Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.


For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
The following discussion is an archived section of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. No further edits should be made to this page.

Contents

Resources and Links

I received a notification that I had been reported by "Duffer" for my attempting to correct an error in the Wikipedia article on Jehovah's Witnesses. It is my understanding that links within the External Links section should deal with the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses and or the Watchtower and its theology. Recently, a link kept appearing that is not about Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower, but is simply someone's personal site to attack a person they formerly associated with. This is expressly clear even from the site's own description (see e-watchman-exposed link). Is this not an inappropriate and off-topic link to have in that section? I'm not really sure that the link's description could be worded differently to make it more on-topic for the article, since the site itself focuses only on attacking a couple individuals in some sort of "campaign" against "apostates" and has nothing to do with serving as a resource on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower organization. (Maybe it would be more on-topic in a wiki article on "e-watchman.") In any event, please advise.

I'd also like to note that the other link submitted by the same site, concerning the Society's teaching on 607 DOES seem on-topic and thus an appropriate resource related to the article on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower's theology. I did not and am not inclined to make any changes to that particular link, in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. Timothy Kline 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Question

There's a few areas that appall me. In some places there's generally a stating of fact that Jehovah's Witnesses believe something but doesn't give any logic/reasoning to it. It just says what it is and that the religion believes it's right. Then there's a few statements that give logic/reasoning against that belief. That isn't neutral, that's a negative tone.

I also taste a subtle undertone throughout, that makes it seem like the Governing Body shouldn't be trusted and is overriding scriptural truth and Jehovah's Witnesses are being mislead by them. If I didn't already know what my religion believes and why, I'd think Jehovah's Witnesses were all crackheads in a cult after reading this.

Some areas seem to delve into small points as if they're large parts of being a JW. One example of that, is the eschatology section. It could be trimmed. The excess does have a tone of "see how wrong the Witnesses have been and how they make excuses for it", rather than "see what the Witnesses have gone through and how they dealt with it", which should be the case in a neutral POV article. I kept finding myself thinking "Would an encyclopedia in the local library have such a tone?" as I'm reading.

Sometimes both sides of the argument are displayed well, but that's still not a good idea. Being unbiased isn't about giving both sides of an argument, it's about saying something is a table. If we write "some say it's a table for this reason and that reason, and others say it's desk for this reason and that reason", that's not unbiased, that's a debate. Debate's use counter arguments and therefore gives both biases. That doesn't often translate to anyone having neutrality on a subject.

There's just a general subtle but clear anti-Jehovah's Witness tone throughout this article, that "distracts from the facts". I can't cite everything because it's too ingrained and I'd end up quoting much of the page.

I realize we have JW's and anti-JW's here trying to work together on this and that you've all done a great job in getting this far. I'm new to this article, but I just want to make sure you know I do appreciate all the difficulties you've gone through in this already.

--Ando por Fe 15:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resource Links

A question concerning Resources and links: It is my understanding that links within the External Links section should deal with the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses and or the Watchtower and its theology. Recently, a link has appeared that is not about Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower, but is simply someone's personal site to attack a person they formerly associated with. This is clear directly from the site's own description (see e-watchman-exposed link) . Is this an appropriate and on-topic link to have in that section? Please advise. Timothy Kline 21:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A simple question: As J-Witnesses, why do you violiate the third commandment and use the Lord's name in vain? The "J" word is perhaps the most sacred word for G-D known to man, and as such should not be uttered.Loomis51 06:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why have the Positive and Critical Links section in this article. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, so why have links directing a reader to a website with a 'point of view'? Seems contradictory to me. Jamie 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jamie, you make an interesting point; however, the nature of this forum dictates that articles about anything present the Wikipedia bard of a neutral point of view. (See WP:NPOV.) What this essentially means is that the final product will actually be no one's point of view, but represent as many sides, elements, and even controversies as are significant and relevant. This doesn't mean that every view is presented, nor equally, but in porportion to its overall significance. The idea of having global real-time edit and discussion about articles offers the goal of representing as close to a global impersonal view as possible. Part of this is mentioning significant resources which discuss issues relating to the main topic, even if they conclude with a point of view. By including major points of view, a rough outline of the topic can be seen from the Wikipedia neutral point of view.
As this set of articles is part of a serious ongoing academic endeavor, it is essential that opposing perceptions be presented, even if it makes us uncomfortable with respect to our own point of view.
Hope this helps! - CobaltBlueTony 17:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What Cobaltbluetony said, basically. It's not that we're not supposed to not present any points of view, it's that we're supposed to present all documented, non-trivial ones. The policy might be better called "Balanced Point of View", since, as you implied, there's nothing neutral about a bunch of non-neutral points of view, it's just a bunch of different non-neutral points of view.Tommstein 07:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand, its just you would necessarily see that in any other encyclopedia. How come the links aren't balanced in number? Are there positive links pending approval or something? Jamie 08:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the NPOV policy makes things look funny, but it's probably the best we can do in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be edited by anyone. If we had to present one view and that's it, I am currently actively laughing at what would occur in this article, to say nothing about what would go down throughout Wikipedia. As to the links, there's no special reason they're one way or the other, it's just kind of how it evolved, and everyone seems happy with it, save a sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer who were recently raising high hell about it and adding apparently every link they could find on Yahoo. The disparity looks greater than it is because some negative links have longer descriptions than positive links (on my screen, there's one multiline positive description and five critical ones, including two that take three lines). If you have any good, useful, topical, nonrepetitive links, feel free to add them.Tommstein 09:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The External Links section is getting ridiculously long. Both the Favourable and Critical lists should be reduced to those which of the highest quality. Also, some of the links would be better referenced only in the Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and other related articles as relevant.--Jeffro77 05:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears that 130.159.254.2 has changed their modus operandi from deleting all of the critical links at once, to deleting a few at a time. Either 130.159.254.2 should explain their reasons (and have good ones), or the entries they have removed should be reinstated.--Jeffro77 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wish those who quote or site information, text, and scriptures used by Jehovah's Witnesses would use most recent information. Since Russell came on the world seen and orginized the modern day Bible Students, he said " the light gets brighter and brighter as the day draws near "-Prov 4:18. What this means is that at this time Jehovah's Witnesses believe what is taught is the truth and until more light is shed on the matter then they faithfully abide by these teachings. Would you point to the fact that they celebrated Christmas or birthbays a hundred years ago? Of course you would not because they have GROWN in knowledge and wisdom (godly). So if you are quoting book and magazine then use the most up to date, we HAVE been wrong and we WILL be wrong on other issues (the past history of this orginazation proves this), but one thing is true what is taught now is TRUTH. Thank you... 141.153.41.124 06:57, 14 January 2006

141.153.41.124 said: "But one thing is true what is taught now is TRUTH." Unfortunately, they were stating those exact same words back in the 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s etc. Today's "Truth©" is tomorrow's false teachings, apostasy and old light. Please have a look through the Talk archives, there are 20 pages covering a lot of what you are referring to. Regards. Central 11:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Russell wrote the Bible, or at least Proverbs? When I read "we HAVE been wrong and we WILL be wrong on other issues (the past history of this orginazation proves this), but one thing is true what is taught now is TRUTH," I think a little part of me died, or at least got a blood clot. That is absolutely the mindset of Witnesses though, somehow.Tommstein 02:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


In the 1988 book "Revelation Its Grand Climax At Hand" published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society on page 9 the following is included:

"Interpreting Scriptures - The mysteries locked up in the book of Revelation have for long baffled sincere students of the Bible. In God's due time, those secrets had to be unlocked, but how, when and to whom? Only God's spirit could make known the meaning as the appointed time drew near. (Rev 1:3) Those sacred secrets would be revealed to God's zealous slaves strengthened to make known his judgments. (Compare Matt 13:10,11) It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Gen 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophesy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times."

The writer(s) clearly state that this book (and concivably the others) represent The Society's Bible understanding to-date but are not so presumtuous as to claim infallability. Consequently it would be unreasonable to present information in the article that did not reflect the source context. 199.64.0.252 16:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Date format

For all date formats, please refere to date formatting. - CobaltBlueTony 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty handy. Thanks. Although I can probably personally count all the dates I've ever added on one hand and have a bunch of fingers left over.Tommstein 08:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My changes

Misc. Minor changes

  • Line 34 I changed "brotherhood" to "society". Obviously our congregation consists of both male and female members.
The (main) problem is, the word "society" kind of has its own life when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses, not to mention that I've rarely if ever heard it used in this context, while "brotherhood" is a term used by the Witnesses themselves (I'm pretty sure). You can change it to something else that is gender-neutral, but pick a better word than "society."Tommstein 08:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
According to the Oxford Pocket American Thesaurus of Current English (2002), "society" is the gender neutral synonym for "brotherhood". Yes, "brotherhood" is used within the congregation (along with 'fellowship' and 'society') to describe us. However, we know what it is connoting: a worldwide society of male and females. To be unequivocally clear in this public article: 'society' is the better choice. Duffer 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, you don't appear to have read my argument.Tommstein 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You did not present an argument. You presented your opinion. Duffer 12:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That the word "society" has a special connotation in the context of Jehovah's Witnesses is a fact, not an opinion.Tommstein 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That is nonsense. We are a society of men and women. It goes against the basics of logic and common sense to attempt the refutation of a thesaurus with nothing more than your personal opinion. Duffer 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Duffer, you would be prudent to check out this quote from the Watch Tower Society's Insight book, volume 1, p.200: "The united body of true Christians, though composed of small groups, congregations, or physically isolated individuals, constitutes an "association of brothers," or a brotherhood, designated by the Greek expression adelphotes. (1Pe 2:17; 5:9) To remain a part of that brotherhood, true Christians avoid all association. . ."
"Being a part of the worldwide Christian brotherhood will help you to stay close to Jehovah. And as we shall see, you can find true security among God's people."—Knowledge book, 1995, p.159
"The Governing Body does what is possible to provide assistance and to inform the international brotherhood". . . "Conventions—Proof of Our Brotherhood."—Proclaimers book, 1993, pp.117, 113
"Brothers and sisters in the disaster areas expressed again and again their deep appreciation for the love shown by the worldwide brotherhood."—Yearbook, 2000, p.12
"We will hold fast to our Scriptural position as a worldwide Christian brotherhood"—Watchtower magazine, 15 May 1999, p.19
You should also look up the word "brotherhood" on the Watch Tower's CD ROM, and you will see that phrase used over and over in regard to Jehovah's Witnesses. Central 12:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
What Central said, to save arguing time.Tommstein 18:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
As I've said before, I am well aware of our of the term "Brotherhood" within the congregation. However, readers of this Wiki may not be aware of how we use the term amongst ourselves. "Brotherhood" is synonymous with "society", however, it is an ambiguous term which leaves room for interpretation regarding the gender of adherents. One person may read it as "society", one may take it to literally mean "brotherhood" or "fraternity". This is an encyclopedia. "Society" is the most accurate, that leaves no questions about the gender of the "societies" adherents. Duffer 01:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
""societies" adherents"?? Societies' adherents? Society's adherents? Anyway, the problem with using the word "society" when discussing the Witness 'brotherhood' is that it may readily be confused with "The [Watchtower] Society". The word 'brotherhood' is generally used to either refer to a collective, or to imply emotive ties. If 'brotherhood' is going to be construed as an evil sexist term, then avoid its use, but don't use the contextually vague "society" either. Whether Watchtower publications use the word "brotherhood" is irrelevant in determining the suitability for its use here. (Of course, it should stay as is if part of a quote.) If you intend to refer to a concept of camaraderie among Witnesses, reword the sentence, for example "Witnesses feel a close bond". If you intend to refer to the collective of all Witnesses, just say something like "the Witnesses".--Jeffro77 09:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't realize that people may take it to mean the WBTS itself. That's a good point, however, brotherhood can be just as misleading as it's not necessarily gender nuetral. "Adherents" or even just "other Witnesses" is fine. Duffer 09:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
If you didn't realize that, it's because you're an illiterate dumbass, because I basically told you that on two separate occasions, not three inches up the screen. Actually, you called the concept "nonsense," so remove the illiterate and leave the dumbass. It's like you just want to fight and cause disruptions on Wikipedia for the hell of it.Tommstein 20:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Readability for non-JWs Duffer 03:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Duffer, the word 'brotherhood' is a perfectly normal word, and not a unique Watch Tower word or phrase like "the Jonadab class", the "faithful and discreet slave", "the remnant", "the slave class", "the ministry", or "the society" etc. The publications use the term 'brotherhood' just like everyone else does, especially when it's used in a religious sense, and to have the same term that they use in the article is perfectly acceptable. Central 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This does not address the fact that "brotherhood" is not necessarily gender-neutral. Why are you making such a big deal of this? What's wrong with having a more specific, gender neutral, adjective? Duffer 21:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In the same paragraph I changed "weak" to "unsteady". "Unsteady" is a far less provocative adjective.
"Weak" is a term used by the Witnesses themselves, probably the main one used in describing "weak" members. If it is a provocative term, then that just means the Witnesses are guilty of provoking their "weak" members.Tommstein 08:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
An examination of our publications will show that the term "weak" was only used 3 times in regards to brothers/sisters, and that was in 1966, the term is no longer used due to it's provocative and derogatory connotation. Duffer 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Duffer, a very quick check of WT publications reveals that the term "spiritually weak" was used at least as recently as 2003; from 1950 to 2003, the expression has been used 55 times in The Watchtower alone, mostly in 2003, and most uses of the phrases refer to Witnesses in the JW catchphrase sense of the term. It is unclear why you said the term hasn't been used since 1966.--Jeffro77 08:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You are right. I searched "weak brothers/members". It's use is unfortunate. I have never experienced it's use in my local congregations.. Duffer 12:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You lend great credibility to yourself with such marvelous research skills. As a bonus, we now have you stating that calling someone "weak" is provocative and derogatory; ergo, that the Watch Tower Society actively provokes and is derogatory towards its "weak" members. I fully expect you to try to spin out of your own words now, of course. I wonder what the Society would think about you hurling such accusations at them....Tommstein 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
In many instances being labeled "weak" is provocative and derogatory. I'm not accusing the WTS of anything, do you not understand connotation and context? Duffer 09:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so when they do it, it's OK, while if anyone else does it, it's provocative and derogatory? You lend great authority to your opinions with such incredibly subtle double standards.Tommstein 18:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It's called "theocratic warfare," what everyone else calls a "lie." Wow, the guy that took up Retcon/Missionary's banner as soon as they left is similarly, how shall we say, truth-challenged. I'll comment no further.Tommstein 09:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Humility Tomm, know when you're wrong. Duffer 12:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm wrong because you lied? Come again? Shouldn't I be the one telling you to know when you're wrong and truth-challenged?Tommstein 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I was wrong, not deceitful. Duffer 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Or so you claim. Too bad your total accrued amount of trustworthiness is in the negatives, in line with your "theocratic warfare."Tommstein 18:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The accuracy of this article is my concern, not how trustworthy you think me to be. Duffer 03:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Causing problems for the hell of it seems to be your concern.Tommstein 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Same paragraph I changed ..standard of "irreprehensibility" as overseers than are other .. to: ..standard as overseers than other baptized... "irreprehensibility" is not a word. Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The (non)-word "irreprehensibility" is specifically used by the Society. (See Watchtower Indexes 1986-2003 and 1930-1985.) It is therefore appropriate to state that Witnesses hold elders to such a standard.--Jeffro77 09:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Used twice total as an index search for articles that use the real word "irreprehensible" in regards to elders. Duffer 09:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Changes

  • I removed: The Greek Scriptures (Matthew to Revelation) are written primarily for the 144,000 "anointed" brothers of Christ.. This line is nothing more than a rouse to incite prejudice. The entirety of the source this "quote" came from (United In Worship ch. 14, pg. 111):
Special attention was being given to making up the government that would rule mankind for 1,000 years, and nearly all the inspired letters in the Christian Greek Scriptures are primarily directed to this group of Kingdom heirs—“the holy ones,” “partakers of the heavenly calling.” Along with the footnote: See the opening verses of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter; also Galatians 3:26-29, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 2 Timothy 4:8, Hebrews 3:1, James 1:18, 1 John 3:1, 2 and Jude 1.

Yes, a large majority of the New Testament directly addresses the "holy ones" (the 144,000), especially where it speaks about organizational responsibility, and worldwide ministry, however, this does NOT mean that it was primarily written FOR them, as the bulletin infers. The bible is written FOR EVERYONE who will listen. The footnote clearly indicates nothing more than the fact the letters were indeed addressed to the "holy ones" among others. You are reading into the quote something that it does not say, and portraying the quote in a manner that infers something that it does not actually infer. Such a misleading quote greatly overshadows EVERY Jehovah's Witnesses convictions summed up in 2 Tim. 3:16: 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. It's misleading and only partially true.

Do you not see that the quote is talking about those whom the letters were directly addressed to? It does not mean (and more importantly) it does NOT say that it was written FOR them (well.. written them only). Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Matthew (Duffer), You start: "This line is nothing more than a rouse to incite prejudice. The entirety of the source this "quote" came from (United In Worship ch. 14, pg. 111)"
Point one: I removed the Matthew to Revelation bit before you even posted the above here in talk, so why are you bringing it up? Point two: I was the one to add the direct quote from the United book, so why are you acting like you found it? Point three, even after the quote was put in you still removed it again for no reason!
You go on: "a large majority of the New Testament directly addresses the "holy ones" (the 144,000) . . . this does NOT mean that it was primarily written FOR them, as the bulletin infers."
Are you serious? What is the difference of "primarily directed" and "primarily written"? They are interchangeable. If someone sends you a letter and it's "primarily directed" to you, what does that mean? It's for your attention primarily! If they say "primarily written" to you, it's just the same. You are arguing semantics, and trying to make an issue where there is none. Deleting the whole Watch Tower Society quote is not a reasonable solution, as you seem to think. As for "2 Tim. 3:16" that is a straw man, as that scripture is only validating the trustworthiness of the Bible, is says nothing at all about who the Greek scriptures are primarily directed/written for. Please stick to the subject. Central 18:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The letters of the NT were written to, and sent to the "holy ones" AND the "elders" of the congregations. That's who the couriers physically gave the letters to. The elders etc then disseminated the contents of the letters amongst the congregation. The contents of which is/was for THE WHOLE CONGREGATION. That point is entirely lost by the way the quote is presented (without surrounding, and footnote, context). 2 Tim 3:16 is not a strawman, it is a legitimate example of the prejudicial nature of the way the quote is presented. Personal conviction of every active Jehovah's Witness is a stark contrast to the misleading connotation of the quote. Duffer 00:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Duffer, according to JW teaching, in the first century, "THE WHOLE CONGREGATION" were the "anointed class", which does not help to determine whether the 'NT' was intended to apply to anyone else.--Jeffro77 08:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem you have is that the quote from the United book says "are primarily directed," not "were primarily directed." Not to mention that the sentence is clearly talking about all of the anointed, not the specific people that got first-run copies of the letters back in the day.Tommstein 09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Dtbrown's addition is an amicable solution Duffer 02:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Is this addition something that only you can see?Tommstein 09:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=32198722&oldid=32183380 Duffer 12:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that. That was so old that it was either far down the history page or gone. But yes, I agree, the solution is agreeable, and has already been there for a couple days now.Tommstein 17:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed: Humans who do not actively side with Jehovah by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses will be killed at Armageddon without consideration for age. (based on Ezekiel 9; Insight On the Scriptures 1988, Vol. 1 p. 849). This is a complete falsehood. User Central pointed me to archive page 16 where poor Uberpenguin was brow-beat into exasperation. Don't you think you may be wrong when EVERY member of an organization that you come across is telling outright that what you believe is our doctrine, is in fact, not?! Does that not set off ANY alarms? I'm telling you flat out, the fate of unbelievers at Armageddon IS uncertain. That is official JW doctrine. Uberpenguin has told you that, CBT has told you that, the brothers from the Touchstone website (http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl?az=read_count&om=4&forum=DCForumID4) have told you that. I am telling you that. Perhaps if you want to alleviate your confusion on this matter you can contact the WTS (http://www.watchtower.org/how_to_contact_us.htm) directly.
w95 10/15 28 What Future for the Sheep and the Goats?
23 Many are exposed to our message as we preach from house to house or informally. Others may learn of Jehovah's Witnesses and what we represent in ways unknown to us. When judgment time arrives, to what extent will Jesus consider community responsibility and family merit? We cannot say, and it is pointless to speculate.
w98 8/15 20 Strengthening Our Confidence in God's Righteousness
18. With complete confidence in Jehovah's righteousness, we need not worry about finding answers to questions like: 'How will babies and small children be judged? Might it be that a large number of people will not yet have been reached with the good news when Armageddon arrives? What about the mentally ill? What about...?' Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way. We should never doubt that. In fact, we may be amazed and delighted to observe him resolve them in a way that we never even considered."

How can the statements: ..We cannost say, and it is pointless to speculate. and ..at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. be ANY more unequivocal?!

This is a quote, from the user Uberpenguin found burried in the discussion on archive page 16, that makes the crucial distinction that you (Central) fail to make: ..in speaking of JWs belief of Armageddon events, it is much more accurate and correct to talk about the class of people who JWs believe WILL be destroyed (the wicked) than those whose fate is uncertain (unbelievers). Why should we continue this debate simply because you won't take the time to contact the WTS directly (or even listen to ANY Jehovah's Witness you may have spoken to about this issue). Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the topics they like to vacillate over depending on the mood at the time. In the 'you're not doing enough' Watchtower articles, it is often emphasized that even baptized Witnesses who are over-confident may not get through (often quoting Zephaniah 2:3) which leaves little hope for the poor 'worldlings'. In the more touchy-feely 'join our religion' articles, it is left a bit more open. The general attitude overall is that the men, women and children who do not become Witnesses will likely be mercilessly slaughtered like dogs in the street, though they like to water the language down a bit there too.--Jeffro77 09:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Those are admonishments explicitely directed towards active Jehovah's Witnesses. Your statement: "..which leave little hope for the poor 'worldlings'" infers that JWs must therefore naturally assume: "well shoot, I may not even live, what possible hope do these people have?" Besides this is merely your point of view, it is the exact opposite of reality. Every active JW is well aware of the basic biblical precident: "the more you know, the more liable you are." This is not dependant on my current mood. My internet just got turned back on, and I have every intention of facilitating an ACCURATE portrayal of every Jehovah's Witness belief and doctrine that arises on this website. Since this bulletin has not ever been, nor is, a teaching (belief or doctrine) of Jehovah's Witnesses it has absolutely no business masquerading as an official policy in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Duffer 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Here is an example of the language that Duffer thinks is so ambiguous. I love this next picture, you can see how Evil these people are, just look, one woman has a bad hair do, and she didn't want to buy the magazines! She certainly deserves to get what's coming, and look, booboo the cat, he's evil for peeing on those Watchtower mags, bad kitty! Central 18:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Again you fail to make the distinction that now both Uberpenguin and myself have presented to you. Read the article again, it is in no way "ambiguous." "Christ's angels will smite all OPPOSERS of God's kingdom..". The second picture directly quotes Psalms, Luke, and 1 Cor. ALL of which specifically state "wicked, unrighteous, idolaters, etc.." The bible, however, does not mention AT ALL righteous people who are not affiliated with God's organization. Their fate is not mentioned once in the entirety of the bible. The quotes I presented above specifically state this fact, where-as the qoutes in archive page 16 are SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TOWARDS the wicked, opposers, fornicators, drunkards etc.. This is not dependant on "which article you may be reading at the time", it seems to be dependant on WHO is reading said article. A Jehovah's Witness knows exactly who is being addressed, an opposer reads the same article, assumes the worst, and remains entirely ignorant of the truth. The problem arrises when such a person continues to believe his/her misguided assumption despite the witness of EVERY Jehovah's Witness he/she has come across. As for the pictures themselves, wicked people come in all shapes and sizes. Have a look at http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/index.html . Duffer 00:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You might want to review the archive a little more carefully. His story was the same as yours, he was shown tons of references proving otherwise, and he never bothered responding to any of them, let alone all of them. You are correct, the Bible may not teach what Watch Tower Society publications say, but that doesn't stop them from teaching them. The 'you're an ignorant non-Jehovah's Witness' defense ain't gonna fly here, or even make life easier for you. At this point, given the archived discussion that was never thoroughly rebutted, the best you can hope for is a statement that their story varies depending on which of their 'spirit-directed' publications you are reading.Tommstein 09:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Matthew you said: "Christ's angels will smite all OPPOSERS of God's kingdom.." yes, and guess who all the opposers are? Anyone who is not a Jehovah's Witness. As you are aware, there is no fence sitting with the organization, those who do not respond to the JW message are classed in the same ranks as opposers and all others who are to die, and you know this. As for your next comment: "despite the witness of EVERY Jehovah's Witness he/she has come across" what on earth are you on? I know many JWs and they are all open enough with me to acknowledge that non-JWs are taught by the organization to be wiped out/destroyed/annihilated according to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses via the Watch Tower Society's literature. The only ones I have ever met who try and side track this reality are ones that don't know me and who have knocked on my door. The usual public face is not the same as the private face. I'm not saying that they all agree with the Watch Tower's teachings, many are embarrassed and uncomfortable with its intense judgementalism and would never admit such realities on the doors, but they have the guts to admit in private that this is the Governing Body's official line, like it or not. And they are supposed to be "God's channel" to you and mankind, so their words are the be all and end all, not your own more subjective liberal views. PS. Matthew, how long did it take you to interview 6.5 million JWs? You must be a lot older than the 23 you state on your name page! Here one quote for you form that same article:
"Their flesh shall rot wile they are still on their feet, their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths. (Zechariah 14;12, RS) Eaten up will be the tongues of those who scoffed and laughed at the warning of Armageddon! (Those who rejected the Govering Body's false prophecies) Eaten up will be the eyes of those who refused to see the sign of the time of the end! (Again, those who dared to disbelieve the false prophecies of the Governing Body) Eaten up will be the flesh of those who would not learn that the living and true God is named Jehovah!" (Those who rejected/ignored JWs and their dogma)-Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained (book) 1958 pp.208-209 Central 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


For one, no one cares what Witnesses are saying on a public website about their beliefs. And I most certainly don't care what anyone at that Touchstone website thinks, seeing as it appears to be run by someone trying to overcompensate for a small penis by running it much like the Nazi propaganda ministry was run. Now, with regard to the things that the Watch Tower Society has actually printed, which is all that matters, you brought up some excellent quotes. The only thing is, they also could not have been more unequivocal in saying the opposite in the Knowledge book, the Reasoning book, the Insight books, etc., all major books that they use all the time. A couple quotes from random Watchtower articles can't really completely bury the statements in such major, still-used books. Thus, since it can't in fact be established just what the heck they're teaching, since they've made unequivocal statements both ways (you know, their old 'play every side of the fence and then point you to the appropriate quote when needed' game), I'm going to reinsert the paragraph, but with a disclaimer that it depends on which publication you go by.Tommstein 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Sean Hannity would be proud of you. http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl is a discussion board. The "Setting Matters Straight" section of the website is a direct response to the most common accusations we come across. Your honesty about not carring what we say in public is admirable, but misguided. They have not said "the opposite" in ANY of our publications. Read them again. EVERY one of them is specifically addressing "the wicked, opposers, idolators, fornicators, apostates, etc..." NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM SAYS: "righteous non-believers, and/or children, will be destroyed at Armageddon." Do you know why not a single one of the quotes say that? Because the bible doesn't say that. The two quotes I provided and several more in the article I originally linked to highlight this point unequivocally. I must wait until 24 hours has passed since my last edit of this line to avoid being banned for a 3RR violation, when that time is up, rest assured I will delete it. Duffer 01:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Most of that has already been addressed. Not caring what you say in public is wise given your lying policies, as reinforced by Retcon/Missionary. The rest is a personal attack by someone with no point.Tommstein 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Matthew (Duffer), You do really need to learn to stop projecting your own personal views and mixing them up with the Official doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses that are supposed to come from the "channel of God" (the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses) not Mr Matthew McGhee (you). I have met some JWs with personal ideas that are verging on psychotic, but I don't post them here as they are not representative of the official doctrines, and you need to stop projecting your own views here as they are not remotely relevant. As Jeffro77 pointed out above, what JWs are taught to say in public is not the same as what they teach in private. As the saying goes, honey catches more flies than vinegar. You also seem to have a cognitive dissonance when you read negative material from your leaders at Watch Tower house. You have quoted a few fluff comments in regard to those "people will not yet have been reached with the good news". You carefully forget to mention that "Good news" in Watch Tower speak = unique Watch Tower doctrines.
You have also paid no attention to the veritable mountain of quotes on archive 16, section 7 and 7.1. Why? One or two fluff quotes do not extinguish the fire from the mountain of negative and dogmatic quotes, you are not being honest to yourself or readers; again I believe we are seeing the Watch Tower's PR machine in action with more "Theocratic Warfare" moves, to hide the real truth. I laughed out when I read your comment here: "Why should we continue this debate simply because you won't take the time to contact the WTS directly." LOL, who is "we" exactly? And as for "continue", what are you talking about. The debate was done, dusted and dead ages ago, you chose to make no comment back then, and now you are the one reviving all this, not me! Why should I need to contact them when I have their words on paper and CD ROM? Uberpenguin was the one with uncertainties, not me, not Tom, not Evident, not any one else who chose to get involved in that very long debate. You really need to stick to written doctrines, not your own personal interpretations and hopes. Regarding very rare comments like "We cannot say, and it is pointless to speculate." These comments of theirs are without substance as they do say and they do speculate. They made the same claims about setting dates, and we all know their history of that! Central 18:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Getting mad at people who stubbornly parody official Jehovah's Witness doctrine on a PUBLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA is not cognitive dissonance. Besides, ignoring the testimony of every Jehovah's Witness on this website, on the Touchstone website, and direct quotes that actually specifically adress the issue is 'denial'. Your confusion can be quickly alleviated by contacting any Jehovah's Witness, CBT and I have both provided you with the address to contact the WTS 'HQ' yourself. "The veritable mountain of quotes" that don't say what what you want them to, those? If you had an ounce of interest in finding the truth of the matter you would drop the bullshit, re-read the quotes, man-up, and face your mistake. Your caricature of both our beliefs on Armageddon survival and Theocratic Warfare are proven wrong by the quotes you've provided. Armageddon survival has already been addressed, and your lie about our theocratic doctrine is proved wrong by all of the quotes from quotes.ca, but most specifically: We dare not lie against God's Word, adding to it or taking away from it, reading into it what it does not say and denying, passing over or explaining away what it does truthfully say. Don't hide behind your ignorance and prejudice of our beliefs to justify denial of truth and accuracy. Duffer 01:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Central, it may be wise to not waste much valuable time on him until he takes some remedial reading comprehension courses and takes care of that problem.Tommstein 09:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I think he is still at the boiling point stage and unable to see clearly due to too much emotion. Tom you have to treat them like a slow cooking stew, just let them simmer away, and the truth will eventually penetrate and they will soften up and be more palatable. The seeds of reality are there, but he is still trying to stop them growing, but they will come though, and he will get more and more reality attacks, and see how silly he was to defend all this stuff he's doing now, and the rest is history. . . Central 22:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That, or he'll just turn into an ever-bigger fruitcake. You know what the average Witness is like as well as I do.Tommstein 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

yeah. despite the fact that i will probably be ignored, i thought i'd contribute a little. duffer is right: no one can say who is going to make it through armageddon. we have never claimed to know who will make it. but think about this: the new world is God's kingdom taking effect on earth. Jehovah only wants people who want to live under his rule. that's why he gave us instruction in the bible. we need to display our desire to be ruled by him. wouldn't that mean that we would seek out a society that is doing its best in that regard?

so no, i dont think it matters if you are baptised or a part of the society or not. it depends completely on the condition of the heart. there will probably be dedicated Jehovah's witnesses who will not make it, and there may be people who have not become Jehovah's witnesses that will. the main question is 'would you want to submit to Jehovah's authority, and are you doing so right now, long before armageddon happens?

Sorry, that last lovely message was by me. i'm really really new to wikipedia. - Icaughtyouadeliciousbass on 16 January, 2006

ok, i figured it out now. SORRY!!! Icaughtyouadeliciousbass 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome ICYADB, to sign your name after a message type four tildas in a row like: ~~~~. When you click the "Save page" button it will automatically show your username along with a time & date stamp. Also, it is not our opinions that are to be represented here, but what is officially taught. Welcome to Wikipedia. Duffer 01:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

hmm. yeah. good point. i wish i had my reference stuff at work. Icaughtyouadeliciousbass 17:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

(2 Peter 2:5-6): "and he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people; 6 and by reducing the cities Sod´om and Go·mor´rah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come;"
(Jude 7): "So too Sod´om and Go·mor´rah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."
(2 Thessalonians 1:6-10): "6 This takes into account that it is righteous on God's part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for YOU, 7 but, to YOU who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder in connection with all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among YOU."
(Ezekiel 9:6): "Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women YOU should kill off-to a ruination. But to any man upon whom there is the mark do not go near, and from my sanctuary YOU should start." So they started with the old men that were before the house."
Who survived the flood? Only those who got on the ark. Who survived the destruction of Sodom? Only those that obeyed the angels. So, while we don't know exactly who will be destroyed at Armageddon, it is clear that just being not wicked isn't enough. Also, children were among those killed in the flood and in the District of the Jordon. Those events are a pattern for things to come. But it is true that we don't know all the details.
(Romans 10:13): "For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.""
(Psalm 37:34): "Hope in Jehovah and keep his way, And he will exalt you to take possession of the earth. When the wicked ones are cut off, you will see [it]."
So, why wouldn't those who aren't yet Witnesses, but who are making progress towards becoming Witnesses, and also their children, also survive? MCalkins 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Arianism again..

Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments... again...

  • I removed: ", or even just thoughts rejecting non-biblical organizational doctrines by baptized members,". I replaced it with: "..divergent views, continuously expressed, will consistently..". Besides the fact that "non-biblical organizational doctrines" is someones point of view, it is untrue, such "thoughts" will NOT "consistently result in DFing". Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It would have been much easier and more sensible to just remove the "consistently" part than the whole thing you did. I will reinsert the part you deleted and remove the "consistently" part.Tommstein 09:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Just removing "consistently" from the sentence still fails to provide accuracy, and NPOV. "non-biblical organization doctrine" is POV. "even just thoughts rejecting.." is innacurate. Duffer 01:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine, I'll remove the "non-biblical" part too. The other part is accurate.Tommstein 09:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No.. it is far from accurate. Hence the removal of it. "Thoughts rejecting blah blah blah.." is IMPOSSIBLE to police. Are you a mind reader? Ya, and neither are congregational elders. Besides, even if thoughts COULD be policed by the elders, it's still not a DF'able offense. Your statement is nothing more than conjecture and hot-air, it is your unrealistic point of view. Duffer 12:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We're not tapping this dance again. DannyMuse said basically the exact same things verbatim. Review DannyMuse's RFC in the Practices article. Basically, he was told that he needed to stop jumping through mental hoops to insert bias, by someone that was actually friendly to him.Tommstein 18:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ya I read it, Danny cut to the heart of the matter fairly concisely:
"...should be dealing with the current Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, not obscure, unverifiable letters from decades ago that have no current bearing on judicial hearings involving apostasy. However, if the consensus of the WP community is that--since Franz claims to have a copy of this letter in his book--it should be included for reasons that have yet to be clearly articulated, then I would contend that since the accuracy of this assertion by Franz cannot be independently verified and neither this quote or any other statement remotely resembling it in form or content appears in any of the official publications of the WTB&TS."
That letter in Ray Franz's book is a letter to all District and Circuit overseers the world over, which would hardly make it "obscure". You should also note that the Watch Tower Society has never challenged or refuted anything in Raymond Franz's books, especially the proof of letters. If those letters were remotely falsified in Franz's Crisis of Conscience book, or In Search of Christian Freedom they would be on him in a flash with their high profile expensive lawyers demanding it be removed, but there is no refutation at all. You also ignore the fact that the overseers and elders are the ones who deal with excommunication, not the Watchtower mags that are there for the public. Why on earth would a private confidential letter from the world headquarters to all District and Circuit overseers on expulsions matters and thought control be published in a public journal? If you are confused I suggest you get a copy of the book, photocopy the letter, post it to the Watch Tower Society and ask them in no uncertain terms, "did you write this", and "what are your views on apostate thoughts now?" Until you can be bothered to write to them, I suggest you keep out of matters that you know very little about. Central 12:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
How do you respond to that fact Tomm? You didn't then and you still havn't now. Duffer 10:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Presumably the same way I responded throughout that talk page. Read more carefully.Tommstein 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Neither of you addressed: "..neither this quote or any other statement remotely resembling it in form or content appears in any of the official publications of the WTB&TS." If this was WT doctrine, why is it not in ANY of the hundreds of thousands of WT articles? Your conclusion about Jehovah's Witness lawyers is a non sequitur that relies on the presumption that the Witness lawyer would have to have read APOSTATE material in order to even be aware of what Franz has written in order to sue him for libel. Duffer 01:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Presumably, I didn't address it because it's a red herring.Tommstein 20:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I replaced: "..with accompanying intense restriction of rights.." with the proper terminology: "..intense restriction of congregational privileges..". Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
In a normal part of the article, you would be correct. The problem is, the beginning of that very same sentence makes it clear that was is being said is "the contention" of critics, not necessarily fact. And, of course, the whole criticism centers around rights. Thus, I will reinsert the previous wording that more-accurately reflected the critical viewpoint.Tommstein 09:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The contention of critics is POV and by definition of the rules of this very website, is forbidden. The only reason it is there is you have absolutely no respect for truth or accuracy, and you're stubborn about it. Regardless if it is the POV of the critic, it is inaccurate. The article is "addressing" "Human rights" and "basic freedoms", 'congregational privilages' does not fall in either of those catagories. Duffer 01:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey stupidass, review WP:NPOV, and cease commenting on policies you apparently have no clue about. And if you don't like being called a stupidass, stop insulting people.Tommstein 09:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Tomm, while I appreciate your frustration with Duffer misunderstanding NPOV policy, please don't call people names like that. It's not necessary and only increases the already high tensions around here. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The dude can't post anything without insulting Central and I, usually with something thrown in for all non-Jehovah's Witnesses to boot, and you get on my case?Tommstein 10:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
..Where have I "thrown (something) in for all non-JWs.."? I'm combative and shrewd (contrary to biblical and JW teaching...) to people who have continuously demonstrated zero regard for truth and accuracy (you and sometimes Central). Duffer 12:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You weren't seriously expecting me to piss time away on that, insults just like I just finished saying and all, were you?Tommstein 18:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed: "The organization sees this as a perfectly reasonable private internal matter by the organization and its followers, and states it right to remove members." To: "However, the organization sees this as a non-issue. They view it as: litigation to ensure the legal practice of their religious beliefs and biblical interpretations, including the right to excommunicate members." This change barely begins to scratch the problems with this paragraph. Obviously my edit is from the perspective of the WT (POV), presented as a contrast to the POV of the critic. It doesn't even explain the mutually exclusive nature of the things being compared and contrasted. So what if we litigate on our behalf to ensure that WILLING participants of a religion get to practice the religion THEY FREELY CHOOSE? You're calling disciplinary action (that EVERY JW is well aware of before baptizing): "a major restriction of the basic human rights.." (and hilariously say it's a direct contradiction to scriptural precedent.. LOL!). As I've said from the beginning the whole concept of this paragraph is inept, prejudiced, and highly POV. I think it hould be deleted completely, but that won't happen, but at the very least, indicators such a "major" and "severe" need to be removed completely or toned down considerably. Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Uh, it was a Witness that inserted that. Take it up with him. Or have another powwow in your secret Yahoo group and get your stories straight. Regarding your commentary there, I would comment and compare again regarding how Witnesses are also free to follow the laws and regulations of the country they willingly live in or get out, but why bother, the 86th time won't be the charm.Tommstein 09:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Matthew, you have failed to address the main points about JWs being excommunicated for merely thinking non-conforming thoughts, as the 1980 letter to all Distinct and Circuit overseers states. They do not have to teach their thoughts. There is no biblical precedent for abusing such ones, or expelling them, slandering them, shunning them, inciting hate against them, and encouraging family break ups, all of which are severe. You have also ignored the fact that many have been expelled for doctrines that have no biblical basis like 1914. Show me scholars that say that's when Jesus was enthroned? The same goes for many others like "the Watch Tower organization, two classes of Christian, 144,000, and who is anointed" etc. Prominent members were excommunicated in 1980 for just discussing those points in private. You also ignore the lack of public trial that the Bible clearly sets out, this again is seen as "persecution" if done to the organization. All these matters you are surreptitiously ignoring as you focus on a straw man like "well we demand the right to disfellowship that serial killer and the evil opposers says we are unreasonable for doing that", or along that line. Please look at the real points, not some made up false straw man argument so you can refute that instead. Central 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
JWs are not routinely DFed for "thinking non-conforming thoughts". As has been explained more than once (but perhaps obsured in off-topic bantering), it takes more than merely thinking -- and this is a logic problem, not a procedural one. No one can read minds, therefore, it is impossible for any elder to respond to the thoughts inside someone's head. Moreover, expressing a doubt, and even persisting in this doubt, does not automatically incur punitive action. It is the action of verbally expressing a willful departure from doctrines established within the organization, especially core beliefs, that elicits a disciplinary response, and even then this action is not always disfellowshipping. The fact that it is difficult to document this hinges on the simple fact that it just doesn't happen that often. The desired goals of unity and continuity (1 Cor. 1:10, NWT) certainly cannot be maintained if widely divergent views are held, especially on core or critical issues.
It is an NPOV error to write into the article interpretations as fact. Words such as "major" and "severe" reflect an interpretation of the facts, not a simple presentation of them. And just because you have excepts from publications that are not widely available to even verify, it doesn't mean that you have the context of the excerpts faithfully preserved. The fact that members of the organization are telling you that this practice simply isn't widespread and not well-represented by your presentation of it, and you insist on shoving your excerpts into the articles, suggests that you do not yet fully understand or accept the concept of NPOV. Until you yourself remain focused on the facts and presenting them in NPOV, your edits will continue to generate negative feedback, and may be consistently reverted if they violate NPOV. - CobaltBlueTony 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
We're not tapping this dance again. Review DannyMuse's RFC in the Practices article. Basically, he was told that he needed to stop jumping through mental hoops to insert bias.Tommstein 09:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Tony, you said: "JWs are not routinely Dfed. . ." I think you will find that phrasing was removed a while ago from the article and is not longer used, so there is no reason to argue against it anymore. Next: "it takes more than merely thinking -- and this is a logic problem, not a procedural one". The problem is a catch 22, if you let someone know your thoughts (without teaching anything), then they imply that to admit a thought, is the same as teaching it, as it comes out of your mouth, keyboard or pen just by the default admittance, and that is where they stick in the hook.
It seems as if you are on a witch hunt for witch hunts. Ironic! (and slightly amusing) - CobaltBlueTony 21:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You said: "Words such as 'major' and 'severe'" I disagree. How can it not be a major thing for someone to be expelled, humiliated, slandered by default and ensuing gossip, lose all their friends and possibly their family, and be branded some evil doer, and all for just disbelieving many times doctrines that have no scholarly back up at all. I do wish you would not quote scriptures, as you know well if I asked for the scriptures that back up many JW doctrines you would not be able to produce them, and you would run off complaining that you do not wish to argue a point. As for rejecting publications, that is your choice. You are supposed to believe these are the writings of Jehovah; the publications that is, not mine. LOL. (Well you cold be mistaken). Central 21:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
"How could it not be?" This is an opinion. Frankly, some who are disfellowshipped are relieved, and some have already been "gone" so long it doesn't matter what action the elders take -- a point I would have thought you would jump on. But then again, you are only hearing from those that do have a problem with their experiences.
The scholarly back-up of doctrines is a separate issue, and really has no bearing on whether Witnesses believe something or not. After all, we believe that humans were created roughly 6,000 years ago, and a good number of scientists and anthropologists would hotly debate that in a New York minute (before the transit strike). The point is, the article is to present what Witnesses as a group believe, and what criticisms exist, and the extent of this criticism. There is a threshold as to what divergence is notable and worth mentioning, and how extensive coverage of it should be, and your views simply do not represent the percentage you seem to think or hope for.
You said, "Maybe you should write to them ... and see what they say." You are the one who seems to want/need the answer to this, so perhaps you should write to them yourself.
Watch Tower, 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11201-2483 USA - CobaltBlueTony 21:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I relocated the rather rambling paragraph about the percieved contradictions between the JW public position on human rights and their internal practices. It now appears after the paragraph on the holocaust, based upon the relative importance of the topics addressed. Whatever your feelings on the disfellowship practices, it is hard to see how that should have a more prominent place in the article. CarbonCopy (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitiveness of WT beliefs

I think it's a good idea for both JWs and ex-JWs here to keep in mind that the Society does not publish an up-to-date explanation of current doctrine. If a doctrine is changed, the Society publishes the new thoughts while rarely mentions previous doctrine. Sometimes, what is publishes appears to contradict what has been already published.

Due to the often vague details of particular beliefs (such as who will be destroyed at Armageddon), I think we need to decide on two things:

  • When stating what JWs currently believe, the newest reference wins. Older references can be used to explain what JWs previously believed.
  • Often there is a discrepancy with what individual JWs profess to believe and what the WT appears to say. In this case, the sentence should simply say that the Watchtower says this. This allows for the WT statement to be interpreted by individual JW how he/she sees fit.
  • If a newer reference is vague, and the older reference is more specific, it's probably a good idea to mention both. For example:
"While The Watchtower has stated that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot speculate on who will survive ArmageddonRef, it has previously indicated that ...Ref."

Hopefully this will help settle the quote wars. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

An excellent set of guidelines which could go a long way towards settling the differences that seem to be ongoing to say the least. Perhaps something similar could go onto the project page as disagreements over old and new quotes from the WT have an impact in all such articles. Lucille S 03:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a good idea in principle, however in the case of your example (who will survive Armageddon), the doctrine protrayed by Central and Tomm has never been, and is not a belief of Jehovah's Witnesses. It has never been, and is not an official teaching. The quotes havn't indicated anything; the discrepancy arrises from nothing more than an ignorance of official Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Allowing "it has previously indicated", in this case, would be deceitful. In this case a more accurate sentence would read: "Bias often influences how one reads Jehovah's Witness publications. This is exemplified by the misreading, and misrepresentation of several out of context quotes posted on quotes.watchtower.ca regarding the issue of "who will survive Armageddon". More often than not, prejudic takes over and the mislead individual parrots the misinterpreted in order to bias others regardless if they believe what they're saying to be true or not." Duffer 03:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's discuss that specific example. See below. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
One thing that occurs to me is that footnote 13c buried on page 29 of an Awake cannot supercede major, still-used stuff like the Insight volumes, Reasoning and Knowledge books, etc. Otherwise, we would probably have to change their list of beliefs somewhat every time a new magazine comes out.Tommstein 09:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Another thing to be aware of is the watchtower's righthand does not know what it's lefthand is saying so sometimes somethings slips through that are not verified properly with the righthand.--Greyfox 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous teachings about who will be destroyed at Armageddon

Have Jehovah's Witnesses ever taught that only Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon?

From [1]:
*** Watchtower 1989 September 1 p. 19 Remaining Organized for Survival Into the Millennium ***
7 Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil. (inserted this tag: (please leave it, thanks) SteveMc SteveMc)
My understanding of this passage is that only JWs have any hope of surviving Armageddon, even if that is no longer the case. Does anyone have any other understanding of it? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Every Jehovah's Witness has a different understanding of this teaching than Central/Tomm. (We believe) The bible specifically states the fate of Witnesses as an organization. We OFFICIALLY TEACH that we do not know what will become of upright, moral, people/children that are not affiliated with us. The quote clearly states: "any Scriptural hope". Duffer 10:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The bible does not "specifically" state anything at all about "the fate of the Witnesses as an organization." The quotes by Tommstein clearly indicate that OFFICIAL Witness doctrine is that non-Witnesses are gonna die. The Witnesses also OFFICIALLY teach that children of bad people are gonna die. Yes, the quote says "any Scriptural hope", and from the claims of Witnesses, there could indeed be no higher appeal to authority than (their interpretation of) the Scriptures.--Jeffro77 10:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Here are some quotes, copied and pasted from the archives since some of us have already had this discussion:
"You Can Live Forever" book (which you quoted from), p. 255:
"You must be part of Jehovah's organization, doing God's will, in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life."
Everlasting life doesn't come until after the 1000 years of peace, after the final test when Satan is released from the abyss, 1000 years AFTER Armageddon. This quote doesn't even apply to the issue. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Bzzt, wrong answer. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that perfection and such come at the end of the 1,000 years, not some kind of immortality. They believe that you're still just as perfectly welcome to be bad and get zapped after the 1,000 years as you are before, and don't teach that people are going to naturally die of old age during the 1,000 years. Beyond your factual misrepresentations, the context is clearly telling you what you have to do know. You are seriously unversed in your own religious beliefs.Tommstein 18:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Living for 1000 years, with the possibility of dying at the end of it is not immortality. Perfection/immortality comes after the second death, after the 1000 years, after Armageddon. Therefore, you are wrong. Duffer 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Do any of the Witnesses here want to smack this fool down with regards to his beliefs of immortality after the 1,000 years, or do I have to?Tommstein 19:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Dying after a period of living for 1000 years is not immortality, it is longevity. Duffer 01:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
And that's all you can expect, because it is not taught that after the 1,000 years you can sin and go off doing whatever you want without consequence. As an irrelevant aside, that was in fact something that troubled me when I was a Witness; if the probability of sinning in nonzero, and to assign something the probability of 0 requires special circumstances, not one saying that they 'really, really don't expect it to happen,' then it will eventually happen given an indefinite amount of time. It's a statistical theorem that, given an infinite amount of trials, the probability of everything is 0 or 1 (what you would call 100%). But, in any case, if it is your story that you can in fact sin and do whatever you want after Armageddon without repercussion, prove it.Tommstein 20:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
We never apply the term "immortality" to humans on earth. We use that term only in connection with Jehovah, Jesus, and the 144000 (after they are resurrected to heaven). MCalkins 07:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
December 1, 1981 Watchtower, p. 27:
"Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do." I wonder where the alternative to "the road to life" might lead to....
I wonder also, Jehovah's Witnesses officially teach that we do not know. Your quote infers your a-proiri.. when you read it as prejudicially as possible. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Come again? Was that supposed to be a refutation of the quote?Tommstein 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
How do you read something you do not have? Duffer 21:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Uh, you don't? Just throwing that out there....Tommstein 19:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
September 1, 1989 Watchtower, p. 19:
"Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil."
That's exactly right. Again you are not seeing the nuanced, yet clear, indicator: "any scriptural hope". There is no scriptural hope BECAUSE it is not mentioned in the bible. That's why we teach that we do not know, and that it is "pointles to speculate" (accurate quotes provided in original link to touchstone). Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Jeffro77 already discussed this above too.Tommstein 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"What Does God Require of Us?", p. 13:
"Soon Jesus will judge people, separating them as a shepherd separates sheep from goats. The 'sheep' are those who will have proved themselves his loyal subjects. They will receive everlasting life on earth.... If you want to be one of Jesus' 'sheep,' you must listen to the Kingdom message and act on what you learn." Note that the sheep have to prove themselves (and the last sentence even clarifies that that involves listening to their message and acting on it, i.e. becoming one of them). That doesn't leave space for unbelievers.
Again specifically speaking about good and bad (sheep and goats). "Good" who have heard the message of the kingdom and listened, "Bad" those who have heard, listened, then turned away. This quote does not specifically address those who are "sheeplike" (or children etc..) and not part of the Jehovah's Witness society. This quote is not speaking about them. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Was that supposed to be a rebuttal of the quote and subsequent commentary?Tommstein 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"What Does God Require of Us?", p. 30:
"Such knowledge is essential in order for you to gain eternal life. However, others also need to hear the good news so that they too can be saved." That quote is quite clear, and doesn't leave room for unbelievers. And don't give me that 'they just need to hear it, so what if it goes in one ear and out the other,' because I think I'll just drop out of this conversation if you do.
Again, gaining eternal life doesn't happen until 1000 years AFTER Armageddon. The "..others need to hear.. can be saved.." is a highlight of the urgency of our current work. The best chance for a person to be spared is with us, conforming your life to biblical principle and wisdom. Even then you're not assured a safe pass through Armageddon. The only pass through Armegeddon that the bible specifically speaks about is as an organization (an Ark). So naturally, they're best chance is with us. It's bad to be against us. It's not mentioned what it is to be a child or someone who does not know of us. This is not a conversation. This is a refutation of your ignorance. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Bzzt, wrong answer again. Now that we know what the Probabilistic Church of Duffer teaches, Jehovah's Witnesses teach that perfection and such come at the end of the 1,000 years, not some kind of immortality. They believe that you're still just as perfectly welcome to be bad and get zapped after the 1,000 years as you are before, and don't teach that people are going to naturally die of old age during the 1,000 years. Beyond your factual misrepresentations, the context is clearly telling you what you have to do know. The quote is unambiguous, and does not speak of probabilities 'with us' and probabilities 'without us', it states a "need" in order to survive. You are seriously ignorant of your own religion's beliefs.Tommstein 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived", very last page (when was the last time you saw a book with no page numbers?):
"All who would gain everlasting life must take in knowledge not only of God but also of his Son, Jesus Christ." Notice that "all... must." Surely I don't have to find a bunch of quotes to convince you of what they consider to be the only source of 'real' knowledge of God and Jesus, as opposed to everyone else's lies and false crap.
They're not on every page, but they're there. Everlasting life comes 1000 years AFTER Armageddon. Repetition is a key to learning. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they're on no pages. Chapter numbers do not constitute page numbers. But you are correct about repetition, so here's a copy-and-paste job: Bzzt, wrong answer again. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that perfection and such come at the end of the 1,000 years, not some kind of immortality. They believe that you're still just as perfectly welcome to be bad and get zapped after the 1,000 years as you are before, and don't teach that people are going to naturally die of old age during the 1,000 years. Beyond your factual misrepresentations, the context is clearly telling you what you have to do know. You are seriously ignorant of your own religion's beliefs.Tommstein 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"Revelation" book, p. 8:
"If you want to survive into that new world, it is urgent, yes, mandatory, that you pay attention to Revelation's graphic description of the epoch-making climax now at hand." Here we have that this stuff is mandatory, again leaving no ambiguity for unbelievers. Again, they believe that they're the only source of biblical enlightenment in the world, so it wouldn't even be possible to "pay attention" by listening to "Babylon the Great," who they say will be destroyed with all its members, although if someone did then come to believe this stuff they wouldn't really be an unbeliever any more anyway.
How can you pay attention to something you do not know of? Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Since paying attention is "mandatory," you therefore don't get the reward that it is "mandatory" for, to "survive into that new world." This quote is especially good because it leaves you no wiggle room to play your 'after 1,000 years' piece of stupidity; the quote unambiguously refers to 'surviving into that new world.'Tommstein 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"Revelation" book, p. 129:
[After going on for pages and pages about how they're gathering together the "great crowd"] "There is no evidence that any apart from these two groups [the 144,000 and the "great crowd"] will 'stand' in the day of Jehovah's wrath." They themselves are saying that there's no evidence that anyone else is surviving, unbelievers or whoever, with the obvious implication that they don't believe that anyone else is surviving. To hold that they actually believe that others will survive would just be asinine arguing for the sake of arguing.
That's absolutely correct. There is no evidence. The bible simply does not say. Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT fill in this gap as clearly outlined in the link to the touchstone article. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey genius, pop quiz time: If I say there's no evidence that man ever stepped on the moon or that the world is round, what am I saying?Tommstein 18:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"Revelation" book, pp. 223-4:
"By reason of community responsibility, mankind is guilty of gross shedding of innocent blood. When Jehovah's day of anger arrives, they will literally die at the hands of his executional forces." They state that mankind, period, is screwed, except for them presumably. Again, there's no avenue left for some to not die.
Your problem(s) is presumption (and prejudice.. bias.. stubbornness.. ignorance..). "Presumably" those guilty of the shedding of the blood are the ones to face Jehovah's wrath (JW or not), no? Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No. The quote says mankind generally is guilty, period, and even throws in "By reason of community responsibility" to excuse condemning the whole world.Tommstein 18:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"Revelation" book, p. 225:
"Today, though, during the spiritual plague, there is nowhere in Satan's world that people can find life-giving waters. The pouring out of this third bowl involves proclaiming that the world's 'rivers and the fountains of the waters' are as blood, bringing spiritual death to all who imbibe them. Unless people turn to Jehovah, they reap his adverse judgement." Again, a pretty clear statement that everyone else is screwed.
The quote, now with context, followed by a setting straight of your ignorance of Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Again.
"8Such tainted “waters” have led men to become bloodguilty, for example, in encouraging them to shed blood on a monumental scale in the wars of this century, which have now taken more than a hundred million lives. Particularly in Christendom, where the two world wars erupted, have men been “in a hurry to shed innocent blood,” and this has included the blood of God’s own witnesses. (Isaiah 59:7; Jeremiah 2:34) Mankind has also incurred bloodguilt by its misuse of huge quantities of blood for transfusions, in violation of Jehovah’s righteous laws. (Genesis 9:3-5; Leviticus 17:14; Acts 15:28, 29) On this account, they have already reaped sorrow by the proliferation, through blood transfusions, of AIDS, hepatitis, and other diseases. Full retribution for all bloodguilt will come shortly when transgressors pay the supreme penalty, being trampled in “the great winepress of the anger of God.”—Revelation 14:19, 20.
9In Moses’ day, when the Nile River was turned into blood, the Egyptians were able to keep alive by seeking other sources of water. (Exodus 7:24) Today, though, during the spiritual plague, there is nowhere in Satan’s world that people can find life-giving waters. The pouring out of this third bowl involves proclaiming that the world’s “rivers and the fountains of the waters” are as blood, bringing spiritual death to all who imbibe them. Unless people turn to Jehovah, they reap his adverse judgment.—Compare Ezekiel 33:11.
10 “The angel over the waters,” that is, the angel who pours this bowl into the waters, magnifies Jehovah as the Universal Judge, whose righteous decisions are absolute. Therefore, he says of this judgment: “They deserve it.” Doubtless, the angel personally witnessed much of the bloodshed and cruelty fomented over thousands of years by the false teachings and philosophies of this wicked world. Hence, he knows that Jehovah’s judicial decision is right. Even God’s “altar” speaks out. At Revelation 6:9, 10, the souls of those who were martyred are said to be at the base of that altar. So “the altar” adds powerful testimony as to the justice and righteousness of Jehovah’s decisions. Certainly, it is fitting that those who have shed and misused so much blood should themselves be force-fed with blood, in symbol of Jehovah’s sentencing them to death."
The "imbibers" of the spiritual blood are specifically said to be (paragraph 8 above): the bloodguilty, the transgressors, NOT "everyone else" as you so decietfully state. As graphic as it sounds, it's nothing more than our interpretation of Revelation 16: 4-7. "They deserve it." Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you figured adding two paragraphs would accomplish, but whatever works for you. The quote still specifically says: "Unless people turn to Jehovah, they reap his adverse judgement." There's no qualification on "people." That someone at Bethel went on a bloodlust fantasy has nothing to do with that. That "people" doesn't mean "murderers and other misusers of physical blood" as you imply is further seen by the comparison to the Egyptians, only that this time there's not supposed to be any way out.Tommstein 18:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"Revelation" book, p. 234:
"It is the satanic 'air' breathed by the world today, the spirit, or general mental inclination, that characterizes his whole wicked system of things, the satanic thinking that permeates every aspect of life outside Jehovah's organization." So if you're not in "Jehovah's organization," you're breathing satanic "air," you're part of the "whole wicked system of things," and every aspect of your life is permeated by "satanic thinking." By the way, this is actually a discussion of Armageddon itself, the seventh bowl.
The quote, now with context, followed by yet another setting straight of your ignorance:
"“And the seventh one poured out his bowl upon the air. At this a loud voice issued out of the sanctuary from the throne, saying: ‘It has come to pass!’”—Revelation 16:17.
“The air” is the final life-sustaining medium to be plagued. But this is not the literal air. There is nothing about the literal air that makes it deserving of Jehovah’s adverse judgments, any more than the literal earth, sea, freshwater sources, or sun deserve to suffer judgments at Jehovah’s hand. Rather, this is “the air” Paul was discussing when he called Satan “the ruler of the authority of the air.” (Ephesians 2:2) It is the satanic “air” breathed by the world today, the spirit, or general mental inclination, that characterizes his whole wicked system of things, the satanic thinking that permeates every aspect of life outside Jehovah’s organization. So in pouring out his bowl upon the air, the seventh angel expresses God’s wrath against Satan, his organization, and everything that motivates mankind to support Satan in defying Jehovah’s sovereignty."
Read the last sentence until you figure out how wrong you are, and why. I'll explain it for you just incase: Pooring out the seventh bowl is (believed by Jehovah's Witnesses) to be an expression of "God’s wrath against Satan, his organization, and everything that motivates mankind to support Satan in defying Jehovah’s sovereignty". DO you see yourself mentioned anywhere in there? Does it say anything about children? Does it say ANYTHING that isn't metaphoric? Is it at least specific in regards to WHO and WHAT the interpretation is aimed at? Yes. I direct you to read the final sentence once more (read it a few times). Besides, this quote is actually NOT a discussion of WHO (individually) will survive Armageddon itself. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, so much work, except that you didn't read my commentary after the quote and must have been responding to your invisible friend's comments.Tommstein 18:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Here are some quotes clarifying the official view, (my comments are in brackets) all the rest are direct quotes:


"The Watch Tower has shown from the Scriptures that there are just two principal organizations—Jehovah's and Satan's. And, as 1 John 5:19 states, "the whole world"—that is, all mankind outside of Jehovah's organization—"is lying in the power of the wicked one. . . But why does God permit it? Is any good being accomplished? Jesus Christ explained that before he as heavenly King would crush Satan and his wicked organization, there would be a separating of people of all nations, as a Middle Eastern shepherd separates sheep from goats. People would be given opportunity to hear about the Kingdom of God and to take their stand on its side.."—Proclaimers book, 1993, p.676 (inserted this tag: (please leave it, thanks) SteveMc 19:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC) )
"But to what was Jesus referring when he said "the world"? In the Bible the expression "the world" sometimes simply means humankind in general. God sent his Son to give his life as a ransom for this world of humankind. (John 3:16) Yet Satan has organized most of humankind in opposition to God. So Satan's world is this organized human society that exists apart from or outside of God's visible organization."—Live Forever book, 1982, 1989, p. 209
"That will be the start of the great tribulation! After that, Jesus turns his attention to what remains of Satan's organization,. . . he will put the wicked one to death. . . That will be a day of doom, indeed, for disobedient nations and humans but a day of relief for all (JWs) who have made Jehovah and his Warrior-King their refuge! . . . The list of those whose corpses would be left lying there shows the range of the destruction: kings, military commanders, strong men, freemen, and slaves (note: all normal people, i.e., non-JWs). No exceptions. Every last trace of the rebellious world in opposition to Jehovah will be eliminated. After this, there will no more be a restless sea of confused humans ( no more non-JWs). (Revelation 21:1) This is "the great evening meal of God," since it is Jehovah who invites the birds to share therein... . . In this way, all of Satan's earthly organization comes to an end. The "former heaven" of political rulership has passed away. The "earth," the seemingly permanent system that Satan has built up over the centuries, is now utterly destroyed. The "sea,"the mass of wicked humanity opposed to Jehovah, is no more."-Isaiah 11:4.—Revelation book, 1988, pp. 282-286 (Note! Anyone who is not a JW is automatically classed as the "mass of wicked humanity opposed to Jehovah", and will be eternally destroyed. This includes ex-JWs, non-believers, agnostics, Christians who are not JWs, and all others of humanity. And no Duffer, your straw man about the end of the 1,000 years is not here!) Central 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


"Knowledge" book, p. 183:
[Regarding Armageddon] "All who oppose God's Kingdom and who are a part of Satan's wicked system will be eliminated. Only those loyal to Jehovah will survive." Again, everyone that's a part of Satan's system dies, which in Jehovah's Witness-ish means 'everyone that's not a Jehovah's Witness.' As if that wasn't clear enough, it then explicitly says that "only those loyal to Jehovah will survive," which kind of eliminates unbelievers, and everyone else for that matter, especially in Jehovah's Witness World where they're Jehovah's only loyal servants.
Who specifically is eliminated? "ALL who oppose God's Kingdom AND who are a part of Satan's wicked system". Who will survive? "Only those loyal to Jehovah". How can you be loyal to one you do not know? How can a Jehovah's Witness child know to be loyal to Jehovah? Are Jehovah's Witnesse children to die as well? Obviously this sentence is speaking about those who remain loyal to Jehovah once they have known him. If this sentence is talking about you, then it must equally be talking about Jehovah's Witness children, but it isn't, and you know that. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, being "a part of Satan's wicked system" constitutes 'opposing God's Kingdom.' If you want to argue that "Only those loyal to Jehovah will survive" means kids are gonna die, go for it. Although the first time this discussion was had it was agreed that they're specifically unclear about children. But if you think they're all gonna die because of this, something no one but you is claiming, go for it.Tommstein 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I should add, you are correct, how can you be loyal to someone you don't know? The problem for this web of bullshit that you're spinning is, it says that the loyal are the "only" ones that "will survive," proving the point that you're just some idiot that doesn't know what your own religion teaches.Tommstein 18:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", p. 190:
"Since the Bible shows that practicing true religion... opens the way to enjoy everlasting life in paradise on earth, it surely will be worth your while to make such an investigation." Note that this is what opens to way to the possibility of everlasting life. Which implies that otherwise said way isn't open.
It may imply that to people who do not understand Jehovah's Witness doctrine, such as yourself, but to an informed person, it does not. Besides, to "enjoy everlasting life IN PARADISE" one must have already SURVIVED ARMAGEDDON. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that half of that was an unwitting agreement with me, but was the other half supposed to be a rebuttal or something?Tommstein 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", pp. 210-1:
"The organized human society under Satan the Devil is indeed wicked and corrupt. It is opposed to God's righteous laws, and it is filled with all kinds of immoral practices." Well, there you have them equating human society with wickedness, as opposed to what you were claiming, that they only consider some individuals to be wicked.
I never said, nor claimed that. How is this relevant to Armageddon survival? Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The first person that wanted to have this argument was claiming that only the "wicked" will be destroyed at Armageddon. Is it your argument that 'wickedness' is now OK after all?Tommstein 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", p. 216:
"For remember, if you are not serving Jehovah, then you are serving Satan." There's some of the 'with us or against us' business I mentioned earlier. They claim to be the only people serving Jehovah, leaving everyone else as a servant of Satan. Surely you're not fixing to argue that they believe that God will save some servants of Satan at Armageddon.
So? Matthew 1:30... Surely you're not reading into the text something it does not say.. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's see if we can get this on record: are you saying that God will in fact save some servants of Satan at Armageddon? Have you no mental hoops that you won't jump through?Tommstein 19:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", p. 250:
"But living then depends upon your doing God's will now." Kind of eliminates unbelievers, since they don't believe anyone else is doing God's will.
The full quote:
JEHOVAH GOD offers you something wonderful—everlasting life in his righteous new system of things. (2 Peter 3:13) But living then depends upon your doing God’s will now. The present wicked world, including all who remain a part of it, is about to pass away, “but he that does the will of God remains forever.” (1 John 2:17) So you must choose between two courses. One leads to death and the other to eternal life. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) Which one will you take?
How can you choose a course if you have not been given the option? Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
If you don't choose the course, you die; it gives no exemption for those that weren't offered the opportunity to make the 'right' choice. Thanks for bringing up though what I left out though, that "The present wicked world, including all who remain a part of it, is about to pass away." It's fun arguing with an incompetent.Tommstein 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", pp. 252-3:
"Others must know the things you have learned about God's purposes if they are to survive this system's end and live forever." Notice the word "must." No space for unbelievers, since anyone who knows these things and rejects them would then go under the category of wicked or willful rejecter or whatever.
The quote with context:
"Before the flood, Jehovah used Noah, “a preacher of righteousness,” to warn of the coming destruction and to point to the only place of safety, the ark. (Matthew 24:37-39; 2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7) God’s will is that you now do a similar preaching work. Jesus foretold regarding our time: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14) Others must know the things you have learned about God’s purposes if they are to survive this system’s end and live forever."
The Ark was the only supplied means of escape. The only place of (relatively) ASSURED SAFETY. Just as today (we believe) that the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is the only place of (relatively) ASSURED SAFETY. The sentence doesn't literally mean you "must know to survive Armageddon". It's a rally cry to get your but in gear and tell some people about Jehovah. It's basically saying: "YOU MUST MAKE others know the things you have learned." Context is everything. It is fully decietful to pluck this sentence out of context and abuse it as you do. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, was quoting the entire paragraph intended to help your case? The ark wasn't the only place of "(relatively) ASSURED SAFETY," it was the only place of safety, period, seeing as 100% of the people inside survived and 100% of the people outside died. The quote even specifically says, "Others must know the things you have learned about God's purposes if they are to survive this system's end and live forever," which is an explicit requirement "to survive this system's end." Whining and flailing your arms while screaming 'out-of-context' don't help you here.Tommstein 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Duffer1, start refuting. Oh yeah, those were only my quotes. There were a buttload more from Central and Evident that I will allow them the pleasure of also posting here, or I'll post them myself if necessary.Tommstein 10:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You cannot brow-beat me into silence with your abuse of truth. To head off further assualts against reality I will shortly post quotes (with context) that, unlike ALL of your quotes, specifically addresses the "grey area". Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
If you consider having some facts dropped on you a browbeating, so be it. I suppose you're about to prove that their story varies per publication, which I already acknowledged. But hey, if 'proving' something that has already been agreed to is the closest you can come to proving anything, you do what you need to do.Tommstein 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Since the quotes that Central and Evident posted in archive 16 haven't been brought up for discussion here yet, here they are, as promised, original commentary and such still intact:
"The afternoon session was the time for the public talk "The Only Way to Everlasting Life." . . . the speaker concluded with these thought-provoking words: . . .'Your own ears will hear a word behind you saying: "This is the way. Walk in it, you people," in case you people should go to the right or in case you should go to the left.' How do we hear this voice? . . by following the direction that our Grand Instructor, Jehovah God, provides through it and through his modern-day Christian organization. Indeed, to do this is the 'only way to everlasting life'."—Watchtower magazine 15 January 1999, p.9 (no other methods of salvation are even hinted at!) ::::(inserted this tag: (please leave it, thanks))SteveMc 19:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
"The Watch Tower has shown from the Scriptures that there are just two principal organizations—Jehovah's and Satan's. And, as 1 John 5:19 states, "the whole world"—that is, all mankind outside of Jehovah's organization—"is lying in the power of the wicked one. . . But why does God permit it? Is any good being accomplished? Jesus Christ explained that before he as heavenly King would crush Satan and his wicked organization, there would be a separating of people of all nations, as a Middle Eastern shepherd separates sheep from goats. People would be given opportunity to hear about the Kingdom of God and to take their stand on its side.."—Proclaimers book, 1993, p.676
"But to what was Jesus referring when he said "the world"? In the Bible the expression "the world" sometimes simply means humankind in general. God sent his Son to give his life as a ransom for this world of humankind. (John 3:16) Yet Satan has organized most of humankind in opposition to God. So 'Satan's world is this organized human society that exists apart from or outside of God's visible organization'."—Live Forever book, 1982, 1989, p. 209
"Jesus' presence (Greek, parousia) has been demonstrated from 1914 onward by the exposing and judging of the man of lawlessness, the clergy of Christendom. That presence will be strikingly manifested when the ten horns of the scarlet-colored wild beast execute that judgment and ravage Christendom, along with the rest of Babylon the Great. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, 8) That will be the start of the great tribulation! After that, Jesus turns his attention to what remains of Satan's organization, in line with the prophecy: "He must strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the spirit of his lips he will put the wicked one to death. . . That will be a day of doom, indeed, for disobedient nations and humans but a day of relief for all who have made Jehovah and his Warrior-King their refuge! . . . In Ezekiel's vision, after the destruction of Gog's crowd, the birds and the wild animals are invited to a feast! They rid the landscape of carcasses by eating the dead bodies of Jehovah's enemies. (Ezekiel 39:11, 17-20) . . .Revelation 19:17, 18. The angel is "standing in the sun," a commanding position for attracting the attention of the birds. He invites them to be ready to gorge themselves on the flesh of those about to be slain by the Warrior-King and his heavenly armies. The fact that the dead are to be left on the surface of the ground indicates that they will die in public shame. . . . The list of those whose corpses would be left lying there shows the range of the destruction: kings, military commanders, strong men, freemen, and slaves. No exceptions. Every last trace of the rebellious world in opposition to Jehovah will be eliminated. After this, there will no more be a restless sea of confused humans. (Revelation 21:1) This is "the great evening meal of God," since it is Jehovah who invites the birds to share therein... . . In this way, all of Satan's earthly organization comes to an end. The "former heaven" of political rulership has passed away. The "earth," the seemingly permanent system that Satan has built up over the centuries, is now utterly destroyed. The "sea," the mass of wicked humanity opposed to Jehovah, is no more."-Isaiah 11:4.—Revelation book, 1988, pp. 282-286 (Note! Anyone who is not a JW is automatically classed as the "mass of wicked humanity opposed to Jehovah", and will be eternally destroyed. This includes ex-JWs, non-believers, agnostics, Christians who are not JWs, and all others of humanity.)
"Do not conclude that there are different roads, or ways, that you can follow to gain life in God's new system. There is only one. There was just the one ark that survived the Flood, not a number of boats. And there will be only one organization—God's visible organization—that will survive the fast-approaching "great tribulation." It is simply not true that all religions lead to the same goal. (Matthew 7:21-23; 24:21) You must be part of Jehovah's organization, doing God's will, in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life"—Live Forever book, 1982, 1989, p.255
(Watchtower 76 2/15 pp. 115-116 Jehovah’s Friend or the World’s Friend—Which?) — 9 You youths, especially, must be careful about imitating these people since your natural inclination is to imitate older ones. But these prominent people are just imperfect human creatures who will die at Armageddon, if they do not change their course and conform to the standards of Jehovah. Would it be wise, then, to walk with such persons by copying their ways? Would it not be better for you younger ones, as well as you adults, to hold in esteem those that have proved themselves to be friends of God—individuals like Moses, Joshua, David, Barak, Jephthah and Jesus? Others, too, such as Ruth, Rahab, Deborah and many, many more, have kept friendship with Jehovah and are truly worthy of our admiration and esteem. (Heb. 11:4-38) What about the modern examples of those that have remained friends with God? Wouldn’t you like to imitate the loyalty and endurance of your brothers who have withstood the brunt of dictatorships like Hitler’s Nazi regime or the Communist types, because they would not renounce their friendship with Jehovah? These and countless others that have walked with God down through the stream of time will be alive after the “great tribulation,” whereas the prominent friends of this world will be gone forever.—Ps. 37:10, 34, 38; Matt. 24:21, 22.
(Watchtower 93 10/1 p. 19 “Search Through Me, O God”) — 14 There are billions of people who do not know Jehovah. Many of them in ignorance practice things that God’s Word shows to be wicked. If they persist in this course, they will be among those who perish during the great tribulation. Yet, Jehovah takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, nor should we. (Ezekiel 33:11) As long as time permits, we endeavor to help such people to learn and apply Jehovah’s ways. But what if some people show intense hatred for Jehovah?
"14 Many people are disillusioned with the churches and no longer attend. They may also be greatly disturbed about the violence and dishonesty in the world. But that does not necessarily mean that they are marked for survival. They must be marked by the 'man with the secretary's inkhorn.' The facts show that "the faithful and discreet slave" class is doing that marking work today.-Matthew 24:45-47.
15 All who want to be marked as having God's approval must accept the instruction that Jehovah is providing through that "slave" class and become true worshipers of Jehovah. They must not be persons who honor Jehovah with their mouths but who really love the world's ways. (Isaiah 29:13, 14; 1 John 2:15) They must love Jehovah and his standards and feel grieved at heart, "sighing and groaning," over teachings and practices that dishonor him. No one will put a literal ink mark on their forehead. But when they have the symbolic mark it will be obvious to all that, as dedicated, baptized Christians, they have put on the "new personality" described at Ephesians 4:24. They have a living faith. Publicly and privately they endeavor to do what will honor Jehovah. Not only persons who have come out of Christendom but all, regardless of background, who hope to survive into the "new earth" as associates of the anointed class must have this mark.
16 Particularly significant is the fact that Jehovah's executioners were told that age, sex, singleness or marriage relationship was no reason to spare an offender against Jehovah. A married person must individually have his or her mark in order to be spared. If parents resist having their children marked or if they fail to bring them up as servants of Jehovah, they must bear the responsibility for what happens to those children. Although obedient children of godly parents are viewed as "holy" by Jehovah, rebellious ones are not. (1 Corinthians 7:14; Psalm 102:28; Proverbs 20:11; 30:17) If children are old enough to become baptized Christians but do not want to live up to the requirements, whether they are baptized or not, their age will not result in their being spared. How vital, then, for each individual of responsible age to be clearly marked as a person dedicated to God and doing his will!
17 Jehovah has shown great compassion for mankind by sending his witnesses to warn them of impending destruction and to point the way to safety. But he well knows the record of false religion and the rotten fruitage that it has produced. When Babylon the Great is destroyed, no compassion will be shown for any who insist on clinging to it. To survive the coming execution of divine judgment, we must walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ as true worshipers of Jehovah, the Creator of heaven and earth." Watch Tower publication-Survival Into a New Earth 1984 chap. 12 pp. 96-97
These probably need at least the usual meaningless responses from Duffer.Tommstein 08:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's some more, from the "Reasoning" book:
"Reasoning" book, p. 46:
"[In answer to the specific question "Who or what will be destroyed at Armageddon?"] Rev. 19:17, 18: 'I saw also an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice and said to all the birds that fly in midheaven: "Come here, be gathered together to the great evening meal of God, that you may eat the fleshy parts of kings and the fleshy parts of military commanders and the fleshy parts of strong men and the fleshy parts of horses and of those seated upon them, and the fleshy parts of all, of freemen as well as of slaves and of small ones and great."'" Note that this text, which they cite verbatim to directly answer the question of who's dying, talks about eating "the fleshy parts of all."
"Reasoning" book, pp. 46-7:
"[Again answering the specific question "Who or what will be destroyed at Armageddon?"] Rev. 21:8: "As for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death." This is also given, verbatim, as an answer to the question of who's dying. It is notable because it includes "those without faith" among those that are going to die, and because Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only they can truly have "real faith."
"Reasoning" book, p. 48:
"[In answer to the question "Is it possible to take a neutral position?"] Matt. 12:30: "He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters." Basically, no.
Reply away.Tommstein 08:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's some more:
June 15, 1999 Watchtower, p. 6:
"Jehovah and his Son, Jesus Christ, truly want all kinds of people to have the opportunity to learn Bible truth. God's Word can do more than help individuals to stop being vandals right now. It can motivate them to make further progress in applying divine principles. As a result, they become members of an international brotherhood known for cleanness and good manners, the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. In harmony with Ephesians 4:24, these sincere Christians have 'put on the new personality which was created according to God's will in true righteousness and loyalty.' Soon the world will be filled with such people because these will be the only ones who will survive and live forever.-Compare Luke 23:43." So, who "will be the only ones who will survive?" Those who "become members of an international brotherhood known for cleanness and good manners, the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses." Pretty clear there.
December 15, 1982 Watchtower, p. 27:
"In this way only lovers of God and of his family, his organization, will survive and enter into the cleansed earth that is to be transformed into a glorious Paradise." If someone knows how some random dude that is ignorant of Jehovah's Witnesses is supposed to love that organization, let me know. Since this quote says that such are the only people that will survive.
January 15, 1992 Watchtower, p. 24:
"Jehovah's Witnesses are unique in ever so many ways. They alone speak the 'pure language.'" Note that only Jehovah's Witnesses "speak the 'pure language'." This is important for the next two references.
January 15, 1991 Watchtower, p. 29:
"The speaker showed that although three thousand different languages now act as barriers to unity, the pure language is a mighty unifying force. It has safeguarded Jehovah’s Witnesses against Babylonian errors, has taught them respect for the sanctity of life and blood, and has helped them to live by Bible principles that benefit them spiritually and physically. All need to be concerned about learning and speaking the pure language, for only those doing so will survive Armageddon." So, only those "learning and speaking the pure language" "will survive Armageddon." Note from the previous reference that they explicitly state that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones that do so.
May 1, 1991 Watchtower, p. 14:
"Similarly today, 'a great crowd' of Jesus' 'other sheep' gathered out of all nations will survive Armageddon into God's new world. (Revelation 7:9; John 10:14-16) Only those who learn and speak the pure language will be joyful survivors." Another explicit statement that only Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon, in light of their views of the "pure language."
December 1, 1999 Watchtower, p. 18:
"The message is clear: If we want to survive Armageddon, we must remain spiritually alert and keep the symbolic garments that identify us as faithful Witnesses of Jehovah God." Self-explanatory.
April 1997 Our Kingdom Ministry, p. 3:
"Shoulder the Responsibility: Every disciple maker must realize that it is his responsibility to direct the Bible student to God's organization. (1 Tim. 4:16) Each study session should be viewed as a stepping-stone toward the happy day when the new one will symbolize his dedication to Jehovah by water baptism. One of the questions that he will be asked during the baptism ceremony is: 'Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?' Hence, it is important that he realize he cannot serve God without actively associating with the true Christian congregation." Note the explicit statement about it being impossible to "serve God without actively associating with the true Christian congregation," which eliminates random ignorant people.
September 15, 1992 Watchtower, pp. 23-4:
"Soon, at Armageddon, Jehovah God will cause all 'the wisdom of the wise men' to perish. He will shove aside all 'the intelligence of the intellectual men' who made predictions of how their new world order would bring better conditions for mankind. 'The war of the great day of God the Almighty' will incinerate all the sophistry, philosophy, and wisdom of this world. (1 Corinthians 1:19; Revelation 16:14-16) The only ones who will survive that war and gain life in God's new world are those who obey what this world calls foolishness--yes, Jehovah's glorious Kingdom good news." The last sentence eliminates the possibility of random ignorant people, or anyone but Jehovah's Witnesses, surviving.
What Does God Require of Us?, p. 10:
"Before this earth can become a paradise, wicked people must be removed. (Psalm 37:38) This will happen at Armageddon, which is God's war to end wickedness. Next, Satan will be imprisoned for 1,000 years. This means that no wicked ones will be left to spoil the earth. Only God's people will survive." Besides the clear pigeonholing dichotomy of "wicked people" versus "God's people," it clearly says that "Only God's people will survive" (which Jehovah's Witnesses believe is them), which precludes random ignorant people and anyone else that isn't a Jehovah's Witness.
April 1, 1982 Watchtower, pp. 30-1:
"15 Yes, 'the great day of Jehovah is near. It is near, and there is a hurrying of it very much.' (Zephaniah 1:14) We are living in a time of judgment when 'all the nations' are gathered before Christ Jesus. The people of all those nations are being separated into two classes, the 'sheep' and the 'goats.' The end result is plainly stated: 'everlasting life' for the 'sheep,' and 'everlasting cutting-off' for the "goats."--Matthew 25:31-33, 46.
16 Again showing the finality of Jehovah's judgment, Paul writes: 'It is righteous on God's part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you, but, to you who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation [apokalypsis] of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction.'--2 Thessalonians 1:6-9.
17 Notice that the 'judicial punishment of everlasting destruction' is executed not only upon 'those who make tribulation' for God's people but also upon 'those who do not know God' and 'those who do not obey the good news.' In his letter to the Romans, Paul explains why 'those who do not know God' are 'inexcusable' and why they will be judged. (Romans 1:18-20; 2:5-16) The 'angel flying in midheaven,' spoken of in Revelation chapter 14, summons all 'who dwell on the earth' to 'fear God and give him glory, because the hour of the judgment by him has arrived.' Therefore people are urged to 'worship the One who made the heaven and the earth and sea.' Those who fail to do so, and all those who put faith in Satan's political 'wild beast' rather than in God's Messianic kingdom, will be destroyed with that 'beast' in "the great winepress of the anger of God."--Revelation 14:6, 7, 9, 10, 14-20; 19:11-21.
18 Any who hope to be 'concealed in the day of Jehovah's anger' must 'seek righteousness, seek meekness' and 'practice Jehovah's own judicial decision,' rather than criticize it. (Zephaniah 2:2, 3) Any who hope to be considered by God's Judge as 'sheep' to be spared must prove themselves to be 'righteous ones,' actively aiding Christ's anointed 'brothers,' who form the 'faithful and discreet slave' class. (Matthew 25:33, 40, 46; 24:45-47) The only ones to whom the Bible extends hope of surviving the 'great tribulation' are Christ's 'brothers,' or 'chosen ones,' and the 'great crowd' of 'sheep' who 'render God sacred service' without letup, constantly saying for all to hear: 'Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.' As baptized disciples drawn from 'people of all the nations,' this 'great crowd' is shepherded by the Lamb, Christ Jesus, who guides them to 'fountains of waters of life' that will never fail. 'And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.'--Matthew 24:21, 22; 25:34; 28:19, 20; Revelation 7:9-17." They couldn't have stated it any more clearly if they had tried really, really hard.
September 15, 1991 Watchtower, p. 17:
"To ensure their salvation, Noah and his family needed to exercise faith. This meant following instructions and the leadings of God's holy spirit. During the great tribulation, it will be just as imperative that we follow the leadings of the holy spirit and obey Jehovah's instructions through his organization." Someone please explain how an ignorant person is supposed to "obey Jehovah's instructions through his organization."
I hope none of these were duplicates. Also, I think that both some of these and some that were previously posted are more recent than anything Duffer has provided. Thus, even if we only consider the most recent thing, Duffer still loses the case.Tommstein 07:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The ONLY teaching of who will survive Armageddon

These are cut and paste directly from the Touchstone link since none of you bothered to read it Duffer 12:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC):
w76 6/1 347-8 Look Forward with Confidence in God's Righteousness and Justice ***
16. Observe, however, that Jesus did not leave it up to humans to determine who are the "sheep" and who are the "goats." How fine that is! For, if we humans were responsible to judge, how could we properly evaluate factors such as: How much of an opportunity did a person have to hear and accept the good news? Did his genetic, family or religious background affect his response? What is his heart condition—does he love righteousness? If he is a child or was born mentally retarded, how much bearing should family or community responsibility have on the matter?—1 Cor. 7:14; Deut. 30:19.
17. Unquestionably, not one of us is qualified to weigh these, and perhaps many other, vital factors and principles. We could not reach judgments that are 'perfect, righteous and upright.' (Deut. 32:4) Hence, why should any of us become needlessly involved with trying to decide who will survive and who will not? If we say, 'I think these people in this certain situation are "goats" and will perish eternally, but those in that other category will live,' are we not making ourselves judges? (Jas. 4:12) Rather than trying to decide whether a certain person, family or group of persons fits the description of the "goats" or not, we can be content to leave the matter in the hands of "the Judge of all the earth."—Gen. 18:25.
18. God's judgments are not merely a matter of applying strict, unfeeling justice. His mercy, compassion and love are involved. As the psalmist David put it: "He has not done to us even according to our sins; nor according to our errors has he brought upon us what we deserve." (Ps. 103:10) Actually the only wages that imperfect, sinful humans deserve is death. (Rom. 6:23) Yet, in his mercy and compassion Jehovah has purposed that the message of salvation be spread extensively so that humans might gain life. He wants them to do so. (Ezek. 33:11; Isa. 55:6, 7) If God's mercy, love and compassion have been displayed so consistently down to this time, and we have benefited from them, cannot we be absolutely certain that they will come into play, too, in the judgment at the conclusion of the system of things? Yes, the survivors will be absolutely right when they proclaim, "Jehovah God, the Almighty, true and righteous are your judicial decisions."—Rev. 16:5-7; 19:1, 2.
w95 10/15 28 What Future for the Sheep and the Goats? ***
23 Many are exposed to our message as we preach from house to house or informally. Others may learn of Jehovah's Witnesses and what we represent in ways unknown to us. When judgment time arrives, to what extent will Jesus consider community responsibility and family merit? We cannot say, and it is pointless to speculate.
All two of these boil down to 'we're not the judges of what specific people live or die during Armageddon, God will be the judge,' which, besides being a 'no crap' kind of thing, has nothing to do with anything.Tommstein 09:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of this noble suggestion that "it is pointless to speculate", the quotes given above by Tommstein quite clearly indicate that they have specifically done just that, and most often their speculation is that non-Witnesses are gonna die.--Jeffro77 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I've often heard and read that since Matthew 24:14 does NOT say that every PERSON would be reached, but 'all the nations,' and since we cannot account for EVERY nuance of personal circumstance of EVERY individual on the face of the earth, that it is indeed quite possible that we will be surprised at the number of those who are not Witnesses that we will find standing on the other "side" of Armageddon. This attitude has been repeatedly reflected again and again; preaching is beneficial directly ONLY to the preacher, and not necessarily to the audience. So Witnesses are required to preach ("with the lips one makes public declaration for [their own] salvation"), but JEHOVAH judges in the end. I grew up in the faith thinking that everyone had to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and so I remember learning (over time) that such a position was essentially not Scripturally sound. However, if someone has been given ample opportunity in God's eyes and rejected it, then it is quite likely they would not survive Armageddon.
I don't understand any of the arguments above (who said what, who tipped up, but I have to say that Duffer's copypaste represents the views Witnesses currently hold, especially the hope that "we may be amazed and delighted to observe him [Jehovah] resolve them [issues relating to individual's privelege to pass into the New World] in a way that we never even considered." To me at least, that is a key and critical element of my faith, and my beliefs regarding the end of the world. - CobaltBlueTony 19:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to follow this thread. Is there a way to harmonize the two sorts of quotes (the ones highlighted by Duffer and those by Tommstein)? I find it hard to believe that the quotes which seem more "hardline" are now superseded. I would think a harmonization could be possible. Dtbrown 22:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
How about something to the effect of, "While Witnesses have long held to the generalization that non-Witnesses would die at Armageddon by default, recent publications suggest that they have since thought on the matter and concluded that since it is not their place to judge others, they cannot say for certain who exactly will face execution by Jehovah's hand at Armageddon. Just the same, they do feel that those who in God's eyes have been given ample opportunity to respond to the warning of the Bible and deliberately fail to accept this of their own accord and with all of their faculties in place will more than likely not survive the coming judgement." Or hopefully something less verbose? ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 22:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Conjecture based on biblical precedent is far different than baseless speculation, and NOT ONE of Tommstein's quotes specifically addresses this grey area. Contrary to that FACT, everything I have provided does address the grey area. (As if the testimony of EVERY Jehovah's Witness isn't good enough..) Duffer 13:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We have "the testimony of EVERY Jehovah's Witness?" Man, I knew their numbers stopped really growing and/or started declining in most of the non-third world, but who would have thought that there were actually so few left. In any case, congratulations, you've proven that they print conflicting things in different publications. You're only a few days behind the rest of the article now.Tommstein 19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Reasoning From the Scriptures pg. 47 Armageddon ***
What will happen to young children at Armageddon?
The Bible does not directly answer that question, and we are not the judges.


w98 8/15 20 Strengthening Our Confidence in God's Righteousness***
18. With complete confidence in Jehovah's righteousness, we need not worry about finding answers to questions like: 'How will babies and small children be judged? Might it be that a large number of people will not yet have been reached with the good news when Armageddon arrives? What about the mentally ill? What about...?' Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way. We should never doubt that. In fact, we may be amazed and delighted to observe him resolve them in a way that we never even considered."
The lack or quotable quotes on this issue is easily explained; the question is DIRECTLY ADDRESSED in the Reasoning book (see above). For those of you that don't know, the Reasoning book is a small quick reference, like a "Frequently Asked Questions" booklet about our beliefs and doctrines. Duffer 12:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It was agreed last time to put in a disclaimer that possibly small children would survive. I don't know if it's still in the article. Hurray, you're engaging in groundbreaking research only 2-3 months behind the rest of us.Tommstein 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I have to say to Duffer, or Matthew, or whoever you are, that as one of Jehovah's Witnesses myself I was very ashamed in reading the postings in this discussion. It is important to clear up misunderstandings, but not at the expense of being argumentative or making angered or hurtful comments. Acts 12:17-21 certainly makes that clear. Perhaps it isn't most apropriate to lecture on a public discussion board, but I feel it is very important! Also, whoever said you should do your research was right - "Make sure of the more important things" and "keep making sure". For the record, the statement that the bible says nothing about "non-believers" is not entirely true. Acts 24:15 says, "and I have hope toward God, which hope these men themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." There are many articles in magazines, as well as parts of other publications, that refer to this scripture. Since it seems that many of you have access to the Watchtower CD-ROM, please look up "it-2 p. 788", "w99 4/1 p. 18", and "w95 2/15 pp. 10-12" to see some of these references. There are other assertions and subjects that were disputed, and I cannot at this time discuss any others (or else I will be late for work), but I would like to make one more reminder: watchtower.org is the only official site of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I truly appreciate that wikipedia is making this effort to try and keep their information accurate. I also find it commendable that so many are eager to clear up an inaccuracies. However, there may still be some discrepancies. That is why there is only one official site for Jehovah's Witnesses - and why the Society suggests, and in fact asks, that individual Witnesses not post their own sites for these matters. However, a moderate ammount of well-researched (and perhaps double-checked) suggestions, given in a peacable manner, may be appropriate. Note to wikipedia: comments from individual witnesses are not statements from the WBTS! And, because of personal opinion, or personal interpretation, perhaps in some cases misunderstanding, not everything said may be totally accurate. After all, 'all have sinned and fall short.'

"whoever said you should do your research was right", please expound on this comment. Your following comments suggest you are mistaken as to the content of the discussion. We are not talking about the resurection, but those who will, or will not, die at Armageddon. This discussion is also a few weeks old and for the most part I have curbed the hostility of my reactions to the verbal abuse, provocation, and harassment from the above editors user:Tommstein and user:Central. Marvin? Duffer 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Were you not aware the Duffer1 has claimed to know your 'heart and mind', meaning you must be wrong and/or lying and/or nonexistent? But thank you. This is stuff we've been trying to say for weeks, only to encounter... well, you see what we've encountered. See, this isn't a Witness vs. non-Witness thing, it's a common sense vs. Duffer1-and-cronies thing.Tommstein 02:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken in my interpretation of the discussion; if so, I appologize. But are you not talking about those who will be DESTROYED at armageddon? In otherwords, those who will not be resurrected at all? If the subject is that of DEATH at Armageddon, then yes, the Bible simply speaks of a "great crowd" that will live through armageddon and begin the restoration of Earth into a paradise. If anyone would like sources for that, see the Feb. 15, 1995 Watchtower, P. 13-17 (or let me know if you would like actual excerpts from the article - it is fairly extensive). However, here, I believe, is the key: This is not to be confused with the permanent destruction of the wicked at Armageddon. Not all those who DIE before or during Armageddon will neccessarily be 'destroyed'. That is where the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous comes in - and, I believe, where the misunderstandings began. It sounds to me like Duffer is talking only about those who actually die at Armageddon, while everyone else is talking about the destroying of the wicked at Armageddon - who are the wicked that will be destroyed, and who are the righteous that will live through Armageddon or be resurrected after?

Here is an excerpt from the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures", published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, pages 46-47:

¶ Who or what will be destroyed at Armageddon?

Dan. 2:44: “The God of heaven will set up a kingdom . . . It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”

Rev. 19:17, 18: “I saw also an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice and said to all the birds that fly in midheaven: ‘Come here, be gathered together to the great evening meal of God, that you may eat the fleshy parts of kings and the fleshy parts of military commanders and the fleshy parts of strong men and the fleshy parts of horses and of those seated upon them, and the fleshy parts of all, of freemen as well as of slaves and of small ones and great.’”

1 John 2:16, 17: “Everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever.”

Rev. 21:8: “As for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death.”¶

Another excerpt from the same book, pages 47-48, that is relevant:

¶ Will there be survivors?

Zeph. 2:3: “Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who have practiced His own judicial decision. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you may be concealed in the day of Jehovah’s anger.”

Rom. 10:13: “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”

Ps. 37:34: “Hope in Jehovah and keep his way, and he will exalt you to take possession of the earth. When the wicked ones are cut off, you will see it.”

John 3:16: “God . . . gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”

Rev. 7:9, 10, 14: “I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: ‘Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.’ . . . ‘These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation.’”¶

I appologize if any of this has already been quoted - I did read the earlier comments, but may have missed it. Again though, note that the first quote is in regards to the destruction of the wicked, while the second quote talks BOTH of those who will live through the Great Tribulation, as well as those who will be resurrected after. Another note, is that although this is a quote from a WBTS publicatioin, it does nothing more than quote the bible itself. Yet this encompasses precisely what we believe - as well as why.

I would also like to appologize that I am posting these comments under this discussion rather than a newer one - I have not yet had a chance to read further, and didn't want to really confuse things by posting after something else and perhaps repeating what was said there, or further confusing the subject - which seems to be something I'm good at! --Restarz 04:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The claim has been made by Tommstein and Central that Witnesses believe that only Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon. For the most up to date version of this discussion please see my request for mediation. Duffer 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
That is a half-truth (quarter-truth? Tenth-truth? See how this dude single-handedly manages to give a very bad impression of Witnesses on here?). The claim has been made by everyone except Duffer1 and one or two friends. That includes a lot more people than just Central and I. Despite this little fact continually being brought up (and being pretty self-evident from a cursory look at the discussions), Duffer1 continues to lie about it at every opportunity.Tommstein 03:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
What would you have me say Tomm? "Tommstein, Central, and pals"? You two are the only ones that have actively, and directly, enganged in this edit dispute with me. Others have commented sure, but you two are the only ones on my mind due to your pervasive incivility. It's a given that there are more people than you and Central who hold the same misconceptions about Witness theology. The Touchestone article I referenced that was posted on Aug. 25 2003 proves that. Leave me alone man, if you can't, at least be civil. Duffer 06:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Something that is not at best a half-, quarter-, tenth-, or other fractional -truth, and at worst a baldfaced lie. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIV at your nearest convenience.Tommstein 06:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding whether those who are killed at Armageddon are supposed to stay dead, the Reasoning book is actually pretty clear. On page 47, under "Will the destruction be forever?", it says:
"Matt. 25:46: 'These [who refused to do good to Christ's "brothers"] will depart into everlasting cutting-off.'
2 Thess. 1:8, 9: 'Those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus... will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction.'"
This is pretty clear, per the expressions "everlasting cutting-off" and "everlasting destruction." I don't think anyone on either side of this argument has claimed that Armageddon destruction will be anything less than "everlasting." I think everyone is also in agreement regarding the teaching of some unrighteous people who died before Armageddon getting resurrected after Armageddon. So we are truly discussing what they have said about who lives and who dies at Armageddon itself. On an unrelated side note, it seems that their quoting a scripture saying that "Those who do not know God" are among the eternally whacked at Armageddon indicates (in addition to the other 16,000 quotes that have been provided) that there is no space for ignorant fence-sitters at Armageddon, "who do not know God."Tommstein 03:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The point was to end quote wars, not start one

This is ridiculous. First, as noted earlier, the point of the dicussion was to establish if at any time JWs have taught that non-Witnesses will not survive Armageddon. IMO, this has been clearly established in the affirmative.

Duffer, you must understand, that the personal views of each and every JW editing here are irrelevant to what goes in the article. The article must state what the Watchtower says, not what individuals take it to mean.

Tony, I thought your sentence was excellent in concept. If we can come up with a more concise version then I think we've solved the problem. For now. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to Duffer, who still thinks every single one of those quotes was wrong, somehow.Tommstein 19:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes it is rediculous. At NO point in time has Jehovah's Witnesses taught that ALL non-Witnesses will die at Armageddon. Not ONE of the quotes provided says this. Contrary to that, EVERY quote that I provided SPECIFICALLY states that "we do not know", "the bible does not say", "we are not the judges" etc.. Not only is this what Jehovah's Witnesses take it to mean, it is what the Watchtower has SPECIFICALLY STATED as I have proven. NOT ONE of Tomm's quotes specifically states otherwise (in context). Duffer 09:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Duffer, you have not adequately responded to the original quote I posted. The WT clearly says that non-JWs have no "Scriptural hope." I can see this only to mean that the Scriptures provide no hope for non-JWs. Do you understand it differently? Please don't post more quotes. Simply discuss this particular quote first. Thanks. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
"No scriptural hope" means exactly what it says: there is no specific information on their fate in the bible. It does not say they are "scripturally lost" as you seem to believe and as Tomm and Central so vociferously claim. This point is unequivocally qualified in the articles I posted that are specifically talking about the fate of righteous non-believers. You have not responded at all to the fact that what I have posted IS what the Watchtower has SPECIFICALLY STATED (and still does), compared to what is only merely infered by what Tomm and Central have posted. I can readily see how even an unbiased person could read these quotes and walk away with a false impression of our beliefs, however, they are still false impressions. If you would like to persist in ignorance of Jehovah's Witness doctrine that is certainly your right, what is not your right (or Tomm's, or Central's) is the proliferation of your misconceptions in an encyclopedia. Duffer 02:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It has been responded to, about 18 times. That they change their story in different publications was conceded long ago, but if continually bringing it up is what you have to do to feel good about your persuasive skills and be able to sleep at night, you do what you have to do. You are correct, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for Jehovah's Witnesses to try to put on a pretty face to make recruits.Tommstein 20:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
First, Duffer, there is no need to be rude to me. I have always been polite in my comments to you. I am not "ignorant" of JW doctrine; I just have a different point of view. I have no interest in "proliferating misconceptions". THERE IS NO NEED TO WRITE IN ALL CAPITALS OR IN BOLD. That is shouting.
Now, let me repeat the point of this discussion:
  • We are trying to establish if JW have at any time taught that non-JWs will be destroyed at Armageddon. Whether that is no longer taught is irrelevant. As such please do not point to WT quotes that show that some non-JWs will survive, since that is not what we are looking for.
You're right, I'm sorry, I let Tomm get under my skin and that negatively effected my mood.. any typing. I apologize. Duffer 10:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
When did it become "at some point in time"? The sentence from Central and Tomm has no time indicator:
"Humans who have had contact with Jehovah's Witnesses or know of them, and yet still do not actively side with Jehovah by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses will be eternally killed at Armageddon without consideration for age.."
That is not a current belief. It has no business in the "Beliefs and Doctrines" sections. When I said earlier that: "at NO time have we ever taught..." that was merely bluster on my part, I really just didn't know, and was too tired to verify. Further digging reveals that apparently we did at one time teach that only Witnesses would survive. Going through the WT articles, 1976 was the earliest direct answer to that question (the answer of Non-witness survivers) that I have been able to find. Despite this, I still stand by my previous statements regarding Tomm's out of context quotes. Here's one for you Tomm that actually says what you want it to say: WT 1950 p438 "There Jehovah will clear the earth of these fanatical superpatriots of this world and will let only his faithful witnesses survive on earth into the new world where all creatures will pay back to God the things belonging to God." So, yes, at one time it does appear that we did teach such a thing as the original quote suggests. However, that is not a current teaching as pointed out by the Reasoning book (quoted above) and various post '76 WT articles. Duffer 10:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When introducing new doctrine, the WT rarely announces that this is a new doctrine. Usually, the new doctrine is simply printed in the WT, and JWs work out that this is the new understanding. Due to this, if a newer reference says something different to an older reference, we cannot tell if the new statement is meant to override or simply complement the old statement.
  • The quote in question says that non-JWs have no "Scriptural hope". This statement is quite clear. The WT article the quote comes from gives no indication that someone with no Scriptual hope still has a hope of surviving. If a subsequent article says that non-JWs have some hope, we have no way to tell if this was the original meaning of "no Scriptural hope" or a correction. As such, we must simply say that the WT has said that non-JWs have no Scriptural hope, and later that...--K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Right, no "scriptural hope". That is not tantemount to "no hope." It means that the bible (scripturally) does not say (this is directly stated in the WT 95 article I quoted above). Lets summarize:
  • I lied about: "at no time have we taught..", I should have verified before posting.
  • It turns out we did at one time (pre-76) teach that only Jehovah's Witnesses would survive Armageddon.
  • However, post '76, articles specifically addressing this subject teach that there may be non-Witness survivers.
  • Tomm's "quotes" don't say what he wants them to, they may infer, but they do not specifically address. The articles that DO specifically address, specifically state that non-witnesses may survive Armageddon.
  • Since it is not a current teaching, it has no business in the "Beliefs and Doctrines" section, and I have already updated the line to our current teaching: "Those who consciously, and actively, oppose the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry will be eternally killed at Armageddon along with the unrighteous. Those who have no knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses, and live righteously, may possibly be spared." Duffer 10:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The vast majority of my quotes (if not all, but I'm not checking) were printed after your arbitrary 1976 date. So what we have is an organization teaching one thing, and then printing things that even you said that an unbiased person could read to mean the same thing that even you now acknowledge they taught. The fact that natural languages are ambiguous does not mean we have to play stupid, and your argument basically reduces to 'natural language is ambiguous, there's still a 1% chance that this could have meant something that it does not even appear to state.' With only some quotes, at that; you didn't even live up to that high standard on a lot of the quotes. Posting random crap after a quote is not a proof that it doesn't say what 99.5 out of 100 people would read it as (and the other 0.5 guy was Duffer).Tommstein 20:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I found some more recent quotes that are interesting:
"Fiery Destruction Ahead! . . .In Ezekiel's day, Jehovah's anger was poured out by means of the Babylonians. . . . But what about our day? . . . Of course, those refusing to listen to Jehovah's "watchman" have no hope of survival"—Watchtower magazine, 15 Sept, 1988, pp.14-15. (Note to Duffer: merely "not listening" to JWs is enough to be destroyed.)
"Jehovah God lovingly helps people to understand what the Bible teaches about the Kingdom. He does so by instructing and sending forth people to explain the Scriptures to others. Over five million Witnesses of Jehovah are now proclaiming the good news of God's Kingdom. . .Will everyone accept the invitation to become a subject of God's Kingdom by conforming to his righteous standards? (Translation: become a JWs) No. . . Although Jehovah patiently continues to send his Witnesses to teach people about his ways and purposes, he will not continue to do so much longer. . . .What will "the end" mean for those who reject God's standards? (Translation: those who ignore JWs' message) It will mean their adverse judgment and destruction. . . .These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction. . .Following the destruction of those who reject Jehovah's ways of peace (those who reject JWs and the Watch Tower Society)"—Watchtower 15 May 1996, pp.6-7
Note the hidden judgment in this article that claims to not judge: "How have Christ's brothers and the millions of other sheep united with them as one flock been treated? Many people may not personally have attacked Christ's representatives, but neither have they treated his people lovingly. Preferring the wicked world, goatlike ones reject the Kingdom message (here we have it, they have rejected the JW's version of the message, so they are now clearly judged as "goats"), whether hearing it directly or indirectly. (1 John 2:15-17) Of course, in the final analysis, Jesus is the one who is appointed to render judgment. (Note how they sidetrack here as a distraction for their judgement) It is not for us to determine who are sheep and who are goats" (note they already have judged who is, anyone who rejects their message is a goat!) They go on: ". . . What a contrast is the judgment executed on the goats! 'Then he will say, in turn, to those on his left, 'Be on your way from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. . . . By sentencing the goats to 'everlasting fire,' the Judge means destruction devoid of a future hope, which will also be the permanent end . . .The goats will receive 'everlasting cutting-off.' —Watchtower 15 October 1995, pp.26-27. You could not have it cleared in a relatively recent publication, anyone who rejects or ignores Jehovah's Witnesses version of the "Kingdom message" is "a goat", and "all goats will die eternally". Central 19:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Found these last ones:
"In ancient times, slaves were often marked on the forehead. By the preaching work today, the antitypical 'man clothed in linen'—the remnant of Jesus' anointed followers—is 'marking' those who will survive the end of this system. In this work the anointed are assisted by their associates, the "other sheep." (Ezekiel 9:1-7; John 10:16) And what is the "mark"? It is the evidence that we are dedicated to Jehovah and are Jesus' baptized disciples who have a Christlike personality. Especially now is it vital that we have the "mark" and retain it, for we are deep into "the time of the end." (Daniel 12:4) To be saved we must 'endure to the end' of our present life or of this system. (Matthew 24:13) Only if we thus remain faithful as witnesses of Jehovah will baptism save us."—Watchtower 15 January 1989 p.20 How Baptism Can Save Us


"A dedicated, baptized person faithfully endeavoring to follow Jesus is special to God. Jehovah examines all the billions of human hearts and knows how rare such individuals are. He considers them to be treasures, "desirable things." (Haggai 2:7) Bible prophecies show that God views such ones as marked to survive the execution of his judgment soon to come upon this wicked system of things. (Ezekiel 9:1-6; Malachi 3:16, 18) Are you "rightly disposed for everlasting life"? (Acts 13:48) Is it your earnest desire to be marked as one serving God? Dedication and baptism are part of that mark, and they are essential for survival."—Knowledge book, 1995 p.180 Make It Your Aim to Serve God Forever


"The speaker showed that although three thousand different languages now act as barriers to unity, the pure language is a mighty unifying force. It has safeguarded Jehovah's Witnesses against Babylonian errors, has taught them respect for the sanctity of life and blood, and has helped them to live by Bible principles that benefit them spiritually and physically. All need to be concerned about learning and speaking the pure language, for only those doing so will survive Armageddon."—Watchtower 15 January 1991 p.29


"However, is it not a shocking thing for Jehovah to destroy this entire world system, with no part of it ever to be restored? Perhaps some feel as Abraham felt about Sodom and Gomorrah, that if only 50, or 45, or 30, or 20, or even 10 righteous persons could be found out there in the world, then "the Judge of all the earth" should not sweep it all away. (Genesis 18:23-33) But the prophetic word makes it plain that Satan's world is unrighteous from top to bottom and that it will be completely wiped out! (Jeremiah 25:31-33; Zephaniah 3:8) The only flesh saved out of that "great tribulation" will be, as Jesus himself stated, the dedicated "flesh" of his chosen anointed ones and of their sheeplike companions [non-anointed JWs]. No others are counted righteous in Jehovah's sight"—Watchtower, 15 November 1983, p.24


"Jehovah and his Son, Jesus Christ, truly want all kinds of people to have the opportunity to learn Bible truth. God's Word can do more than help individuals to stop being vandals right now. It can motivate them to make further progress in applying divine principles. As a result, they become members of an international brotherhood known for cleanness and good manners, the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. In harmony with Ephesians 4:24, these sincere Christians have 'put on the new personality which was created according to God's will in true righteousness and loyalty.' Soon the world will be filled with such people because these will be the only ones who will survive and live forever.-Compare Luke 23:43."—Watchtower 15 June 1999. Central 23:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


He's so cute, saying that like it's true or something.Tommstein 19:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check

I was asked to investigate allegations of the use of sockpuppetry related to this article. Here are the results of my investigation: Retcon (talk • contribs), Missionary (talk • contribs), Netministrator (talk • contribs), Steven Wingerter (talk • contribs), Satrap (talk • contribs), IP Law Girl (talk • contribs), and Tomnstein (talk • contribs) are all pretty certainly being controlled by the same person. The others listed in the original request all appear to be distinct individuals. I am somewhat concerned about there being both a IP Law Girl and a IP law girl as that suggests impersonation; the same can be said of Tomnstein (impersonating user:Tommstein). It is my recommendation that the editor using the above group of sockpuppets choose one account and use it to the exclusion of the others. The impersonation accounts should be blocked indefinitely, but I would like an uninvolved admin to investigate these accounts to determine which is the original and which the impersonation before deciding which one to block. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC), amended 14:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's to hoping that it is not determined that I am in fact impersonating Tomnstein.Tommstein 19:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
IP_law_girl and IP_Law_Girl are the same person, but it's hardly sockpuppetting. She edited on only one day with the capitalized version of her name, and the rest of her edits come from the lower-case version. In any case, she is not trying to sockpuppet straw-man anything. Tomnstein doesn't seem to have made any contributions at all, so I don't know where this accusation has any merit either. I cannot speak as to Netministrator (talk • contribs), Satrap (talk • contribs), or Steven Wingerter (talk • contribs), but I highly doubt that they are either IP Law Girl (talk • contribs)/IP law girl (talk • contribs) or Tommstein (talk • contribs). - CobaltBlueTony 14:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
And on what do you base those 'high doubts' other than them being of your same religion?Tommstein 19:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me be clear on this: IP Law Girl (talk • contribs) is unquestionably a sockpuppet of Retcon (talk • contribs); furthermore, this editor edits from a different part of the country than does IP law girl (talk • contribs). Thus IP law girl and IP Law Girl are almost certainly not the same person, and one of them is quite likely an impersonator. This is based on server security logs (which I, as an administrator with CheckUser rights, have access to). The basis for the allegation that Tomnstein (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of Retcon (talk • contribs) is that Tomnstein was created using one of the IP addresses that Retcon (talk • contribs) customarily edits from (specifically, 67.166.40.198); this does not show up as a contribution but does appear in the server security logs. All of the sockpuppets identified above were identified on the basis of server security evidence, and not specifically on any analysis of contributions. If you prefer to have my conclusions verified, ask one of the other six users with CheckUser rights. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

TO CLARIFY: I am IP_law_girl (talk • contribs) and I have NEVER edited using a capitalized version of my user name. I have no earthly idea why I was impersonated. (and rather badly I might add, "my interests are IP's??? "cosmetics"??? WHAT IN THE WORLD? This is clearly a person who must think IP stands for iPods or something? Good grief!) I do not wish to start an edit war here, just wanted to confirm Kelly's findings that I am not the same person as my impersonator, I have NEVER created another account/sockpuppet for myself called IP_Law_Girl (talk • contribs) or any other user ID for that matter and I am not an "IP" and "cosmetic" loving "tomgirl"! (although I do use cosmetics....and if you have any that you want to have patented, let me know! ;-) ha-ha!) IP law girl 02:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I too found "My interests include IP's" hilarious (for the sake of those that don't know, IP stands for Intellectual Property, hence IP law girl's talk of patents at the end of her edit).Tommstein 21:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, careful there Tommstein, you’re giving off some sort of air of civility between the two of us.....this could wreak havoc on the earth's atmospheric pressure and cause an island to become decimated somewhere in the South Pacific! ;-) Seriously though, thanks for the clarification, I often forget that those outside the IP world don't always appreciate our patent geek humor. IP law girl 20:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We were uncivil? When were we uncivil? I remember fireworks flying with Retcon/Missionary/insert-other-sockpuppets-here, but I don't really remember us two arguing (not saying it didn't happen, just that I don't remember). I'm actually in the computer world, but with the BS patent situation in said world, I know more about patents and abuse of patents than I wish I did. And about the two other main heads of IP (in my computerized opinion), copyright and trademark (are trade secrets the only other head?).Tommstein 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You know for someone who seems to remember most everything said by others, (at least when you take issue/offense with the things said) you have an awfully short memory for things that you say. ;-) I forgive you that though; it's indigenous to your gender. (NOTE TO SENSITIVE EDITORS: that is a joke to Tomm and not to be construed as male-bashing so please don't start an edit war here) Yeah, I'd say some incivility has passed between us but nothing that I'd cry over. Anyway, as to your question; IP categories really only encompass Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, Trade secrets are not Intellectual Property like the other 3 and to prosecute infringement of trade secrets would really be more of a civil matter. If you have any other questions about this subject, ask me on my talk page since this isn't the Jehovah's Witnesses/Intellectual Property Law page. :) IP law girl 02:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I need to make a correction to the above as I don't think that I originally got the thrust of your question. There is a lot of overlap with Trade Secrets and the other IP categories but technically Trade Secrets are Intellectual Property however there is not a specific agency that oversees the prosecution for trade secrets, such as the USPTO. So the basic answer to your question is yes, there are only the 4 in IP. Hope that makes more sense, as I was originally focusing on the "abuse" or infringement aspect of your post. IP law girl 02:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
When I see "IP", I always think "Internet Protocal", as in TCP/IP... MCalkins 07:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware of the level of your security and admin capabilities, and was not calling your integrity into question in that aspect. It seems to me that Retcon "has some issues," and I intend to address them within Wikipedia so that accusations against JWs being secretive can be dissuaded. I appreciate your efforts and dilligence in this. Respectfully, CobaltBlueTony 15:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This all from a guy that went to some lengths to defend Retcon/Missionary, after my page exposed them and they confessed.Tommstein 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
CobaltBlueTony you need to learn to stop being so naïve. Tom and I suspected most of those sock puppets above, but I was shocked to see even more! At least that has confirmed my gut instinct/sixth sense is always right, and thank goodness it's still working fine, and you can see I was not paranoid when I listed many of those bogus IDs not long ago. But, CobaltBlueTony, you really need to give up this compulsive urge to defend others just because they are JWs, as you are doing massive damage to your religion, as the posters here are not the only ones to see these pages, and you defending the indefensible just makes you (personally and as a claimed "representative of Jehovah") look all the more unreasoning, biased and dishonest. I respect you when you argue honestly, and we have our differences, but all this underhand shit is despicable and well below the belt, even I'm shocked to see a JW doing that kind of stuff. It's bad enough when they lie in private, but to do it here as a Jehovah's Witness representative has done your religion a good deal of damage, and you would be well suited to distance yourself from this person before you worsen the situation.
Your Witness "brother" has some serious personal issues with reality and maybe you can help him before he does far more damage than good. What made me shake my head even more was his latest admittance here, saying "sorry to IP Girl" when he is IP Law Girl! He still doesn't grasp the problem; also, his problem likening himself to saint Peter were just more conceited insults to Bible characters. That kind of lying behaviour is only seen in compulsive liars, who are often so ingrained in their habit they totally fail to see the difference between reality and lies, as the lines have become so blurred. Mind you, Tom and I have been warning about this mentality in Jehovah's Witnesses for ages, here at least all can see we were not just making this stuff up, it's here in its full ugliness for all too see. Maybe we should make an article on the main JW pages about religious honesty and "Theocratic Warfare?" I hope you Tony, are gong to condemn Retcon and his multiple personality disorder the same as you would another religion when caught with its members pants down, lying like Satan himself had taught him. Regards. Central 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Tony, while I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt, clearly in this case RetCon/etc. has been very dishonest in his dealings and apologies, and is yet to fully come clean about the situation.
Central, please don't take the actions of one JW as an excuse to denigrate JWs. This is not the place to do so. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Konrad, I would have had a lot more respect for Tony if he had not consistently tried to blindly defend the actions of his fellow Jehovah's Witness when they were clearly out of order. To be honest I am surprise Tony did what he did and didn't see the consequences of defending someone who was doing very sly and deceptive things. Tony chose to try and cover-up for Reton, so it's understandable that he has to take some of the flack. Also, this mentality is not unique here, I've seen it hundreds of times with Jehovah's Witnesses, and one only has to see how their organization handles their own actions when they are negative or false to see where Jehovah's Witnesses get this habit and mentality. Again, this is not remotely unique to this website or incident, just normally they have enough intelligence to be a bit more discreet with it. Central 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It's probably not so much denigrating them as it is a natural consequence of first pointing out repeatedly their "theocratic warfare" policies (i.e. condoning lying and deceiving), and then seeing such behavior illustrated in full, both by Retcon/Missionary/etc. and by his fellow Witnesses that quickly charged to his defense and continue defending the indefensible.Tommstein 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
What's the procedures here? Once this is settled can the poster return? I thought some of the edits by Steven Wingerter to be beneficial to the project. Is there a way to resolve this and then go on? Dtbrown 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment

I think it would be best for all involved to give Missionary/Retcon (I will use Retcon because it is the oldest of the accounts) a chance to redeem himself, and for all parties to terminate the inquisition against him. Using a sockpuppet or changing to a different account to escape unwanted criticism is permitted at Wikipedia. If his actions had been limited to that, I would not have responded to Tommstein's request at all as an ill-founded request. However, what led me to respond were two factors: one, that Retcon had fraudulently attempted to mislead people into believing he and Missionary were different people, and two, that he created at least one impersonation account, impersonating a person who he was clearly at odds with.

In any case, Retcon has acknowledged and apologized for his inappropriate acts; Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy all but requires to accept his apology and move on. So let's please do so. I'd especially call on Tommstein and Central to lay off the rhetoric; it will not help defuse the situation. Personal attacks (such as Central calling Retcon a "compulsive liar") are neither helpful nor welcomed. There is bad blood on both sides of this issue, and frankly I'd like to see y'all work this out on your own with civility, rather than escalating the situation to the point that intervention by the Arbitration Committee is required. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Kelly, Calling someone a compulsive liar is technically correct if they have lied compulsively and habitually and we have clear evidence of. But, to keep the peace I will refrain from using such provocative language, but you must understand some here are very angry at the level of underhand sly deception used to try and win, manipulate and sabotage an argument, and all orchestrated by Retcon and his fantasy characters, and to add insult to injury we have had our intelligence insulted by his constant attempts to hide this clear reality. Thanks for your comment; I will not use that label anymore. Central 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It's always easier to tell the wronged to get Alzheimer's and forget they were repeatedly wronged when you're not one of said wronged.Tommstein 19:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Though the rhetoric is inappropiate, it's understandable. I've been in Tommstein's situation myself and it's hard to control oneself while the other person indulges in socketpuppetry. __earth 11:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

__earth, Retcon alleges that the abusive behavior of Tommstein and Central was the catalyst from which he decided to defend himself with sockpuppets, originally unaware of the Wikipedia policy. It obviously exacerbated the situation especially when he initially denied doing it, but this behavior did not start it. It had been started long before that. - CobaltBlueTony 17:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
He can allege whatever he wants, no one made him do it. He came here out of the blue starting crap, and now wishes to 'blame society' and generally everyone that's not a Jehovah's Witness for his actions. Ain't gonna fly. He was just one in a long line of Witnesses trying to start crap with non-Witnesses here.Tommstein 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I've heard it all now! CobaltBlueTony said: "the abusive behavior of . . . Central was the catalyst from which he decided to defend himself with sockpuppets". Are you joking or just a malicious liar like your Jehovah's Witness best buddy Retcon|Missionary and all the others IDs he faked? I gave him no abuse, you just don't get it. Even when he was lying like the devil you were there to defend him all the way, lies and all, you are still doing it now with yet more trash about me supposedly "abusing" him. You JWs just can't resist the urge to make up lies and red-herring diversions at any and every opportunity; you really give a clear picture of a despicable religion that teaches its members no moral scruples at all. I see you also hypocritically made no comment on the unwarranted abuse I got from one of Retcon|Missionary's fake IDs, that being IP Law Girl. Here is some ad hominem abuse I had to put up with:1
"If Central were to spew his anti-JW message, . . .he would be called an anti-Semite; . . .a racist. . . a misogynist, you get my drift? . . If you don't like it then then 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 18:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Where were you when your JW multi-ID buddy was abusing like this? Conspicuous by your silence. If you forgot, that was the day he was exposed as he stupidly put the same IP address in two different names and then tried to change them back after. CobaltBlueTony, you need to get a grip, you would have been wiser to keep your mouth shut and keep out of this, but now you have shown your true colours, that you are just the same as Retcon|Missionary, and all you can do is play the "it's not his fault for his own chosen actions", like he is some demon possessed robot. You are officially at the bottom of my respect list. Yet again, we see the typical trait of truth dodging Jehovah's Witnesses who will stoop to the lowest levels to try and make their religion look good. Yet more "theocratic warfare". I truly hope the public take note of this trait in Jehovah’s Witnesses. Central 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I was not speaking to you. Further, I was not presenting my own viewpoint, but that of Retcon. I refrain from defending his actions further because his approach was unacceptable, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. As to the timing of your abusiveness, condescending tone, and other all-out attacks on Witnesses and JW Wikipedians, my memory is rather clear on the fact that you have been "at it" for a long time before the appearance of Retcon/Missionary.
Your immutable, spurious, and enraged rampage just now reveals your own true colors. I will let the public here determine the extent to which you are a cooperative and academically viable editor. Your message, your approach, and your overall demeanor makes many others uncomfortable, and not just JW editors. You are making participation in this process undesireable for anyone who does not share your angry rhetoric. As such, your ability to provide NPOV edits becomes highly questionable. - CobaltBlueTony 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. The CONFIDENTIAL:_FOR_EARTH'S_EYES_ONLY tag must have gotten lost somewhere.
  2. You lie about what you said. Look at it again. The first sentence was Retcon's viewpoint, the rest was all you.
  3. You seem to have somehow gained the mistaken assumption that the apparent inability of Witnesses to be NPOV not only magically makes such POV NPOV, but doesn't make participation undesirable for other editors.Tommstein 22:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Better idea: let's all talk to everyone at the same time and not wait for anyone else to respond before we chime in with our own highly esteemed opinions. That's much more productive.
  2. All me, yes, that whole other sentence, which totally overpowers the first sentence. Camels through needles' eyes, Tomm.
  3. This "apparent inability" seems only apparent to you and Central. I'd like independent corroboration (sp?) on that, before you make subtle suggestions that you speak for "everyone else", a faux pas you so graciously counseled me on once before.
- CobaltBlueTony 16:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. OK, I'll start waiting a week to see if you want to change your comments after having posted them before responding.
  2. You are correct, we should ignore the last two of the three total sentences you wrote.
  3. You are again correct, all the rest of the edits on the page besides mine and Central's are a figment of my imagination.Tommstein 16:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
What is the deal with these 'sock puppeteers'? Are they so gutless that they have to hide their identity and/or so insecure that they have to invent people who agree with them? Grow up people!--Jeffro77 14:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's just one person. However, I have to read around to see if he's admitted to all of them. - CobaltBlueTony 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
They subscribe to the idea that 'if your argument is untenable, pretend there's a bunch of people on your side' (like that would somehow make the untenable tenable). Unfortunately, given Wikipedia's process of 'fact by popular vote of whoever's around', which is a good reason to not trust a word one reads here, such a strategy can be effective. This is why Wikipedia should really make it easier to do sockpuppet checks, instead of having to rely on one of the 'holy seven' that have such permissions, most of which ignore the requests anyway. I've made a proposal of how this could be done without revealing any 'private' information (not that I think IP addresses are necessarily private when you're posting in public) on some talk page somewhere (the sockpuppet one I'm thinking, or maybe the vandalism one if not that one).Tommstein 21:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Disappearance of quotes.watchtower.ca

What happened to http://quotes.watchtower.ca? When did it go offline? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's offline or if this is a temporary situation. This has happened before. I started noticing it today. Since it is not clear what has happened, I thought it best to put up mirror links in the Wikipedia article. Dtbrown 05:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
For those interested, Quotes has been shut down permanently according to the settlement of the lawsuit WTB&S brought against Peter Mosier. See http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/104279/1.ashx A very sad day, brothers and sisters. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Not all-sad Konrad, as this will more than likely backfire on the Watch Tower and Governing Body due to the publicity it will create, and why such a big money making organization (over $950 million a year tax free), has to threaten and crush one small ex-member for quoting their free literature. There are also many mirror sites out there that will just proliferate even more, and grow. If one gets threats, they will just stop, and then mushrooms into half a dozen more on new servers. Before you know it the controlling Watch Tower's Governing Body will be incapable of keeping up with sources, and the deluge of accurate information about them and their history will be made public more and more, freeing many from the lies they have been told by the organization. The Watch Tower's fear of being accurately quoted will now demonstrate to many current JWs that the organization has a great deal to hide, and will cause some to investigate more and find out that truth, so it's not all bad news. For JWs reading this, look at the January 2006 Watchtower mags, and see how paranoid the organization is getting about the Internet, and what you might find out by doing a little research into the "channel of God". Interestingly see how the scriptures say the opposite to the Watch Tower. The Bible says nothing can ruin your faith if it's true and based on a real foundation, rather than a man made one, no mention of "except the internet" here in Romans 8:37–39 Central 18:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Copy? Did someone say they needed a copy? Get your fresh copies here! http://www.savefile.com/files/2613690. Kiss my ass, Watch Tower.Tommstein 20:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
What church in America ISN'T 501-(c)(3)? Is it so wrong that we have equal tax rights? They're hiding info from every Jehovah's Witness alright, that's why they distrubite to every Jehovah's Witness a yearly cd-rom that contains EVERY WT article, EVERY Awake article, EVERY book, tract, pamphlet, and yearbook since 1950, and EVERY KM since 1970; a cd-rom which also includes a comprehensive word, text, phrase search function.Duffer 21:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Correction, they distribute altered copies of their publications.Tommstein 20:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's not start a discussion of this, which would undoubtedly become long and heated. I was simply alerting those interested as to the situation. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Certainly, JWs deserve to have equal tax rights. The real value of a site like "Quotes" was not in quoting more recent stuff since 1970. It was quotes from earlier WT sources which are harder to come by which demonstrated the value of the "Quotes" site. Duffer, does the WT CD-ROM have the 1960s WTs and Awakes? Just curious, I don't know as I don't have one. Dtbrown 03:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I was just responding to Central's prejudice not to the actual topic. The cd-roms contain all WTs back to 1950, and all Awake and KMs back to 1970, along with the books, pamphlets, etc.. I don't see why anything beyond 1950 would be important. If it's still taught, it will be in the newer WTs, if not, then.. what would anyone need it for anyways? Duffer 09:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Translation: Stuff that old could embarass us, as 'God's self-declared channel.'Tommstein 20:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
There is much value in having access to the older material. It been recommended by the Watchtower Society itself for Witnesses to study information from the "older publications" (eg w57 15 May pg 313). More importantly, some previously published information by the Society has been changed in reprints, such as measurements of the pyramids pointing to 1914 in Studies in the Scriptures, and references to the 'end of the system' in 1975. The Quotes site faithfully indicated such revisionism, and it is unprincipled for the Society to deny that things have been changed by censoring the site.--Jeffro77 10:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Jeffro77, you can download the entire Quotes website content here if you are interested. Just click on "Download the entire website for mirroring", and you will get a Zip file of 15.7MB, which contains most of the old site. Central 19:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears that this site has also been expunged from history to make way for "new light". Thanks for the alternate download location Tommstein :) --Jeffro77 01:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Much obliged. I downloaded Central's version, and I have uploaded it to the following address: http://www.savefile.com/files/9033110. These stupidasses can try to fight technology all they want, undoubtedly pissing away some welfare widow's money that she gave for the "Worldwide Work" (of paying armies of lawyers to sue individuals), but they shall not prevail. The Internet is the great equalizer.Tommstein 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm currently downloading that too. I just posted another copy, which I got from yet another person. Two days, two separate copies posted in less than an hour. Now, time to raid every free webhost on the Internet.Tommstein 20:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I will try another download site, as it doesn't unzip and open in the same format, or maybe it's my PC who knows? Is it ok with your PC? Central 21:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
If you mean the file I uploaded, it does in fact unzip here when I download it. If you mean the one you provided a link to, it also unzips fine (so really, these two sentences could have been condensed into five words, but where's the fun in that?). I assume that Jeffro77 would have said something too if 'my' version hadn't worked for him. I'm fixing to upload the version you linked to too and put the link here (or rather, slightly above, in response to Jeffro77). These Watch Tower bitches didn't kill the site, they killed a URL, because now there's gonna be 8,000 copies of the site in every corner of the Internet. Even that seems to have been beyond their predictive skills.Tommstein 05:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Tom, I just found this site, you can download the entire Watchtower CD ROM for those who don't have it, plus the Elders confidential manual! LOL. Not sure how long the link will last; it's a very slow download site, probably half the world is trying to download now. Central 00:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
That's handy. I'm downloading the 2004 CD as we speak, since I only have the 1999 (I think) version. Their copy of Quotes also seems to be as up-to-date as the day it closed; do you know where they got their copy from?Tommstein 07:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This newer version of archived Quotes had advice on downloading, and it works. The link they give to a free download program, works as I've used that one before for downloading different sites, and it's free. The Quotes mirror size is 42MB, and would take about 40 mins with broadband depending on who else is using the site. If anyone wants to download the whole Quotes site I recommend you do it soon, as no one knows how long that site will be up for. Central 12:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Central, do a WHOIS search on that website. Look where the owner lives. China. Fricking China. As in country-where-Jehovah's-Witnesses-are-an-illegal-entity China. Them filing a complaint in China would be like the Mafia taking someone to court here. I guess this is where the story ends. We win, Watch Tower loses. They can't even try to have domain name ownership assigned to them, because the word "reexamine" has nothing to do with them. Life is good, my friend, life is good. I have a feeling we're going to be using this new website a lot. Heck, it's even offering copies of the CD, the child custody brochure (which I'm sure lawyers for non-Witness parents around the world will be besides themselves about), all kinds of good stuff, which would be against copyright law anywhere near the United States, including Quotes. But what are they gonna do about it now? Nothing. Unless crying counts. This is another example of 'careful what you wish for'. Same website still around, only with thousands of pissed off people now. Shutting down Quotes was just another in a long line of brilliant moves. That took what, like three days?Tommstein 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL, that's wonderful! Gave me a good laugh. Those old men at the Watch Tower are not the brightest bunch are they? Took them eight years to close down the original Quotes site, now they are championing 'freedom of speech' in a way I bet they never dreamt! DOH! They are so stupid thinking they can stop freedom of information just like that with their big lawyers. Now they have opened up a Pandora's box that cannot be stopped, as site after site opens and information multiplies out of their control. LOL, it's all good! Central 12:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
PS. Tom, have you seen the name of whom it's registered to? LOL! "C. T. Russell and Ass", Organization: "Botchtower" LOL! Central 12:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I did in fact see that. It was funny as heck.Tommstein 04:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear, Duffer is caught lying again. He said: "they distribute to every Jehovah's Witness a yearly cd-rom that contains . . . EVERY Awake article, EVERY book, tract, pamphlet, and yearbook since 1950." Now Duffer has backtracked as he's been questioned by Dtbrown about his statement of "fact". So Duffer, where did the "EVERY Awake article, book, tract, and pamphlet since 1950" disappeared to? Oh yeah, that was "theocratic warfare" I guess, or blatant lying to the rest of humanity from you. So where is the Aid to Bible Understanding book, their biggest comprehensive book on all their pharisaic detailed doctrines and beliefs? Funny how that one is totally missing from the Watch Tower's CD, and the Elders book Pay Attention to Yourself and the Flock? And the JWs handbook, Organized to do Jehovah's Will, and the first editions of the Live forever book, the Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, the All scripture book, the Reasoning book, the School guidebook, and the Watch Tower's earlier versions of the Bible? Where are they for research? They are post 1950, where are they? And of course, all they've ever printed prior to 1950 is conveniently missing. That's why Quotes was so good, as it had a whole range of literature right from the beginnings to the latest stuff. Thank goodness for the internet, as it's out there now, and will continue to grow so the public can do some proper research into this religion, instead of taking the less than truthful words of many JWs, as we see on these boards, with the latest examples from Duffer.
Duffer said: "If it's still taught, it will be in the newer WTs, if not, then.. what would anyone need it for anyways?" Well derrr, why would you need a Bible, as that book is at least 1900+ years old? Your own religion teaches it's from God and He never changes, so it will always be relevant, they say the same things about their "truths" when they publish them and expect all JWs to accept them as these are from "God's channel". The reason old material is needed—as you know well—is to research the organization that JWs claim is "divinely used as a unique channel", and "guided by Holy Spirit". By looking at what they have taught as "divine truths revealed to them by God" in the past, those researching can see how "divined truths" become old apostate ramblings and false doctrines if they were taught now, demonstrating that they were nothing more than the machinations of men's minds all along, and nothing whatsoever to do with God. You also fail to see the irony of your statement about modern literature, because in five, ten or fifteen years all the current literature and teachings will also be 'old literature' and old doctrines, and what then? The "new truth" of 2020 replaces the "old truths" of 2006, or as JWs put it "old light", and shows the older stuff to be yet more lies and false doctrines, and it goes on and on indefinitely just as it has the past 120 years. I'm surprised JWs have not had the order from the Governing Body to destroy any literature over two years old. So much for "God never changing", your Governing Body seems positively senile if you look at the record of this "divine channel of truths from Jehovah" over the Watch Tower's history. PS. The Watch Tower do not "distribute to every Jehovah's Witness a yearly cd-rom", why are you making up these totally false statements? JWs have to specially order the CD from the literature counter in your church, they are not handed out at all. You also ignore that the public are not supposed to get their hands on these CDs, so the public have no access to this information, that is another reason the internet is such a good place, especially the Quotes site, which I'm sure will mushroom more and more to ones like Duffer's chagrin. Central 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
"..along with the books, pamphlets, etc.." Did you not actually read what I said before posting? You're only partially correct about the "Aid to Bible Understanding" books. They were replaced in 1989 by the "Insight on the Scriptures" volumes, an updated and more comprehensive look at our doctrine than "Aid", but you can likely find a copy of the Aid to Bible Understanding from asking around your local KH or even in KH libraries. You're right "Pay Attention" and "Organized" are not on the CD-rom (I never noticed). I must have been lying. It's inconceivable that a Jehovah's Witness can be wrong: "It must be "theocratic warfare" when a JW is wrong, but when I'm wrong, I was simply mistaken." Right. The CD-Roms are handed out, if there is not enough, they order more. So.. we've covered your "theocratic warfare", hypocracy, and prejudice, lets talk about your bias. What religion on this planet has not undergone doctrinal change? How many of those religions believe they are correct? Duffer 06:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear, you are at it again! Duffer, you said: "You're only partially correct about the Aid to Bible Understanding books". 1. It's a book, not books. 2. I was 100 percent correct, as the whole point was about having access to the older original literature and doctrines, not some newly updated hacked and revised version. How can anyone see the differences if the older version magically disappears? You go on: "I never noticed. . . .I was simply mistaken." No Duffer, you were clearly lying. If you were not sure of your information you could have simply put it as "I think all the old publications might be on the Watch Tower's CD", but you chose to shout and say "a yearly cd-rom that contains EVERY WT article, EVERY Awake article, EVERY book, tract, pamphlet, and yearbook since 1950", you didn't leave any squeeze room by repeatedly stating as fact that "EVERY" piece of literature was on the CD. You also left no excuse for checking your own religions literature by admitting this is: "a cd-rom which also includes a comprehensive word, text, phrase search function." Apparently so "comprehensive" you still haven't worked out how it simply works, or you can't be bothered to even try to check your facts before you come shouting them on here like they are totally proven without question. Matthew (Duffer), you need to understand that you have done this tactic several times here, and still you appear to not be learning. You can't come on to a public board and state stuff as facts, and then back down claiming "a mistake" after you've been exposed to not have any facts—but just your own opinion—and opinions that are based on very scarce research. You are just making your religion and case look more and more false and corrupt when you return with "it was a mistake not a lie" each time you get caught deliberately promoting false information as proven fact.
Your latest off-topic, straw man diversion question: "What religion on this planet has not undergone doctrinal change? How many of those religions believe they are correct?" Well Duffer, open your Bible and you will see Jesus' version of Christianity is still the same then as it is now. His words and teachings have not changed; they are still just the same. Now take a look at your religion, and see how massively it's changed, and flip-flopped, reversed, and abandoned many of its teachings and doctrines. Since when did the "faithful and discreet slave" give out "rotten food at the proper time"? God does not change and neither would his teachings, and what kind of God do you imagine you are serving by demoting Him to some imbecile that is incapable of accurately revealing truth to humans guided by His spirit? Just because the world is full of contradictory and corrupt religions, that does not make your religion any less corrupt and false, and looking at its history, false prophecy, contradictions, doctrinal reversals and gross arrogance, it would be up there in the top five most corrupt, especially for misrepresenting the Bible, and presumptuously claiming to speak in "God's name as His only channel to mankind". Central 11:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
1. Oh no a typo, RUN! 2. I was almost entirely correct about my assertion. Nothing was specified about "past versions" of current books, that's rediculous. I was mistaken about the "Organized" and "Pay Attention" books. There's literally thousands of publications in the cd-rom, I forgot 2, I'M A LIAR! Now, you said specifically: "So where is the Aid to Bible Understanding book, their biggest comprehensive book on all their pharisaic detailed doctrines and beliefs", were you lying about the Aid book or were you merely mistaken about it, and it's subsequent replacement by the 'Insight' books? "you can't be bothered to even try to check your facts before you come shouting them on here like they are totally proven without question".. relax man. Technically it was your prejudice that started this. Specifically your snide remarks about tax-exemptions and the availability of "accurate" quotes from our own, past, literature. To answer the latest diversion, you merely beat around the bush without actually addressing my question. Modern orthodoxy is a far cry from what Jesus actually preached, you know much about past Jehovah's Witness theology but you do not know the doctrinal development of your own? That's just presumption on my part; lets be specific: What exactly do believe is the same between what Jesus taught, and your version of Christianity? We can take this to my talk page.. or yours.. or e-mail. If you want to answer, just give me a couple of your major tenets of your faith and we'll examine them in light of what Jesus taught, and the subsequent development of said tenets throughout history. Duffer 12:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
There are not "literally thousands of publications" on the Watchtower Library CD, there are approximately 290. What is ridiculous about "past versions of current books"? It would be unnecessary if there wasn't dishonest revisionism at work, but such actions make it very significant.--Jeffro77 01:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There are approximately 1,296 WT magazines on the cd-rom, not including Awake, not including Books, KMs, Booklets, Brochures, Tracts, and the 2 Insight volumes. Duffer 04:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The Watchtower Library is indeed a useful tool, and the underappreciated slave labour that made it should be thanked. The Watchtower and Awake! magazines are released as bound volumes, and are represented as such on the CD-ROM. As such, the magazines therein are not separate publications; there are 54 Watchtower volumes and 34 Awake! volumes on the Watchtower Library CD-ROM. (In addition, there are 46 books, 35 yearbooks, 34 KM volumes, 31 tracts, 28 brochures, 18 booklets, 2 Insight volumes, 2 Indexes, 1 bible and a partridge in a pear tree*. However, the veracity of the Society's reproductions of its prior publications is suspect because they have been known to make alterations to what has been printed, as I indicated previously. *Partridge and pear tree sold separately. PC not included.--Jeffro77 14:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL! "A partridge in a pear tree", classic! You could reduce the list more because the The Watchtower is one publication, not many. The issues are just issues, and not different publications, just like Time magazine is one publication, not many. It may have multiple issues, but it's still just one publication. So all the Awake! and Watchtower magazine make just two publications, this makes Duffer's wild statement of "thousands of publications" look even more premature. Plus the fact that some of the most important ones are missing from the CD. Central 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Duffer says: "Nothing was specified about 'past versions' of current books, that's ridiculous." More lies, you stated "a yearly cd-rom that contains EVERY WT article, EVERY Awake article, EVERY book, tract, pamphlet, and yearbook since 1950" If you are having a hard time understating the word "every" I suggests you buy a dictionary, rather than call it ridiculous. You then say "I forgot 2". There are more than two in my list, and those in the list are main books, not some minor pamphlet, so should be included on the CD. Duffer you need to learn to read, I know very well the Insight books were a new revised, remodelled, and altered version of the book, Air to Bible understanding. Are you deliberately being facetious or just stupid? The point (for the third time) is the older books in their original form are not there (as you claimed "EVERY" book was), and they need to be there to see how they have changed in relation to newer versions. If you cannot grasp that, then you need help. You then lose the plot with your next comment: "Technically it was your prejudice that started this. Specifically your snide remarks about tax-exemptions." Yeah, me making a comment about how rich and powerful the Watch Tower Society in persecuting ex-members with lawsuits somehow forced you to lie and make up crap about what's on the Watch Tower's CD? Eh? Where do you get your nutty ideas from? Ever heard of personal responsibility? You sound just like that JW con-artist Retcon/Missionary blaming all others for his actions and refusing to get a grip of reality.
You inevitably cannot resists the straw man sidetrack: "Modern orthodoxy is a far cry from what Jesus actually preached" What? Who said anything about "Modern orthodoxy"? I spoke of the Bible then and now, and Jesus' teachings being the same teachings, or are you now trying to drag the stupid churches into this? Undoubtedly you are. Duffer, your desperation is showing. You go on deeper into off topic and inaccurate ground: "but you do not know the doctrinal development of your own?" My own? What are you talking about? Oh yeah, silly me, you are in fantasy mode grasping at straws for some kind of ad hominem you hope to find, correct? What does amuse me is you have already inadvertently admitted that your religion is false. Up the page you said, "What religion on this planet has not undergone doctrinal change?" linking yourself with them, as if "we are all in the same boat", you then forget that your religion teaches all others are false religions, so if yours is the same, i.e., changing doctrines all the time, then you must by your own default, be like them and also be false. Did you not see that connection when you made it? Funny really. What I believe is not relevant to this JW page, as it's about what JWs teach via the writings and doctrines of their Governing Body. Central 18:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
PS. I have put a note on your Talk page with a letter to the Governing Body from the Watch Tower's chairman's committee that you might find interesting. I agree with the points it makes that contradict the traditional Watch Tower Society's stance, as you seem so interested in what I believe. Central 20:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You know the old saying of 'better to stay quiet and be thought an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt?' Some people here, to not name any names, seem to have the opposite philosophy, fire now and check whether they made an ass of themselves later. And they seem to be faithful adherents to their philosophy too.Tommstein 21:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone asked a good question about the CD-ROM: Where is the "Aid to Bible Understanding" book? about...two meters from me I would say. Not on the CD-ROM, but to be quite honest, I'm glad. You see, if every edition ever printed of every book were on there, I literally would not be able to use it on my computer at all. There would be no sense in that, since, lol, that would defeat the purpose entirely! It is available though, to individual publishers, not just a select few. Of course, there is no reason for the elders' reference books to be on the CD-ROM, since they are to direct the elders in the work they do - they are specifically directed to the elders. If you wrote a letter to a family, and also included a personal letter to an individual member, would you expect the letter to be advertised also to the entire family? Not usually. However, although I've never had need to look it up, I do believe there are copies of the book in the Kingdom Hall libraries - which, by the way, are open to all, not just to elders.

Again, similarly, older printings of publications, and publications that have been updated and replaced - such as the "Truth that Leads to Eternal Life" which was replaced by "Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life" and last year updated to "What Does the Bible Really Teach" are not only available (not to mention in the possession of many publishers), but often we are encouraged to feature them in our door-to-door ministry work. Certainly, if something were to be hidden, that would not be the way to do it!

Also, the "Organized to Do Jehovah's Will" book was mentioned. There is a very logical reason why this is not on the CD-ROM - and again I have to laugh! It was only released last year, in the summer of 2005. The newest CD-ROM available is still the 2004 edition, so it would make sense that it's not in there! I'm not trying to put anyone down in laughing, since it is just a mistake. But you have to admit, that claim could be worth blushing over (in a humorous way) or at least chuckling at.

There are a lot of allegations about Jehovah's Witnesses, some against the WBTS itself, some against our religion as a whole, and many based on individuals. By individuals of course I do not mean that they have no merrit because it was only one person. I mean that there are some Jehovah's Witnesses who do not fully follow bible counsel, or have not completely applied it in their lives. Of course, by that definition, it could encompass everyone, since no one is perfect. Still, there are those whose actions may lend to a bad reputation! Most of the allegations, however, seem to be rumors that perhaps had some merrit when they began - or perhaps not, as can be the case with rumors! - but of course have grown with time and travel.

Personally, I find it very disturbing to be told that I (or rather Jehovah's Witnesses on a whole, and thereby through extension, myself personally or at least those around me) am a dishonest, manipulative person, and that I seek to spread lies simply to agree with myself or others of my religion. This is especially difficult for me as this is a website where anyone can say anything - you have no reason to believe me personally, and I can give you no real proof since all I can give on a website are words. Yet I am not that kind of person, and of all the Jehovah's Witnesses I know - which is quite a few since not only have I moved around some, I have also travelled - very few, if any, are really like that. Those who display traits such as dishonesty, or selfishness, are usually quite easily spotted among other Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't know how many Jehovah's Witnesses the authors of those posts know, but sadly it would seem you have mostly been able to sample only the more distasteful bunch.

--Restarz 04:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the CD could probably be set up to give you options such as 'only show publications after a certain date' and 'only show publications that haven't been updated to newer versions,' and then you could probably have all the publications you wanted on there without giving you trouble. When I was a Witness, I in fact wrote the Society and volunteered to write a new version of the program for them for free, mainly because I use Linux, but they declined. Oh well.
About your last paragraph though, I don't think anyone is going to assume you're up to something, unless you give ample reason to believe otherwise, like, say, working up a long history of doing things like jumping up and down screaming that a pile of references doesn't in fact exist or doesn't say what anyone with basic literacy in English can easily verify that it says. Seriously, what other logical option is there to explain when things have reached Duffer1 levels? It would be politically incorrect to outright call him an idiot, or to say that he demonstrates signs of having an IQ comparable to most people's shoe size, so one is left to simply let the infamous policies speak for themselves, with their implication that his stuff is willful, instead of something that he can't help. Have no fear though, as long as you don't resort to otherwise-unexplainable shenanigans like those mentioned above, I don't think anyone is going to accuse you of being a liar.Tommstein 03:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not necessary Tomm, that is extremely offensive, Duffer 06:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The CD-ROM is a special order item. Those who want it order it, it's not just distributed to all Witnesses automatically. As to "Organized to Do Jehovah's Will", it is a special book, and probably won't be in the CD-ROM, just like "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry" wasn't.
The Bible condemns dishonesty, and anyone who diliberately lied would be disobeying the Bible. Our organization is actually completely honest. I find it unimaginable that so many people here accuse our organization of dishonesty. Michael 20:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New editing guidelines

As per the discussion about quotes, I have added the following guidelines to the project page:

  • State that "The Watchtower says..." rather than "Jehovah's Witnesses believe...". This avoid difficulties in different interpretations of what the WT is saying; the WT statement can be interpreted by the reader, rather than by editors.
  • Use the newest available reference when stating what JWs currently believe.
  • Editors should not attempt to reconcile contradictory statements in JW publications, as this is original research. Simply state both statements, and allow the reader to determine how to reconcile them. For example:
"Jehovah's Witnesses publications vary on who will survive Armageddon. While The Watchtower has often stated that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot speculate on who will survive Armageddon[1][2], it has also indicated that ...[3][4]."

This should solve at least some of the arguments here. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem one is that we would probably need to tear down the entire Beliefs section and replace it with a bunch of quotes. Problem two is that someone arguing that inconvenient statements don't say what they say (cough Duffer cough) will then just argue that they haven't in fact "also indicated that" other stuff, so it shouldn't be in the article at all; it just changes what people are fighting about (slightly).Tommstein 19:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is about Jehovah's Witnesses not what JW publications may infer to non-JWs. The particular section in your example is "Beliefs and Doctrines", adding what non-JWs misread out of our literature is highly inappropriate. Duffer 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You are correct, the article is about Jehovah's Witnesses, not the lies, I mean "theocratic warfare," that members want to present in public in order to make more converts.Tommstein 21:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the appropriateness of the third guideline can be found here. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dam to burst next year on blood issue, possble news event

Baylor Universty Jornal of the Curch and State autumn 2005 release date dec, 13 2005. Is a new peer review study critical of the jw blood issue. Mainly of it's misrepresting the facts in it's literature.

more info found here [2]

P.S. Finally something good comes out of Waco,TX--Greyfox 07:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Written by an attorney.. not a doctor. I wonder what peer review will have to say about it. Duffer 07:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
That is what I think 80% of the brother ans sisters will say, but the is illrelevent. They studied the brocures and checked the facts in them and found many pertaining to the blood issue misleading. This will have more an effect on those who have familly in the group (especially those who have lost ones with a blood problem) or are thinking of joining or know someone about to join. This could also effect thier tax exempt status in the process you can not give misleading facts to your people and keep it. Oh by the way just because you are a attorney does not mean you did not consult a doctor for your study.--Greyfox 15:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Goood points, but you cannot say what they have, or have not found when you have not read the article. It will be interesting how this unfolds in the future. Duffer 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This also make the shutting down of quotes.watchtower.ca. all the more juicy. What were they thinking, They look like they are covering something up.--Greyfox 15:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Excerpt #2

Courts are frequently called upon to order transfusions for children of Jehovah’s Witness parents.[19] In its legal information section entitled “You Have The Right to Choose, ” the pamphlet informs parents that courts recognize parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children:

In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court stated clearly: “The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions . . . Simply because the decision of a parent [on a medical matter] involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the states.”—Parham v. J.R.[20]

The same year the New York Court of Appeals rules: The most significant factor in determining whether a child is being deprived of adequate medical care . . . is whether the parents have provided an acceptable course of medical treatment for their child in light of all the surrounding circumstances. This inquiry cannot be posed in terms of whether the parent has made a ‘right’ or a ‘wrong’ decision, for the present state of the practice of medicine, despite its vast advances, very seldom permits such definitive conclusions. Nor can a court assume the role of a surrogate parent.—In re Hofbauer[21]

While these quotes are not in themselves inaccurate, the Society does not inform its readers that these particular cases do not involve minors of Jehovah’s Witnesses who need immediate, life-saving blood transfusions. Rather, Parham v. J.R. deals with the parents’ wish to obtain psychiatric help by civilly committing an uncontrollable minor contrary to the minor’s objections.[22] Moreover, the relevant facts in Parham did not involve the parents’ refusal to accept medical treatment on religious grounds. Indeed, concurring Justice Stewart wrote that a state would have constitutional grounds to preempt the parent’s decision, and defended this position by referring to a seminal case against a Jehovah’s Witness parent who mandated that her minor niece engage in selling Society magazines in violation of the state’s child labor laws.[23] In re Hofbauer deals with the parents’ choice of using nutrition instead of chemotherapy to treat Hodgkin’s disease. [24] The Hofbauer court also differentiated its facts from cases involving parents’ religious refusal of medical treatment, including a reference to a specific Jehovah’s Witness blood case, a fact which the pamphlet omitted.[25] From these examples, a clear precedent can be seen that many courts will order blood transfusions for minors over and against the parents’ wishes.[26] Thus, Jehovah’s Witness parents may be surprised to learn that precedent denies their supposed “right” to make martyrs of their children.[27]

Sourse Jornal of Church and State Baylor University Autumn 2005

Answer your questions duffer--Greyfox 15:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Excerpt #4

Summary of Survival Rates and Medical Alternatives Misrepresentations

At this point, a salient question emerges: Should the tort of misrepresentation be allowed to the victims of blood policy and their families who have come to the conclusion that the Society misrepresented the historical and medical science in its indoctrination literature? A court could conclude that each misrepresented statement is relatively insignificant. However, when taken together, the misrepresentations serve to warp the follower’s mind regarding the actual medical and historical perspective. The Society deceives its followers into thinking that blood transfusions render one’s immune system incapable of fighting cancers, when the actual link depends on the type of cancer. It builds a case that other doctors wish all surgeons would become bloodless surgeons, when in fact those doctors recognize the benefits of blood transfusions for those who are in desperate need. The Society “scares” followers into believing that accepting blood transfusions is equivalent to contracting contagious diseases, when the actual risks are one in several hundred thousand to a few million. The Society “placates” by suggesting adults and infants can tolerate low hemoglobin levels, despite medical knowledge that a healthy person has at least a one in three chance of not surviving a blood count lower than 7, with survival rates for people in high-risk groups being much lower. The Society falsely assures parents that they can legally refuse a blood transfusion for their child by citing cases that in no way substantiate such a position. The Society never reveals to its readers the actual risks of death when blood levels drop either slowly from anemia or quickly from hemorrhage. Instead, the Society gives its readers the impression that ultra low hemoglobin counts, such as 1.8, are easily survivable under the supervision of the right doctor. Only by looking at the overall effect of the Society’s literature can one determine whether there are misrepresentations that induce a follower to accept the Society’s life-threatening arguments without question.

Just in case it did not! --Greyfox 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You did not post any questions. Duffer 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry everyone else, I am done feeding this troll.--Greyfox 02:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
But you just don't understand, he's right and the one ultimate authority about everything related to Jehovah's Witnesses, and everyone else that comes across this page is a troll for begging to differ from his authoritative, official opinions.Tommstein 04:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense at all. Duffer 04:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


oh buy the way duffer tommstein here might remember I had something removed because it was POV agaist the watchtower it gave a logical argument which I agreed with but sence we are not here to argue logic I asked for it to be removed I did not do it my self. Take a hint if your right some else will do it for and you won't have these arguments all the time. GREYFOX

The problem is, he's not right. The Witnesses here like to make grandiose, uselessly vague claims pretending everyone else is biased and they're somehow perfectly unbiased NPOV superstars, while ignoring that the history here demonstrates that the opposite is closer to the truth.Tommstein 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


AMEN although he bring up some thing did not know about the 1998 watchtower trying to contradict the reasoning book, unsucessfully though. see meditation below. Which he kinda shot himself in the proverbial foot. Showing that the society flip flops when it is convenient. At first I thought shot myself in the foot though dtbrown show the watchtower quote --Greyfox 23:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've requested mediation from the Mediation Cabal

You can find my request for mediation here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 12 2005 Jehovah's Witnesses. Duffer 11:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

From mediator: Several pages of talk and comment were removed from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 12 2005 Jehovah's Witnessesand move to Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/surviving_armegeddon by SteveMc. Please keep that type of discussion off of the cabal pages. Thanks, SteveMc 00:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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 [3] - 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<Speak|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 *<!--comment-->* 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 ---->[4]

--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.

See also: Criticism of Adolf Hitler

I stole this from the walmart debate--Greyfox 14:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Down boy. - CobaltBlueTony 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


They consider themselves CHRISTians but they are not. Chirstianity is not a buffet style religion you can not just chose some parts of the religion you want to believe in, it must be all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HD 123321 (talk • contribs) .

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.) [5]
    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

  1. 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

  1. --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)[6] [7].
  1. ↑ "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).
  1. ↑ 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[8] [9].
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. [10]
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[11] [12]. 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[13][14][15][16]. The Watchtower has also described those who will survive Armageddon as "meek persons"[17], "those who love God's Word"[18], and those "who dedicate their lives to serve Jehovah and follow through in faithfulness." [19]

  • 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[20][21][22][23]. The Watchtower has also described those who will survive Armageddon as "meek persons"[24], "those who love God's Word"[25], and those "who dedicate their lives to serve Jehovah and follow through in faithfulness." [26] The fate of some, such as small children or the mentally ill remains unknown.[27]

  • 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[28][29][30][31]. The Watchtower has also described those who will survive Armageddon as "meek persons"[32], "those who love God's Word"[33], and those "who dedicate their lives to serve Jehovah and follow through in faithfulness." [34] The fate of some, such as small children or the mentally ill remains unknown.[35]

  • 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. [36]

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

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/h/Talk%7EJehovah%27s_Witnesses_archive_21_e7b5.html"