Let's get it started[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Jehovah's Witnesses

george 03:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page was concise, correct, neutral. It gave facts without sounding biased for or against. Very refreshing to see someone(s) (who is not a member of the faith) actually give just the facts about Jehovah's witnesses.

george

I agree fully with George's comment! Most of the time even in encyclopedia-articles there seems to be a strong prejudice,but in your article you stick to the facts without judging. My compliments Peter

Publishers[edit]

George, really good work cleaning up the recent edits to the Publishers section. That must've taken some time and obviously a lot of careful thought!! My compliments. --DannyMuse 17:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Servants/Elders section[edit]

There seemed to be some shortfalls on the description of the congregational effects of the Servants arrangement. I will also be finding the date that the elder arrangement was initiated and add it to the Elders section. The Elders section made no mention of the Judiciary role of the elders. This seemed to create a skewed view of the elder arrangement by its absence. I hope that the wording of my additions is not considered POV.--Evident 13:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMuse, how is "doing this with love" not POV? What about "must do whatever is needed to protect the congregation and to maintain within it what they believe to be Jehovah’s high standards and the free flow of God’s spirit?"

These are patently POV remarks. The additions I made state succinctly the actions undertaken, the roles fulfilled, and the net effects. My addition do not delve, positively or negatively, into the reasons why or the state of emotion these actios are undertaken in. I strongly urge you to reconsider your additions for how they can be made NPOV. The elder arrangement is considered oppressive and domineering by some, and is considered unloving by many. My additions did not reflect anything negative or positive about the practice, your modifications DEFINITELY produce a POV result.

Also, you removed the "two or three witnesses" comment. Two or three witnesses are only required when an elder is accused of a sin. This is a distinct difference between the elders and everyone else in the congregation. I cited the Scripture this rule is derived from. 1 Timothy 5:19 Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses. (NWT)

I am requesting a version rollback to my previous edits.--Evident 15:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMuse, I'm going with my gut instincts here, but I think you might not get the point without a contrary example to look at. I am only posting this as an example of how a POV stub might read regarding Judicial Committe responsiblities. I'm using your's as the basis:

Elders also hold a position as judges in the congregation. When one of Jehovah's Witnesses commits or is accused of committing a sin, an investigation by two elders may lead to the formation of a Judicial Committee made up of three or more elders. The Judicial Committee has multiple purposes. One aim is to find out the facts of the case, using whatever means are deemed necessary, in some cases even if such means are illegal. Once these facts are known, the elders must do whatever they believe is needed to protect the congregation, up to and including disfellowshipping someone for doing nothing more than publicly challenging a teaching. They believe this leads to maintaining Jehovah’s high standards and the free flow of God’s spirit within the congregation. The Judicial Committee is also to coerce, if at all possible, an "endangered sinner" into conforming to the standards established by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Now, I don't think the article should read that way. But I don't think your comments are any more or less POV than this brief example.--Evident 16:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evident: Actually I liked several aspects of your proposed revision with the following exceptions: the last sentence and the comments about the judicial committee engaging in illegal activity. In the US at least, the legality of the judicial arrangement is well established and not controversial in the least. Coerce is I believe an inappropriate word reflecting the POV of a disgruntled individual. Perhaps it might be a realistic appraisal of a particular situation, but it is NOT what JW elders are trained to do. Also, "publicly challenging a teaching" is the same as apostasy which is clearly a disfellowshipping offense for which the organization is on solid ground. I have made another revision combining NPOV facts from your proposed revision with the existing text. That being said, I believe you might want to review exactly what is meant by WP's NPOV policy. Feel free to comment! --DannyMuse 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMuse: I have read the NPOV policy. I still say my initial additions were factual and neutral and your current revision is still POV-filled. I noticed that you dodged the issue of illegality as it pertains to acquiring evidence of wrongdoing. I personally know of cases of stalking, illegal wiretaps, and other illegal surveilling. As do you, if you are (as I suspect) an elder. Evidence acquired by means of illegal activity, such as violation of HIPAA laws are also readily accepted. Also, there is a false assertion that the counsel to elders comes from the Faithful and Discreet Slave. We both know that 80 and 90 year-old partakers are not writing in and telling the Governing Body how the elders should behave. And finally an elder body claims no saving power, so the last comment is misleading at best and downrightly deceitful at worst.

As to coercion, I beg to differ. I was visited recently by a Circuit Overseer and my PO dad and encouraged to think carefully about what my choices would do to my relationship with my wife, what distance it might create. That is coercion, use of emotional pressure and veiled threats to achieve the outcome they desired. But, my addition did not indicate that view at all. My cont. was neutral. Yours was positive POV. According to NPOV policy, positive POV must be balanced with negative POV to create an NPOV. Shall I write the negative view to counterpose your positive one, or should we revert to my neutral contributions?

The statement, "The hearing is also to save, if at all possible, an endangered sinner," leaves much to be desired. Is the sinner in danger? Of what? Disfellowshipping. The hearing is to sway through exertion of as much pressure as possible, some might even say by "snatching" which is a sharp burst of force, one who the Governing Body says has erred into recanting and repenting, ala Galileo Galilei, or face punishment. I do not believe that is what "rational people" think of when they think of an attempt to save someone. Do you?

With regard to the "two or three witnesses" rule as applied only to elders, can you factually state that the rule applies to everyone equally, or is it only with elders that two or three witnesses are required? Keep in mind, in answering, that my father is a Presiding Overseer in a local congregation and my family history traces four generations of Witnesses paternally and three maternally. I ask you again, before pushing this issue further, please revert to my revisions. Feel free to comment!--Evident 23:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMuse: I have waited a few days for any continuation of this discussion. I will post my contribution and your contribution here. I will revert to my contribution and invite you to demonstrate on the talk page why your contribution is superior to mine in terms of NPOV.

ENTRY BY EVIDENT —> When one of Jehovah's Witnesses commits or is accused of committing a sin, an investigation by two elders may lead to the formation of a Judicial Committee made up of three elders. Judicial Committees are responsible judging the wrongdoer and sentencing according to their judgment. When an elder is accused of sin there is a requirement of "two or three witnesses" before the accusation will be judged. (1 Timothy 5:19, 20)

ENTRY BY DANNYMUSE —> Elders also have a position of judicial oversight in the congregation. When one of Jehovah's Witnesses commits or is accused of committing a sin, an investigation by two elders may lead to the formation of a Judicial Committee made up of three or more elders. The Judicial Committee has multiple purposes. One aim is to find out the facts of the case. Elders are given direct counsel from the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" to do so in a kind and loving way. Once these facts are known, the elders must do whatever they believe is needed to protect the congregation, up to and including disfellowshipping. They believe this protects the congregation from potentially corrupting influences, leads to maintaining Jehovah’s high standards and the free flow of God’s spirit within the congregation. The hearing is also to save, if at all possible, an endangered sinner.

TO ANYONE INTERESTED: I have requested that DannyMuse show that the "two or three witnesses" rule applies equally to elders and others in the congregation. He has failed to do so. It is easy to demonstrate that it applies to elders and impossible to demonstrate that it applies to everyone else. It goes back in absent textual proof contradicting this statement.

My entry is being reverted to absent demonstration that it is POV or inferior to the extended entry by DannyMuse. I am revising my original contribution slightly to reflect that the JC also has obligation to determine facts of case and weigh evidence of wrongdoing. Respectfully, Evident 14:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evident, first of all, if you have been the victim of criminal activity (stalking, illegal wiretaps, illegal surveilling ... and violation of HIPAA laws, etc.) you have a duty and an obligation as a citizen to report it to the local police authorities. Activity such as that which you have described is NOT condoned in any way, shape or form by the WTB&TS and is contrary to everything it teaches. Indeed, it is vehemently condemned. Such activity certainly does NOT represent the beliefs which I personally hold. You absolutely MUST report illegal activities to the authorities.

Next, I don't know where you ever got the idea that the "two or three witnesses" rule applies only to elders. True, Paul mentioned an "older man" at 1 Timothy 5:19, but that is only one of many scriptures that contain the identical requirement of witnesses to wrongdoing. When Jesus said, "... at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established" he was talking about any and all that were spiritual "brothers". (Matthew 18:15-17) This is consistent with the principles of the Mosaic Law covenant regarding the testimony of witnesses in serious matters. Under the Mosaic Law, one witness was not enough to establish a matter, two or more were required.

Numbers 35:30: Every fatal striker of a soul should be slain as a murderer at the mouth of witnesses, and one witness may not testify against a soul for him to die.
Deuteronomy 17:6: At the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death. He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.
Deuteronomy 19:15: No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.
John 8:17-18: Also, in YOUR own Law it is written, ‘The witness of two men is true.’
Hebrews 10:28: Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three.

Your idea that the apostle Paul applied this principle only to Elders is simply mistaken. This principle is to be applied universally within all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses in all cases of wrongdoing. As the Watchtower stated, "Thus, a present-day judicial committee must be sure that there is a Biblical basis for any disfellowshipping action they take. [Ftn: A person can appeal a decision to disfellowship him if he believes that a serious error in judgment has been made.]" - (w89 9/15 p. 18)

Therefore, I am revising the paragraph in question to accurately reflect the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. --DannyMuse 06:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I might butt in here, I'll comment that the discussion seems to have gone down the path of 'see, this verse of the Bible says this, which means this,' while the article is about what Jehovah's Witnesses do, regardless of what the Bible says or how anyone interprets it. Wikipedia isn't the place to declare how the Bible shall be interpreted and applied. What haven't been whipped out, which are all that really matter, are quotes from Watchtower publications showing their witness standards, one way or the other. Surely one (or both) of you can find some quotes from their publications backing up your stance on Jehovah's Witness policy.Tommstein 08:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tommstein - Au contraire, I gave the references and listed them at the bottom of the article. --DannyMuse 20:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I just skimmed through the Talk page to see if there were any quotes being brought up that I was missing, and I didn't see any quotes at all. The footnotes in the article, though, are put there in reference to other things, not the issue of who the two witnesses rule is applied to. The referenced articles might very well talk about it, but I haven't checked. I can't check, for that matter, because the CD doesn't run in Linux (I once offered to make a cross-platform version of the CD for them, but they refused my offer).Tommstein 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMuse, I take your point on the two witnesses. However, I still think you are using this article and my addition as an excuse to discuss motives and practices as opposed to roles and responsibilities. This article is not about practices, it is about structure and authority scope. My contribution limited itself to that narrow scope. Your contribution would be better placed on a page discussing the practices of Judicial Committees. I request that you revert to my most recent contribution, less the two witnesses sentence as it accurately and completely expresses the roles and responsibilities of The Elders as these pertain to Judicial authority. Feel free to link to a Judicial Committee page that discusses the practice in more detail, if you like. Respectfully, Evident 13:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evident, that sounds acceptable. I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so if you can make the change I'll gladly review it later when I can give it the attention it deserves. Thanks! --DannyMuse 20:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMuse I agree that your minor addition adds to the flow and readability. I think we can put this one to bed, now. Respectfully, Evident 04:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evident, Thank you! --DannyMuse 13:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splinter groups[edit]

I do not see any reason to have this link in this article. I do not understand how this has any connection to the article's stuff. Summer Song 06:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Since there is an particular article for this issue, created by Cobaltbluetony 4 January 2006, I am gong to move some of the section over there. This would include the names of the members. Summer Song 15:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The president list[edit]

I think that this section should be deleted. The order of the presidents are treated in other articles. That is rather a matter of JW history, and this article is about the current organization. Summer Song 20:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "administrative structure"?[edit]

Summersong replaced "hierarchy" with "administrative structure". I'm not sure what an "administrative structure" is. I think hierarchy describes the structure much better, as evidenced by the picture on the page. Seeing as this is supposed to summarize the article (as the lead in) I'm not sure it belongs here. The phrase "administrative structure" does not occur elsewhere in the article. joshbuddy^talk 22:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current text is grammatically incorrect. And why should the article say the same things a hundred times? Talking about "lead by a Governing Body", "consisting of publishers" etc etc. Summer Song 09:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Lead_section joshbuddy^talk 17:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then I think it would be more well-looking if the first section and the introduction were merged. A headline called "the structure" is somewhat bad. Summer Song 05:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from Summersong, but the intro copy is essential. It NEEDS to be in the article. This is according to wikipedia guidelines on how to make an article. Please read Wikipedia:Lead_section. I'm going to revert your change for the time being, but please feel free to take another crack at it bearing in mind what we need to do here :) thanks! joshbuddy^talk 07:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theocratic Ministry School[edit]

I think there should be a section, or at least more information, on the T.M.S and how it operates. There are other articles relating to Jehovah's Witnesses that could refer back to this article if a section were to be made for such a purpose. Any thoughts on the matter? Knuckles sonic8 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially because the T.M.S is the primary faculty for teaching Witnesses how to evangelize. Would need some citations from the Organization book and Our Kingdom Minitry editions Justin 12:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organisational Structure Chart[edit]

Hi, I saw the organisational structure chart from a 1971 Watchtower, and the request for a freely-licensed one. Is this one OK? If so, would someone like to replace the existing file, and do the same with the main Jehovah's Witnesses Page?

Michael2 10:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly out of date by now, for one thing it does not include the various committees that were set up in the early 90's. I'll try and see if there's a better one anywhere, apart from the one we copied down in pioneer school a few years ago. 212.84.97.49 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elder discretion[edit]

I really enjoy this well written article. Very concise and factual. I have one concern. the statement "in many aspects governed at the discretion of the local elders" is technically correct. But I was concerned with the spirit of the word 'discretion.' Examples of what I mean are.

"w02 3/15 p. 17 par. 14 Christ Leads His Congregation - "14 ... The overseers, or elders, have a measure of authority in the congregation. But they do not seek to be ‘the masters over the faith of their fellow believers’ by trying to control their lives..." or

w05 9/15 p. 23 par. 14 Go On Walking as Jesus Christ Walked | "In imitation of Jesus Christ, the elders refrain from making arbitrary rules or insisting on their personal viewpoints" or:

cl chap. 10 p. 101 par. 12 “Become Imitators of God” in Your Use of Power | "Elders need to have a balanced, humble view of their role in the congregation."

Your wording as it stands is basically correct, but I thought the spirit of the word 'discretion,' - one definition being "The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies" - might send the wrong signal to some readers. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brotherlawrence (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]