Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 10

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, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 , 27, 28,29,30,31,32,33,34
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.

A new WikiProject about Jehovah's Witnesses

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, aka WP:JW

george 03:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I invite all to sign in as a participants at the project page, add it to your watchlist, and participate in style, organization, and hierarchy discussions there. Tom Haws 05:04, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

UN, NGO's & JW's

[1]

Nowhere in this letter does it say that the NGO is an ally of the UN nor does it require that the NGO present positive information about the UN. The UN's charter contains many noble ideas which the WBTS is surely in agreement with, they did, however "terminate" their relationship with DPI-NGO. Which brings me to a new point, their relationship was not with the UN body politic but with the DPI, the Depatment of Public Information. The WBTS has stated that the reason for this relationship was to obtain access to UN documents and information not easily obtained by organisations not registered with the UN.

I do not believe it is JW's who have a problem with this, I beleive it is ex-jw's and anti-jw's who have a problem with this and the burden of proof is not whether the WBTS was registered with the UN but whether JW's are "building a growing resistance to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York". Since the WBTS are Jehovah's Witnesses, I find it hard to believe there is a "growing resistance. What is your proof? george 14:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Definition; ally or alliance; an association to further the common interests of the members, to unite or form a connection between : ASSOCIATE, "This organization applied for association with DPI in 1991 and was granted association in 1992." I will change the word to associate if you wish.

Most Jehovah's witness do not know of this (try asking someone at your local kingdom hall, they will say "huh?"), that is what 'secret' means. So of course they have no problem with it. Ignorance is bliss.

[2] I am pasting this information from:

'Hypocrite' Jehovah's Witnesses abandon secret link with UN

Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent Monday October 15, 2001 The Guardian

The Jehovah's Witnesses have hurriedly disaffiliated from the United Nations within days of a Guardian story in which members accused the sect of hypocrisy for supporting an organisation it has repeatedly denounced privately.

After the article last Monday, the organisation's New York based hierarchy pre-empted a UN inquiry by agreeing to dissociate the Witnesses from an organisation which it holds to be the scarlet beast named in the Book of Revelation.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, as the sect is formally known, has 6m members worldwide and 130,000 in Britain. It had been secretly affiliated to the UN as a non-governmental organisation for 10 years.

Recognised organisations are supposed to demonstrate that they share the UN's objectives, but Witnesses are instead told by elders to regard it as "a disgusting thing in the sight of God and his people" for allegedly aspiring to world domination like Babylon the Great, the beast in Revelation.

The sect does not believe in participating in government and initially strove to play down or deny the evidence of the UN's website, which lists it as one of 1,500 affiliated NGOs.

Those bringing the evidence to light were accused of apostacy. Disaffiliated members become known informally, like the rest of humanity, as "bird seed" in line with biblical prophesy of the fate of non-believers, whose corpses will be pecked bare by crows.

Within hours of the article's appearance on the Guardian website on Monday and its posting on a Jehovah's Witnesses bulletin board, more than 14,000 people across the world had read it.

By yesterday there were 353 official posts and 325 message boards discussing the article and its revelations, with Witnesses in the US demanding to see copies of the paper.

"nor does it require that the NGO present positive information about the UN"--George

"Consequently, it is important that you should keep us informed about your organization's information programme as it relates to the United Nations, including sending us issues of your relevant publications."--Paul Hoeffel

George do you honestly believe they submited the publications that said the UN was the discusting thing that causes desolation? Do yourself a favor and read Awake September 8, 1991. :)

"The Jehovah's Witnesses have hurriedly disaffiliated from the United Nations within days of a Guardian story in which members accused the sect of hypocrisy for supporting an organisation it has repeatedly denounced privately.

After the article last Monday, the organisation's New York based hierarchy pre-empted a UN inquiry by agreeing to dissociate the Witnesses from an organisation which it holds to be the scarlet beast named in the Book of Revelation."

Yes the UN was going to investigate the WBTS and dissociate them any ways.

Try looking up any Jehovah's witness web forum and see if the witnesses are praising the WBTS for being a UN NGO secretly and then trying to cover it up. You say;

"I beleive it is ex-jw's and anti-jw's who have a problem with this"--George

That's a trick statement because I already told you that you would be disfellowshiped if you question the WBTS. Do you really need to see the evidence that being a UN NGO is apostasy from Jehovah? Shall we continue to live a lie?

Image:Site1037.jpg

"their relationship was not with the UN body politic but with the DPI, the Depatment of Public Information"--George

Support of the UN charter is not "politic"? Secondly can they join the YMCA just to use there work out equipment?

"The WBTS has stated that the reason for this relationship was to obtain access to UN documents and information not easily obtained by organisations not registered with the UN."--George

That is what they told us but remember the good old theocratic warfare strategy. Actually I have documented there use of the UN NGO association to access governmental hearings. [3] [4][5]

Here is the "politic" policy of the UN NGOs which the WTBS used. [6]

Library resourses the WT could have used instead of the main Dag Hammarskjold library. [7]

Another way to get the information. [8]

...etc ad infinitum

Polemotheos January 25, 2005

Polemotheos - The information you are presenting more appropriately belongs in the Critical Views of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses' Organisation) Wiki article. There is a link to this page at the bottom of the JW main article under the Links Critical of the Group subheading. BTW, it would be a courtesy if you would date your postings to the talk page. --DannyMuse 16:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion but notice it says; "Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses' Organisation)" I am documenting Jehovah's witness oposition to the WBTS. And possibly there apostasy in the eyes of an average witness and any average person. Lest I mention Jehovah. Polemotheos 25 Jan 2005

Then rename the page and move it. then I won't feel the need to challenge what you include and we will all be happy.

george 18:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses Critical of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

Hello I have answered all questions and proved all data to be valid and true. This is a "Jehovah's witness" wiki page and therefore all Jehovah's witness views need to have say. Including those that separate or are critical of the WTBS. Otherwise this wiki page on Jehovah's witnesses is grossly inacurate and biased. If the disenting view of thousands of Jehovah's witnesses continues to be earased we will need to escalate this issue with the wiki police. Polemotheos Jan 27, 2005


Removed again. This information is not substantable other than the Watchtower Society made a faux pas. If no information showing JW's have a problem with this situation can be produced then you cannot list it as "JW's critcal of the WBTS", not to mention you have a page designated for you to put this kind of polemic on. george 12:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, can you (Polemotheos) speak for 'thousands of Jehovah's witnesses?' The text removed takes a few factual statements and adds a great deal of supposition and assumption that are extrapolated from relatively little hard information. It should be very obvious that it does not belong in this Wikipedia article. -- uberpenguin 15:32, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that on at least two occasions Polemotheos has added images which are in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy: "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"
BTW, who are the "wiki police"? --DannyMuse 17:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
They are us.  :-) So watch out. But seriously, this fellow's point of view should not be censored. We are watching these articles not to protect them against insertion of unfavorable points of view, but to help guide their improvement. Let's encourage him a little more to develop his thoughts here on the talk page so we can incorporate any significant items in the article. And as alwys, let's be kind to each other. Tom H. 18:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Tom, you know I always appreciate your suggestions and balanced way of dealing with things. And your sense of humor has on more than one occasion helped defuse a tense situation. But I have a bit of a problem with your comment above. As you yourself wrote, it is this "fellow's point of view" that is problematic. As George has pointed out, he has made strong assertions without any proof. I personally have checked out some of the links he has referenced and most of them are totally irrelevant to the point he claims to be making in his edits. For example, one link referenced a hearing before the Official Committee Hansard of the Commonwealth of Australia where two representatives from the Austrialian WTB&TS made an appeal for religious freedom(s) (as if that's a bad thing). This is supposedly in support of his assertions that "There is growing resistance to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York by Jehovah's witnesses themselves." JW's are all for freedom of religion. Just as the apostles did in the first century, so have JW's often utilized any legal means to protect their religious freedoms. That's no secret, in fact it is something of which we are very proud.
He repeatedly makes comments about some "secret association with the United Nations." While the NGO association of the WTB&TS with the UN in the past may not be widely known, it's hardly a secret.
Also, as I've pointed out before, he has more than once inserted copyright material in violation of WP's copyright policy. Frankly, the guy's writings are largely paranoid, incoherent ramblings. It's not as if Polemotheos will engage in reasonable dialogue with the rest of the contributors. --DannyMuse 18:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's review:

  1. It is the opinion of Polemotheos that the WTB&TS should not have been associated with the UN DPI/NGO section.
  2. As of 9 October 2001, the WTB&TS was officialy disassociated from the UN at the request of the WTB&TS.

It would appear that he is "vindicated". So what's the problem or controversy? The "contributions" of Polemotheos don't add up on many levels. It makes me wonder, "Who really has the hidden agenda?" At the very least, his writings most certainly are NOT presented in an encyclopedic manner appropriate to Wikipedia. --DannyMuse 18:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right on both contributions. Tom H. 18:54, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I only put two images on wikimedia. One of the images I put on the wikimedia is not copyright. It is just an email from the UN Libruary staff which George keeps deleting. Maybe he does that because the email proves the WTBS was using the theocratic warfare stategy (lying) on us to keep face. Everything the WTBS says regarding there UN NGO affiliation is in conflict with all verifiable data.

Thank you for pointing out the copyright issue with the “Babylon the Great” riding the back of the Wild Beast (United Nations) [9] 1963. I did not realize copyrights are held so long. It would be easy to find a similar picture without copyright issues. "Babylon the Great" is false religion according to Jehovah's witnesses. In the bible they are riding on the back of the wild beast which they hold is the United Nations. The June 1, 1991 Watchtower has called the worlds religions 'spiritual drunkards' for supporting the United Nations Charter and being associated with it. This is why the news has reported the hypocricy. [10]

Here is hundreds of Jehovah's witness views. [11] Many of them are elders, pioneers, and publishers. If you look to the left you will see the "open letters" that have been sent to thousands of kingdom halls and many branch offices. Written by Jehovah's witnesses for Jehovah's witnesses.

If the WTBS UN affair was not 'secret' then why would they suddenly separate only after the British news reported it? How many Jehovah's witnesses knew of this affair while it was happening? How many know of it now?

One of you say; "link referenced a hearing before the Official Committee Hansard of the Commonwealth of Australia where two representatives from the Austrialian WTB&TS made an appeal for religious freedom(s) (as if that's a bad thing). This is supposedly in support of his assertions that "There is growing resistance to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York by Jehovah's witnesses themselves.""

If any thing this is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. Contrary to what is said (like some stick man) the context said "The WBTS used it's UN NGO association to access committee hearings were they could curry favor from the governments of the world." Notice everyone at that committee hearing is either representing a government or is a UN NGO. The point is this proves the WTBS used there UN NGO status for something other then what they told us. They told us they had to be an NGO to get a libruary card which the UN Libraury says is not true. Because the WTBS has not been forth right with this issue many Jehovah's witnesses has simply left altogether. Others remain and ask for accountablity and truth.

Why does it matter whether or not we lie to each other? Why does it matter that we teach being no part of the world and then secretly have an alliance with the UN? Many Jehovah's witnesses believe we must worship with spirit and truth. Truth NOT lies.

All the evidence and links I have supplied are just a small sample. If you continue to question any point I make do it straight forward. Explicitly state it and I will show you more evidence for that point. Peace and love, Polemotheos January 27, 2005

OK, that's fair. Let's try discussing it in the spirit of peace and love. Please answer these questions:
  1. When, where, to whom and under what circumstances did the WTB&TS say that "they had to be an NGO to get a [UN] libruary card"?
  2. I carefully read the entire transcript of the hearing before the Official Committee Hansard of the Commonwealth of Australia (OCHCA) and respectfully disagree with your assessment of the significance of that hearing. Contrary to trying "to curry favor" from the government, the two representatives from the Austrialian WTB&TS were testifying regarding issues of religious freedom(s) in Australia and globally, particularly concerning France, Singapore and Russia. In what way is standing up for your rights using legal means a bad thing? The apostle Paul made use of his Roman citizenship to advantage. Did that make him an "apostate"? I don't think so.
  3. I was most certainly not trying to misrepresent anything that you said or wrote. You did write that "There is growing resistance to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York by Jehovah's witnesses themselves." You then wrote several different things, of which the link to the OCHCA hearing was just one. My point then and my question now is this: how do any of those things support of prove that assertion?
I look forward to your answers! --DannyMuse 08:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is another webforum discussing Jehovah's witnesses views of the UN NGO lies [12] Polemtheos Jan 27, 2005 ps try doing a web search.

Polemtheos, I went to one of the links you provided for "evidence" of the WTB&TS lies and was immediately greeted with this lovely referral link:
Learn about the Wtbts and the U.N. -http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69
Needless to say, the web address alone was enough for me to avoid wasting my time going there. Please only include links of an academic or scholarly nature appropriate to the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia. Thanks! --DannyMuse 08:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to be deceptive? Or have you just acidently mixed up the links? http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/ did not have the link you suggest it has. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/21575/1.ashx did have that dead link. None the less ignore the http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/21575/1.ashx this link because the http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/ link is evidence enough.

1. here is the WTBS letter [13] saying they did it to get libruary access. You should read this open letter to answer all your questions and direct you to pertainent evidence. [14]

2. "to curry favor" is a term I borrowed I believe from the wt 1991. Did you read it? I can change that express or just remove it. It does not matter to me.

3. "There is growing resistance to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York by Jehovah's witnesses themselves." Maybe I can remove the "growing" part and we would all be happy. Then I don't have to prove growth by statistics.

That would be a step in the right direction. However, you still need to be able to prove your statements with independently verifiable sources. That's in keeping with Wikipedia's cite your sources policy. --DannyMuse 17:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/ngo-un/rest-un/2001/1030j.htm DannyMuse obviously does not want you to read. Because he deleted it. As if I would forget what I said. I said Global policy says everything I have said. I was wondering if global policy was uninformed as I am? Please dont delete this again it is important evidence.

Polemotheos jan 28, 2005

Polemotheos, Yes, I did mix up the links. And for that I apologize. I had several windows open and apparently pasted in the wrong web address. But you knew that the link I referenced was real as you immediately supplied the correct one. I made a mistake. I resent your accusation that I was trying to be deceptive. Your true colors are becoming readily apparent. I'm trying to work with you here, but your adversarial tone makes it very difficult to even want to.
I did NOT intentionally delete your other link as you stated. Last night you and I were both making edits to this page at the same time and WP dumped as a result of an edit conflict. I lost my own edits as well and had to re-type them. It happens. Blame WP's software. --DannyMuse 16:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Remember Korah? Aaron's rod budded. - Numbers 17:8 (see also w02 8/1 pp. 10-12 para. 8-22) --DannyMuse 16:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the mix up. I suspect that you would not use the theocratic warfare strategy on me. See what happens when your allowed to lie to your own brother. We can hardly even trust each other. Yes I remember Korah but I am not going to hide liars from retrebution. Otherwise I would be guilty of there lies. You may enjoy these scriptures;

(John 8:44)"YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]."

(James 3:14-15)"...do not be bragging and lying against the truth."

(Colossians 3:9)"Do not be lying to one another..."

(1 John 2:21)"...no lie originates with the truth."

(Revelation 21:27)"But anything not sacred and anyone that carries on a disgusting thing and a lie will in no way enter into it; only those written in the Lamb’s scroll of life [will]."


This [15] is a form letter, not a compilation of personal letters by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not proof that hundreds of JW's are resisting the WBTS.
I would add that it is an UNSIGNED letter. As Bob Marley said, "Stand up for your rights." If people want to speak out they shouldn't hide their identities. Even Korah didn't do that. --DannyMuse 18:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
According to the Guardian article (which initially I read three years ago) the WBTS withdrew their membership after many JW's expresssed their disapproval, not before. Therefore the action seems to be one of recognition of their mistake. I find it hard to believe that so many JW's would be part of a growing resistance if action was taken as quickly as it was. The WBTS has admitted its' fallibility in the past and this may be another incident. Fo course I feel they were mistaken in this endeavor, but that does nor make me want to become part of some "reisitance" movement. I personally know of no one who is part of a "resistance" movement.
george 17:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"WT says NGO questioners 'ignorant or malicious'?" http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/viewtopic.php?t=599 This is just one thread of many. 111 replies 4093 views. Just to inform you every witness on this discussion board views lying as wrong. And they all view the UN NGO affair as hypocrisy of the highest caliber.

I already removed the word "growing". Maybe the word "resistance" can be changed as well to maybe something that better describes the situation. Civil disobedience? Any way that letter that you read that was sent to thousands of witnesses does indeed prove "resistance" by many witnesses. It was a group effort to send out many of those letters and to obtain many of the addresses. Why would that count as resistance or civil disobedience? The simiple fact is any that had a part in this the WTBS wants to disfellowship. If you had there personal information you would probably do the same. That would be a good definition of resistance. Putting loss of friends and family at risk to spread the truth.

How does one "letter ... that was sent to thousands of witnesses ... prove "resistance" by many witnesses."? Where's the logic in that?!? --DannyMuse 19:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Polemotheos, you claim you are my "brother" but you don't treat me like one. Remember, Jesus said, "By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves." (John 13:35).
BTW, Sarai (Sarah) could say that she was Abram's (Abraham) sister because she really was his half sister. (Genesis 20:12) --DannyMuse 18:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, brethren. This is unacceptable. What shall we do here?

  • I could join the discussion.
  • I could take the baton from Danny Muse and George m.
  • I could discuss this issue via e-mail with Polemotheos.

Thanks for all your efforts. Tom H. 19:11, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tom do what you believe is just to reach the wiki goals of being non-biased. I don't believe my brothers here want to see a disenting view of the WTBS even though I were to have evidence running out of our ears.

DannyMuse an important part of showing love is telling the truth even to those that do not want hear it. Danny notice that Sarah and Abraham were lying to protect Abrahams life from being killed by the Egyptians. You will notice every instance of lying that was acceptable is where people are threatened of death. For example if the Nazi wants to know were you live I will say who is Danny? (imagine I know you well). This to protect your life. But take notice lying to keep face is not supported by the scriptures. The WTBS has lied to keep face not to protect people from death. Not all instances of lying is acceptable to perserve life. For example is a Nazi says sign this paper and I will let you go. Well you can sign but lie and this would be wrong especially if it has to do with neutrality and Jehovah.

Peace and love, Polemotheos 19:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lets imagine for a second that I commit fornication. Now you Danny and George and Tim say that is hypocritical of me to do so and at the same time teach that it is wrong. Well because of your constant questioning I stop fornicating. But I never admit to fornicating. I say well I was just visiting a friend who happened to be the libruarian. But because you three keep questioning me I say you questioners are either 'ignorant or malicious' you should just trust your brother. Now I am an elder, you have seen the evidence of my fornication. You even keep talking so much about my unrepentent sin I have all three of you disfellowshiped.

Pray about it. peace and love, mars Polemotheos 20:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this turned into a religious discussion; we are supposed to be working out why you feel that your statements suggesting "thousands of JWs" are resisting the legal entity of WBTS because of hypocrisy. In my humble opinion, what you have given so far as proof of this simply confirms the WBTS' affiliation with the UN, not that it has caused a rift in the organization and adherents to the religion. Asserting that 'more people would be upset if they knew' is also not adequate reason for adding it to Wikipedia. Perhaps the factual statement that the WBTS has had an affiliation with the UN would be acceptable to add, but not that said affiliation has caused thousands of JWs to question the WBTS. -- uberpenguin 00:16, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

It turned into a religious discussion because DannyMuse was trying to establishing the Theocratic Warfare Strategy as supported by the bible by his elusion to Sarah and Abraham lying to perserve Abrahams life.

Actually, now you Polemotheos are not being accurate. That is NOT what I said. You brought up the Theocratic Warfare Strategy, not I. I merely pointed out what you overlooked, Sarai (Sarah) could say that she was Abram's (Abraham) sister because she really was his half sister, (Genesis 20:12). Look it up. Please don't attribute false motives to me or others. It only alienates us. --DannyMuse 07:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have showed you 200 Jehovah's witnesses on http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/ here is another with 160 members http://pathways-online.com/ Those are just two of many forums and are very pro-JW but not PR for the WTBTS. It is understood that when a minority opinion develops on a particular point within such a group, it should be presented along with the opinion of the majority. This prevents an encyclopeadia from being biased.

I have not suggested puting "thousands of JWs" in the artical so why would I need to prove it? Here is a letter that proves elder disention of WTBTS actions. [16] (protecting child molesters)

Tell me, what is 360 / 6*10^6? I don't think that 360 persons who for one reason or another disagree with the WBTS is adequate justification for adding the information you are endorsing. It is an utterly insigificant fraction of people compared to the number of JWs who agree with the WBTS' actions. This information belongs on a page about critical opinions of JWs, not on the general page since this is not a generally or even significantly held belief. I can find you 360 people on the Internet who will vehemently defend just about any idea. There is a difference between a minority and an insignificant fraction. What kind of sanity would there be in Wikipedia if we included in the article on Catholocism the dissenting views of every group comprising 8*10^-7 % of Catholic adherants? I respect your opinions critical of the WBTS, but they are not share by the overwhelming majority of JWs and therefore do not belong in this article. -- uberpenguin 22:59, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

watchtower.ca

External Link I restored the external link to archive/collection site Watchtower.ca; since this had been added/discussed/accepted before, can I assume that we don't need to start the discussion all over again? Note: I did not label it as "Opposing" since it is entirely a collection of quotes from Watchtower Society; labelling Watchtower's own quotes as "Opposing" is a non sequitor. (Unsigned)(PM Jan 6, 2005)


I have never had a problem with the inclusion of the watchtower.ca link being listed on the page, until today when I noticed am argument by someone in favor of it was left as a hidden message on the page it reads as follows:


  • Watchtower.ca: A collection of Watchtower quotes on various topics. NOTE: This site is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Some have suggested this site is dishonest or intended to be biased against the Watchtower Society; others fail to see how quoting from Society publications, without commentary or editorial, could be anything other than fair.
--The quoted text of the "disclaimer" regarding this website was directly copied from the site itself. It is interesting to note the name of the website considering that it has no legal affiliation with the WTB&TS. Why would they do that? (Matthew 7:15) --DannyMuse 07:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) Why do people keep deleting this link to this resource? And why do people keep mislabelling it as "Opposing Views"??? It only have **Watchtower** Quotes, how could the Watchtower present an opposing view? ANSWER TO DannyMuse: Because it is a collection of quotes from the Watchtower society, that is why they do that. What do you want it to be called, www.CatholicChurch.com??? Now *THAT* would be dishonest, for this particular site. ;) Furthermore, the word Watchotwer existed in the english lexicon long before the Watchtower Society existed, therefore there is no legitimate claim to proprietary use solely by Watchtower (PM) Jan 6, 2005 --

Therefore I removed the link and notes and moved them here, then I left a message of my own:

-- Since "quoting from Society publications, without commentary or editorial" does not help in any way as an encyclopedic reference, I see no reason why the watchtower.ca link should be in the article anywhere. The Society's website is linked and many articles are avaible for reference there. --

I also encouraged the anon to discuss the topic here.

george 14:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Response to George M: I *ALREADY* put something here on discuss, look up.... look WAY up, at the VERY TOP of this page. How could you have missed this? My apologies if I should have put it at the bottom, I am still learning wiki procedures. But seriously, it is the first thing you see when the page loads.

Let's look at the facts: Watchtower.ca is a collection of quotes from the Watchtower Society; nothing more, nothing less. (I ask you to prove otherwise, if that is your claim). Certain people here keep labelling that site as "a source to be used by opposers" but it is unclear HOW direct quotes from our Watchtower Society's own publications could do this, and quite frankly it is an unproven, judgemental, hurtful statement; that is why I added the note to point out the non-sequitor (made by DannyM IIFC). This website was discussed and added over a month ago, but I guess you forgot about that, my friend. Finally, if a topical, one might even say, encyclopedic, NPOV collection of quotes from the Watchtower Society is not appropriate to be linked from here (as a source of additional factual information about Witness beliefs, as published by the Society, and therefore A BETTER SOURCE OF INFO than this wiki, because it is entirely from PRIMARY SOURCES, then I sincerely, and in the spirit of wiki, question your POV. People come to Wiki to learn about Witness beliefs, in a fair and factual NPOV manner, but then you object to them actually learning, "straight from the horses mouth", what Watchtower has said on many and various topics. Really, I don't understand your logic. Please elaborate.

Also, could you be more specific about what you found offensive in my hidden note? It was supposed to be tonge-in-cheek, that is what the ":)" meant, and was a response to an unfounded accusation from DannyM that the site was for "opposers". Editing whatever you found offense would have been a reasonable response. - 17:06, 6 Jan 2005 69.197.198.116 (Unsigned)

To 69.197.198.116 (Unsigned), I was in no way offended by your remarks, I just found them to be less than encyclopedic. I stated that I really had no problem with the link but that your comments actually made me realize watchtower.ca was superfluous in this context. I am sorry if I came across as offended.george 00:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh please, let's cut the rhetoric. It's obvious from even a cursory perusal of the site that the quotes highlighted on watchtower.ca are carefully selected to cast an unfavorable light on the WTB&TS. To say otherwise is just plain dishonest. Most of them are old, some very old. One of the first I came across was dated 1882 yet it is "presented" as if it something that JWs currently teach. Balancing, current quotes are "conveniently" not referenced. We all know that some of the beliefs of JWs have changed over the years. If you don't like that join a religion that never changes.
Secondly, it's not hard to figure out that the reason the site is named watchtower.ca is to give the unwary and unsuspecting the impression that it might be somehow connected with the WTB&TS. The webpage even has the WT logo! Nevertheless, the site does contain the disclaimer:
NOTE: This site is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
I put the following hidden text in to warn editing JWs about the nature of this site:
The quoted text of the "disclaimer" regarding this website was directly copied from the site itself. It is interesting to note the name of the website considering that it has no legal affiliation with the WTB&TS. Why would they do that? (Matthew 7:15) --DannyMuse 07:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If anyone finds those statements or question offensive, I suggest they ask themselves why. In the meantime, I recommend we restore the link as:
  • Watchtower.ca: A collection of Watchtower quotes on various topics. NOTE: This site is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
placed under External Links and leave it at that. --DannyMuse 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't the anon who added it this last time around, although I did add it when I did the edits that George later reverted. I think it's a very useful site for showing the history of the Witnesses and some of the oddities of the organization that newer members often aren't aware of. I am open to other suggestions, however.

I do think that given how much controversy the Witnesses generate, it's only fair to have some oppositional links in the external section. I would suggest the following two (and for the record, I don't agree with CARM, I'm merely trying to represent all viewpoint here):

I would strongly object to the CARM site being included as it obviously is seriously lacking credibility. Much of the writings are in the first person and show a gross lack of objectivity. --DannyMuse 02:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Which site are you objecting to, CARM or BeyondJW? The WTS official site is not remotely objective either. The point of the resources section is to include a balanced collection of links. --Danglick 23:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is the CARM site I object to for the reasons stated above (sorry for not being more clear.). However if those objections fit the BeyondJW site I would object for the same reasons (I did not check that one out). Of course the WTB&TS official sites are "not remotely objective". But this site IS about JWs! I clearly understand your position that it should "include a balanced collection of links." That's fine, just as long as they meet some type of standard of credibility. The CARM site is just plain amateurish. --DannyMuse 04:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


  • have left the Witnesses
  • are thinking of leaving
  • have been forced to leave
  • are thinking of joining
Can anyone, for "balance", direct us to websites for people that have left or are thinking of leaving or have been forced to leave the:
There is not a similar cite included on the WP Main Article page for any of those religions, so why should such a cite be included here for JWs? There is no good reason. Intolerance and prejudice are ugly things and are inconsistent with Wikipedia's purpose and intent. Pejorative language and links to cites that incite malicious propoganda certainly have no place on the web pages of the religions mentioned above nor should they be included as part of this article! --DannyMuse 08:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally, for balance, an independent pro-JW apologetics site as well:

I've also gone ahead and added an academic page from the University of Virginia, which I think should be pretty non-controversial.

--Danglick 01:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whatever ends up being included should be based on some type of standard for credibility. There are tons of sites by disgruntled individuals that just want to rant. That is not helpful. (If anyone wants to go there, let 'em Google.) Also, I would suggest grouping whatever sites make the grade as "Links Critical of the Group" under the "External Links" section. I found this title on the Freedom of Mind page for Jehovah's Witnesses. This should be less objectionable than "Opposing views". --DannyMuse 02:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)