges to the memorial, these people are not Jehovah's Witnesses, they are one time visitors on many occasions, and certainly do not merit a mention in the opening paragraph to bolster the public relation image of the religion's numbers. That line of text should be removed, as it gives in instantly deceitful impression of the number of Jehovah's Witnesses, and what exactly is "others" supposed to mean? Central 13:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn on if it should be kept or not. But it might be useful in someway in the intro to know the scope of the JW's, how many lives would typically be affected by them and their worship. joshbuddy 15:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Central, as I noted above, in that it is redundant. However, the 6 million figure is active Witnesses only, the "others" are those who may be Witnesses yet are merely inactive, or guests at the memorial service, so to say: "Those extra who attend are not JWs" is not accurate. The six million figure isn't an accurate gauge of how many Witnesses there are total, only active Witnesses. I could go either way on keeping this sentence. Duffer 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's perfect. Reading the description of religious denomination, I get the impression that it doesn't really apply to Witnesses, that's just my take on it though. Duffer 05:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)