Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 13

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.

Contents

Some notes

I think the main article "Jehovah's Witnesses" needs a cleanup. I think that the language as well as the way of writing the information is not tidy at the moment. I would rather like to see that new stuff on the doctrines, organization etc. is posted on some of the applicable articles.

I would like to ask someone to post a picture of Joseph Franklin Rutherford.

I would like to say that I and Mr. Olsen is one and the same. Sometimes not logged in, I have been supported by some others, writing Family Olsen.

Summer Song

I started the category Jehovah'ss Witnesses people. I hope for help in putting names in the caterory.

Yours, Summer Song

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 11:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses
Throughout their history, many have found the doctrines, beliefs, and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses controversial. Responses have included mob action; government oppression, including being targeted in the Holocaust and widespread criticism from Christians of other denominations. Such criticism has become an entire genre with the advent of the Web. Some Christians who are not Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider them to be a Christian organization because of the significant differences in beliefs. Some go so far as to label the organization as a heretical sect and/or cult. Another modern criticism is that by refusing blood transfusions not only for themselves but also for their minor children, Jehovah Witnesses put the lives of others in jeopardy and thus their creeds do not respect public order.
References:


To Willmcw: This whole "cult" issue was addressed here at length earlier this year. I encourage you to review the thread in detail at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 9. For your convenience I'll repeat some of the more salient points here now:

Interestingly, the website, Religious Movements: Jehovah's Witnesses (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Jwitness.html), had this to say about cults:
Cult or Sect: Negative sentiments are typically implied when the concepts "cult" and "sect" are employed in popular discourse. Since the Religious Movements Homepage seeks to promote religious tolerance and appreciation of the positive benefits of pluralism and religious diversity in human cultures, we encourage the use of alternative concepts that do not carry implicit negative stereotypes. For a more detailed discussion of both scholarly and popular usage of the concepts "cult" and "sect," please visit our Conceptualizing "Cult" and "Sect" page, where you will find additional links to related issues. (Emphasis added)
Also, Timothy Miller, of the University of Kansas, states in his essay, Religious Movements in the United States: An Informal Introduction:
“Cults” are usually defined by anticultists by lists of attributes they possess: they have charismatic leaders, they want your money, they demand high levels of involvement, they expect members to conform to certain behavioral patterns, and so forth. But such attributes are perfectly capable of belonging to groups that few would consider “cultic”—Catholic religious orders, for example, or many evangelical Protestant churches. If the term does not enable us to distinguish between a pathological group and a legitimate one, then it has no real value. It is the religious equivalent of “nigger”— it conveys disdain and prejudice without having any valuable content.
Thus academic students of nonmainstream religions generally quit using “cult” as a descriptive term. (Emphasis added)

Food for thought! :) --DannyMuse 12:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)--DannyMuse 06:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me explain better. This chunk of text that I posted above will soon be deleted from the other article. I do not know enough about the Jehovah's Witnesses to evaluate the truth or relevance of the material in order to merge it or handle it properly. Instead, I am dumping it here for editors like yourself who are knowledgeable about the topic to chew on and spit out, or otherwise treat appropriately. While academic students might not use the term "cult", that does not restrict encyclopedia editors. The term has been applied to the JW by cult researchers, rightly or wrongly. Anyway, this is the end of my involvement. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Willmcw, Thanks for the explanation. --DannyMuse 06:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


CULT? EXCOMMUNICATION?

The word "cult" has both neutral and negative meanings. The challenge in an encyclopedic text on a religious subject is to avoid using deprecating language when informing readers of the beliefs of various religious faiths. The use of the word "cult" in 'talk' or an article about Jehovah's Witnesses is invariably used in the negative sense, and it is used so loosely and in such a discriminatory way,(i.e. I don't see the same criteria for 'cult' status being applied so generously to the beliefs of other denominations!) that the authors of the text belie their own prejudices, misconceptions and antipathy.
For example, one contributor cites the practice of disfellowshipping as being one of the criteria for classing the religion as an oppressive cult, and yet we know that many religions practice disfellowshipping e.g. Mormons; Roman Catholics (excommunication); Eastern Orthodox Church (anathema); Islam; and Judaism, and yet we do not see those religions described as cults!
Furthermore, the act of 'disfellowshipping', in one form or another,is normal for any group in society which wishes to preserve its identity.

Do not businesses expel employees found guilty of theft? Do not families 'disown' a seriously wayward member who persistently brings disrepute on the family name? Does not society ostracise those who incorrigibly behave anti-socially?

So why the hang-up about the same practice amongst Jehovah's Witnesses? It just shows we are normal, and that we are determined to preserve, to the extent possible, the holiness of the Christian way.(Scriptures available on request!).

In summary: We could go on forever debating about words, but this is best avoided(1 Tim 6:4,5). Yes, we could list the critisms against Jehovah's Witnesses, but, to be fair, against each criticism we should put the witness view. If critics want to take it further, that is up to them. So let the opposers oppose...on their own pages! The Wikipedia section on Jehovah's Witnesses is not meant to be a discussion page on the tenets of of the Witnesses, simply an overview of the religion and their beliefs and practices etc. If people want to know more, then they should refer to other sources, including, perhaps (may I even suggest it?)to their local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses? JW-somewhere 00:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent "Sedition" edits

An anon editor has been very determined in efforts to add negative information about JW's. While I have tried to work with this person in good faith there has been no discussion of the information.

Here is what I have gotten from WT pubs relating to the subject. If anything is incorrect, I encourage our anon to please list what and why and show this by references.

w50 7/15 p. 217
After nine months in the penitentiary bail was granted them on March 21, 1919, and they were released. Later the Appeal Court reversed the judgment against them, and in 1920 the indictment against them was disposed of. Thus they were completely exonerated as innocent of the malicious charges of the enemy. (emphasis mine)
Isaiah's Prophecy-2 chap. 22 p. 330
These brothers were unjustly imprisoned for nine months. Finally, in the spring of 1919, they were freed, and later all charges against them were dropped.
w00 1/1 p. 8
But in 1919, these officers were released, enabling them to continue their ministry. Later, they were fully exonerated.
Footnote w99 2/1 p. 17
Judge Manton, a Roman Catholic who had refused to release the Bible Students on bail, was later imprisoned himself, having been convicted of accepting bribes.
Is this the 'minor legal' problem which the anon editor keeps referring? George
To George M above. Your first claim "An anon editor has been very determined in efforts to add negative information about JW's" is just an attempt by you to poison the well before you have said anything at all. Negative information or not, is no reason to deny the truth. This site is about balanced information, not a PR site for positive indoctrination of Watch Tower doctrines and its rewrites of history. You then go on and quote exclusively from the very source that would be the most biased, deceitful and subjective of all, the very Watch Tower organisation being exposed as seditious, as if this is somehow supposed to fool us into thinking it's an objective or reasonable source. One only has to read their older literature to see how deceitfully specious they are with the truth, especially with dates such as 1799, 1874, 1878, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, and 1994 rewritten after the affect in later literature to supposedly mean something completely different from what they actually did mean when they were published, or omitted completely as non-existence in their history, and just as they have done with this case against them, typically portrayed as "persecution", forgetting it was their own persecution of Christendom and bitter death and anarchy prophecies that got them in the mess in the first place.
George M, you need to learn to get your information from both sides of any issues, especially when it involves the Watch Tower Society. I have read the final pages of the court transcripts some years back and they can be obtained with some effort. You can start by reading an article about the case here. I suggest you learn to be a little quicker to get information and slower on reacting in typical knee jerk action, like zapping any text on pages just because it offends your masters at the WT headquarters, and what you have chosen to believe as "truth©" from them. If you can get proof that they were exonerated of sedition charges please do, (and that means from a court source, not a Watch Tower propaganda one) Until then, I will re-enter your misguided vandalism and hope you can learn to be a bit more objective, and less fundamentalist.
PS. I see you could not resist an ad hominem attack on the Judge, as if that has anything to do with the facts. If one were to do the same about all the hypocrites, paedophiles, and false prophet JWs in the Kingdom Halls and Watch Tower headquarters, you I’m sure, would be the first to tell us all how poisoned and irrelevant those things are to a diffrent subject being discussed. Pleased learn to be less manipulative and stick to the facts George—posted 7th April 2005


I see you brought no evidence to this discussion just more dirt throwing. Simply stating that JW's are unreliable as a source about Jehvoah's Witnesses is useless. Please let us know why you can state that JW's are lying about these men being exhonerated and quit trying to make me look bad instead.George 21:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
George, You cannot quote the WT about the WT and actually believe you are being objective! If you make a claim you have to give some objective external evidence, not just the WT says so, so it must be true. And, it was about a legal court case, not just some WT doctrine. Regardless of what the WT says; they give no proof, just a claim like so many others that fall apart when examined in detail. What next? The WT never said Armageddon would come in 1914, let's not bother to read their literature to find out what they really said? You are not being objective. If you want to prove a point, then quote the court transcript, not the WT's modern PR "persecuted martyr" self portrayal.—posted 9th March 2005
To the anon editor: You don't make your case very well by justifying your edits with a string of attacks against George M and against the Watchtower Society that amount to little more than name calling. What's more, the site you quote is hardly unbiased either, so what makes it any more valid than the Watchtower? Until you justify your edits without the heated accusation and self-righteousness (not to mention the off-topic tangent), they will continue to be reverted. -- uberpenguin 22:46, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
Uberpenguin, I have not made a "string of attacks against George M" so you can knock that red herring on the head. Pointing out George's gross subjectivity in so-called evidence by quoting the WT about the WT, is not "attacking him", it's attacking his reasoning. I note none of you have given any objective proof of the alleged "exoneration", but that seems ok, as long as the WT says so with no evidence so it must be true eh? I have removed the offending section, so it says neither one way nor the other, so I hope this will end the issue.—posted 9th March 2005
I noticed that the freeminds website left out the fact that the Wt claims the men were cleared of all charges in 1920. (See my earlier post of WT comments on the subject) The info presented by the FM website doesn't address the issue.George 01:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sedition 2.0

Anon calls (him?)self "revertng vandalism" by consistently inserting information while refusing to defend its' inclusion. Can this person be blocked? I don't want to ask for protection.

George M above, as for your comment “inserting information while refusing to defend its' inclusion” I have given a lengthy reply to you, but you choose to ignore this, and refuse to given any evidence yourself! I find your attitude abhorrent and disgusting trying to ban free speech and discussion. George M you are really showing what a fundamentalist oppressor you are, and how grossly lacking in any Christian tolerance or freedoms you claim to represent. I have removed the controversial section, and hope you will learn to stop being such and oppressive bigoted fundamentalist. You are a typical example of why people are tuned off God when they see your banning, censoring and threatening behaviour of any information that you don't like. If you had counter information, then give it, and it can be discussed openly and freely, but no, you prefer oppressive censorship and threats. No wonder so many are tuned off your religion and God, shame on you.
I'll put this bluntly. Come off it. You have ranted quite enough about objectivity but you yourself have only posted one source that is just as biased as you claim the Watchtower is. Thank you for removing the text, please don't hesitate to bring the information back for discussion when you have better reason to justify its inclusion. Side point: if the powers that be (and some of them watch this article) felt that we were out of line, they would certainly add comments here. -- uberpenguin 01:20, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Could I help out here? I will go review the article activity to see what is the content in question. Thanks to all of you for doing your best to remain civil. Tom Haws 02:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I reviewed this section of the article. I can tell that it is a little odd in style, and it is quite lengthy. But unfortunately the issues at hand here were not immediately clear to me. Can somebody summarize briefly again what the core dispute is about? Also, can you revise the language and structure to look more like other articles? Tom Haws 14:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, the dispute was about whether the memebers of the governing body were exhonerated of all charges relating to sedition cahrges brought against them in 1918. They were. This person had stated in the polemic now in the article that they had not been and that the WT society had lied by saying that they were. I posted comments from wt articles disputing his claim. All he can come up with is a website critical of JW's which does not address the fact that the wt claimed the reversal of the charges came in 1920. The only dates with reference to this legal matter were 1917-1919. I have refrained from deleting the entire section in an attempt to be fair, even though the whole thing is obviously a biased attack on JW's and not an actual encyclopedic entry. By your statements we can see that the reason for its existence is a bit murky (unless, of course, you take into consideration the obvious vehemence this person is excreting). George 16:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

George, your assessment of the difficulty of the section in question is correct. I think it is good of you to seek to include the editor in question. I wish we could get that editor to clean up after himself. As to the dispute, would it not satisfy both parties if you said merely, "Some researchers/JW critics (reference if possible) dispute the assertion of the Watchtower Society that all members of the governing body were exonerated." Tom Haws 18:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I cannot go along with that Tom because they were cleared of the charges. The dispute is therefore irrelevant. George 22:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can I put in my two cents worth? As I read the discussion, the anonymous post was appearing to point out that if someone is in a court case, then the most objective valued comments must come from that case, not the defendant. It's rather silly to suggest the accused is the most objective, especially when they only quote themselves in their own religious literature. The Freeminds article points out some valid information in the other perspective, but as pointed out, the transcript would be the best source, not the Watchtower, or critics of it, but the actual court evidence, and I have seen none given here from JWs, except their own literature, which by default is not objective, or from the transcript. This is problematic as so much of the Watchtower's literature runs the same circular argument, "we are the one and only true religion", "why?", "because it says so in the Watchtower magazine", "but who wrote the magazine?", "Well, we did, but that's not the point. . ." (You get the picture). This is circular reasoning, and about as flawed an argument as a murderer on trial defending himself (or herself) and saying, "I'm innocent as this document says so", but who wrote the document? "I did" replies the murderer! So, it is hardly a valid argument. It would only stand if it were to quote a valid objective external source, like a court transcript. But there is none of that in the Watchtower's claims, which is very typical in their writing style and methodology and their common use of logical fallacies to bias the undiscerning reader in their favor.
On another note, it is important to show why many did not like the Witnesses in the early 20th century, and it was not due to some unnatural religious persecution, as the JWs desire all to view it as. Much was self-generated from their own persecution of other religious believers. If some modern day faith was to protest outside someone else's church and in the street telling them they were going to be fried by God or burn in Hell, or whatever method of destruction etc., and actually giving a date, and then that date came and passed, does anyone really expect the critical damning religious groups to get away with their words of destruction? No. They would get back what they gave out, and that is what happened with the JWs in the past. Honesty is not portrayed in the Watchtower's literature, as the Witnesses only show one side of the coin, their "persecuted victim" status, but fail each and every time to demonstrate how much they were victimizing others, and preaching what is clearly an intolerant messages of hate and destruction, something they deem "wicked persecution" when it is directed at themselves, but an honest exposé when done to others. This duplicity is what is such a turn off, especially with its highly hypocritical stance. It is very important to see both sides of the Witnesses so called "persecution" or "opposition", and see its nowhere as simple and one sided as they love to portray to the public and their own members. posted by openeyes April 12, 2005
Aye aye aye... First, let me make it clear that JW's don't believe themselves to be the "one and only true religion" because the "Watchtower says so." They believe it to be the case because they feel that JWs as an organizational whole are the only religion that fulfill the prophesy at Mat. 24:14 on a large scale and are the only religion marked by the quality of brotherly love found at John 13:35, etc. While there are certainly other non-JWs who can be said to display these traits, any JW will tell you that their organization is the only one distinctly marked by these things, and thus is set their precedent for claiming to be the true Christian religion. Regardless of whether or not you agree with this standpoint (and it is certainly is one that rubs a lot of people the wrong way, as you mentioned), this is the belief of JWs, not "it is so because the Watchtower says it." I've read the Watchtower and other JW literature for several years now; would you suggest that all the Bible research I have done leaves me nothing more than an 'undiscerning reader?' Everybody has their biases, true, but judging from the tone you take you can hardly claim to be a neutral party either.
Responding to your second main claim, I will only say this. I have obviously not been around the JW organization long enough to personally know what they did or did not do in the early 20th century. Have you? As long as I have been familiar with JW beliefs and practices, it has always been their policy not to push religion on people or resort to dogma and certainly not "damning the heathens to hell" to scare them into conversion. In every experience I have had if one simply asks a JW to leave and never talk to them about religion again, they will oblige. So perhaps policy has changed in the past fifty years, but as the organization stands now, I cannot even fathom using the words "intolerant messages of hate and destruction" to describe their methods and teachings. Do you think you can dig up some sources to back your claim? I know non bias is important to all of us, so let's not use either the Watchtower nor the plethora of known JW hate websites to substantiate this either way. -- uberpenguin 21:25, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

David M's edits on April 6

Following are some reasons why I changed David's edits.

JW' are politically neutral no matter where they live so political neutrality is what has brought them into conflict with governments in time of war, or as in the case of some paranoid govs, in peace time. Which govs should JW's be political within? China when they live there? Germany? So that when these govs go to war they can join their armies and kill each other?

The Book "Judging Jehovah's Witnesses" was not written or produced by JW's or by a JW.

While JW's have taken up the claim that civil liberties are now more expansive where they have won court cases, they only took this opinion from other sources such as USA today and the book mentioned above.

George 11:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, this paragraph discusses "several democratic countries with a rule of law and standards of human rights" — not China, nor Germany at the time that is was not democratic. We're talking democratic countries. Furthermore, we are discussing those countries' point of view, not the JWs'. To summarize: in democratic countries, it is often considered a duty for citizens to participate in the democratic process. JWs consider that political neutrality implies not participating in elections in democratic countries — this is their point of view and should be ascribed as such.
I'll try to be clearer: what people or institutions in some democratic countries have against the JWs is not that the JWs' wish to be "politically neutral" per se; it is that the JWs eschew certain tasks that those people consider should be civic duties.
I'm still unsure whether I am clear enough. Let's say I believe that God told me to be a musician, and, as consequence, I rehearse the trumpet in my apartment. Neighbors will probably complain that I make noise. So, my point of view on this may be that my neighbors disagree with my religion's command of musicianship; but my neighbors will describe their point of view as a disagreement over the inconveniences that I create.
David.Monniaux 12:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes but the thing they would be irrated with is the trumpet playing regardless of each person's individual POV (how they describe it). Your edit provided only a narrow scope of description it is the neutrality of JW's which causes the irritaion, regardless of how it is spun by whomever is irritated.George 23:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not really. It is what the JWs consider to be political neutrality. Some people will for instance say that political neutrality is being nonpartisan (i.e. not favor one party over another for ideological or social reasons). Others, including I think many Marxists, will say that those who pretend themselves to be politically neutral are actually conservatives — because refusing to question the status quo amounts to endorsing it (in short, they deny the possibility of being politically neutral). Some will argue that "political neutrality" in a democracy just amounts to letting others do the dirty work (i.e. spend time deciding policies) and is just hypocrisy.
So, see, the phrase "political neutrality", being vague, opens a whole can of worm of points of view and interpretation. That's why I preferred some factual description. I'm quite happy with the current formulation, because it distinguishes how the JWs view their actions (i.e. their definition of "political neutrality") and what these actions are in the concrete sense.
As for USA Today, with all the respect that I have for this newspaper, this is not a publication particularly known for its historical or legal scholarship. I'd thus be extremely cautious with what they claim.
David, if you will follow this link you will get all the references you needfor this subject. [1] As you wil note it is hardly JW's blowing their own trumpet.George 23:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If the Jehovah Witnesses have used public awareness campaigns and the court systems to have the laws (or their interpretation) changed, how can they be "politically neutral"? Having public policies changed is a political act, certainly, in my view. See how this "politically neutral" phrase is vague, and the JWs are "politically neutral" in their own definition only. David.Monniaux 06:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See my comments below for a reply.George

Now, about the book. I don't know this book and initially thought it was an advocacy book published by the JWs, judging from the tone of the extracts. (My mistake.) Is this book serious scholarship? I mean, have they done some real study of comparative law in many jurisdictions, etc.? David.Monniaux 11:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taken from: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/petjud.html Judging Jehovah's Witnesses Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution Shawn Francis Peters New in Paperback: February 2002 April 2000 352 pages, 24 photographs, 6 x 9 Cloth ISBN 0-7006-1008-1, $34.95 Paper ISBN 0-7006-1182-7, $17.95

WINNER OF THE SCRIBES AWARD GIVEN BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF WRITERS ON LEGAL SUBJECTS

FINALIST, SILVER GAVEL AWARD, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

WASHINGTON POST BOOK WORLD NOTABLE BOOK IN RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY

WINNER OF THE WISCONSIN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION's OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

All caps from source; bold my addition.George

Political neutrality

After some recent exchanges on the topic of the Jehovah's Witnesses "political neutrality", I must admit that I'm somewhat at a loss concerning the exact meaning of this phrase.

  • Marxists, in my experience, tend to argue that there is no such thing as political neutrality. If somebody is "politically neutral", then, de facto, that person endorses the status quo (and thus has conservative politics). Seemingly "apolitical" gestures are often understood to be political: thus, many argue, trading with a country with an oppressive regime is akin to condoning that regime. Even paying taxes to a country, and using its public services (including, indirectly, the police and military forces that maintain security) without denouncing them may amount to condoning that country's actions. And it's not only Marxists that feel that way: US conservatives, for instance, have successfully pushed for legislation criminalizing commercial dealings with Cuba.
  • It is argued in the article and in the talk page that Jehovah's Witnesses have, by their action, obtained better standards of human rights in several countries — for instance, with respect to conscientious objectors. They have obtained changes of legislation, or the interpretation thereof, by successful campaigns, as well as litigation against governments. This means that they have strived to change public policies — an eminently political activity.

So then I tried to see what exactly was meant by "political neutrality", and what activities were considered "political" and "apolitical":

  • I would have thought that obtaining changes in public policies by lobbying, press campaigns or litigation was political, but, apparently, it is not considered as political by Jehovah's Witnesses.
  • Perhaps this concerns partisan politics (i.e. voting for such or such party, not for such or such particular policies); but, then, the prohibition on political activities is probably too broad. One could conduct policies without going "partisan" in that sense.
  • One could say that Jehovah's Witnesses are interested in the kingdom of God, not in worldly affairs. But, then, why attempt to have legislations changed, why litigation?

In any case, the concept of "political neutrality" seems fairly hazy if taken in a general sense: obviously, different people mean different things under the same name. I'd thus prefer that, every time such concepts are discussed, it should be made clear that what is discussed is the Jehovah's Witnesses particular view of what these concepts encompass and do not encompass (here: changing policies through litigation is ok, but running for office isn't). This is factual and precise. David.Monniaux 11:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I believe I can reply to your comments by answering this question:
"One could say that Jehovah's Witnesses are interested in the kingdom of God, not in worldly affairs. But, then, why attempt to have legislations changed, why litigation?"
  • JW's do not defend their right to exist with political gestures. They do not lobby lawmakers or get invoved in policy making. No public demonstrations. etc
Er.. Didn't, for instance, the Witnesses lobby the US Congress (directly or indirectly) in order to get the US government to put pressure on the French government? [2] David.Monniaux 17:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
After looking up what I could on the subject, I don't think this was lobbying. Certainly, as stated previously, we have the right to ask for legal recourse. The information given by Mr Brumley was referred to as testimony, and this was a congressional hearing where several persons representing religious or other groups testified. Whether they were invited to speak or lobbied to, is what I could not find out. George 00:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Defending oneself in court is a neccessity for this unpopular religion. IF you are going to have to do soething to defend your existence, you had beter learn to do it well.
  • The political results of the court cases JW's have won or lost were unintentional, but are lauded by other groups. If you note, the google search I pointed you to had no offical JW websites listed. In a nutshell JW's are only trying to change the policy of the government toward them, not become a part of the government.
  • Last, we have the scriptural precedents for the "legally defending and establishing the good news":
Philippians 1:7 - It is altogether right for me to think this regarding all of YOU, on account of my having YOU in my heart, all of YOU being sharers with me in the undeserved kindness, both in my [prison] bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news.
Acts 25:11 - If, on the one hand, I am really a wrongdoer and have committed anything deserving of death, I do not beg off from dying; if, on the other hand, none of those things exists of which these [men] accuse me, no man can hand me over to them as a favor. I appeal to Caesar!”
We have every right to avail ourselves of the legal system which we pay for with our taxes. We are taught to pay our taxes conscienciously[3]:
Listening to the Great Teacher chap. 33 p. 136 “Caesar’s Things to Caesar”
Wasn’t that a fine answer?—No one could find anything wrong with that. If Caesar does things for people, it is only right to use the money that Caesar made to pay him for these things. So in this way Jesus showed that it is right to pay taxes to the government for the things we receive.
Now, you may not be old enough to pay taxes. But there is something that you should give to the government. Do you know what that is?—It is obedience to the government’s laws.
w94 11/15 p. 26 “If You Owe Taxes, Pay Taxes”
Unpleasant though the paying of taxes may be, this is an obligation that genuine Christians take very seriously. The apostle Paul wrote to the Christian congregation at Rome: “Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:7, New International Version) And Jesus Christ was referring specifically to taxes when he said: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.”—Mark 12:14, 17
Awake! '79 3/8 p. 27 Christians and Taxpaying
God never instructed his worshipers to avoid taxpaying. After the establishment of the Christian congregation, the apostle Paul was inspired to write: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities . . . Render to all their dues, to him who calls for the tax, the tax; to him who calls for the tribute, the tribute.”—Rom. 13:1, 7.
This does not mean that Christians must pay more taxes than are required by law. If legislation grants reduced tax rates to individuals or organizations in certain categories, there is nothing Scripturally wrong if those qualified accept such benefits.
Of course there are dozens more references I can C&P,but these should suffice.
George 12:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer!
Ok, now I think I understand things better. If I understand well — but feel free to correct me if I misunderstand the situation — the Witnesses eschew making general law or decisions per se. However, they will demand changes of policies if they apply to their own case, by using the court system if necessary. Also, if, in doing so, they have triggered a change of policy that they deem of general interest, they will be happy to publicize this fact.
Am I correct?
However, this does not address the question of how the Witnesses stand with respect to decisions that are deemed political by some, and apolitical by others. If, for instance, I buy goods manufactured by semi-slave labor in a foreign country under the yoke of an undemocratic regime, then many will argue that this is a political act that condones that regime; if I refuse to buy such goods on principle, then this is a political act of criticism of that regime. This is a very widespread point of view — I pointed to examples on both sides of the left-wing political spectrum. Can you inform me on that? David.Monniaux 17:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I beleive you could say the first part is correct, if I am understanding you. ;-)

Yes well, each witness has the right to decide for themselves what to do in these types of situations, but they would not engage in activism with regard to these secular matters. Many personal choices are just that, personal choices.

Many Witnessses feel it is their civic duty to recycle, this could be viewed as a political issue, but other than produce positive articles on the subject in our magazines or discuss it as an occaisional topic with our neghbors, we would not do anything to promote the activity.

The basic motivation comes from Jesus' statement to Pilate "My kingdom is no part of this world". Other statements Jesus made clearly point out that his followers were to be "no part of the world." JW's just can't see how we could be christians if we get directly involved in the world's governments and politics. As you mention, the topics we discuss on a regualr basis are often the subject of political debate: family values, taxes, health care, but we do not contribute to political campaigns either finacially or with manpower, even if a particular candidate may espouse many of the things we believe in. These human leaders do not have the permanent solution to the problems we have on earth. Even the best intentioned humans cannot achieve permanent benefits for everyone. Only the Creator (who has promised to do so) can.

Also, if as the Bible says "All the kings of the earth" are going to be fighting against God at armageddon, which political alignment should we be supporting?

Finally, a side note, JW's rarely dodge the draft or avoid conscription, if someone did they would be counseled. They stand up for their beleifs and go to prison rather than cowardly run away and hide.

Ok I'm finished now ;-] George 00:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just read the changes you made David, and I must say I am quite pleased. Thanks for your patience and work. George 00:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why Jehovah's witnesses leave the Watchtower

I reccomend this be deleted, it has little to do with the article, it is specious in its' use of facts and makes assertions without real evidenciary support. It also looks similar to spamming tactics you would see on a message board, this is not a message board. George 12:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My apologies but I am getting use to your empty rhetoric george. Take a specific fact that you question and I will show you the specific evidenciary support. Polemotheos 17:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was an intresting essay by a brother of many years. Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. I thought that his evaluation was clear headed and maybe useful to help us make the Jehovah's witnesses wiki page less bias. May Jehovah bless you brothers and sisters. Polemotheos 07:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why Jehovah's Witnesses Leave the Watchtower

There are now more persons who have resigned or left the Watchtower Society than active Witnesses. Articles about their internal turmoil have appeared in hundreds of magazines and newspapers in the last decade. An article in US News and World Report (October, 8, 1984, p. 69) noted, "dissension in their ranks has never been more vocal." Week-long protests and hundreds of newspaper articles about their many problems, such as disfellowshipping for trivial "offenses," illustrates only a small part of the total problem. As Newsweek noted there are signs:

...that the movement itself is in serious trouble... the Society's own statistics indicate that a million sheep drifted out of the fold between 1973 and 1983. Many dissident and former members are becoming militant in their criticism of the Society; last week, in an unprecedented public protest, 40 of them showed up outside the Witnesses' Brooklyn home, waving placards, complaining of oppression and demanding the resignation of the Governing Body. More important, dissidents have formed networks of former Witnesses who have been shunned by families and friends. One result is a growing body of damning literature, much of it compiled from Watchtower files, depicting a closed, almost Orwellian society (October 14, 1984, p. 120).

Most active Witnesses and many outsiders hold a very inaccurate view of exactly why people leave this organization. Among the many reasons for this misconception is because representatives of the Watchtower Society who are usually contacted by the media in response to various public demonstrations against the Witnesses often infer that all those who leave do so because of their personal inability to desist from immoral behavior. They commonly make wholly inaccurate statements such as those who oppose them are "not objecting to the Watchtower Society, but the Bible," or "if one refuses to stop his immoral behavior, we have no choice but disfellowship him," implying that most of those who abscond do so because of insisting on living an immoral life. The same reasons are also often given to active witnesses who inquire of their Elders as to why some person left. As Frye notes:

Despite the constant reinforcement of their views, many lose faith and drift away. As no one can be viewed as walking away from the organization in good faith they are slandered as either immoral persons or apostates. Even if one remains with the organization and is silent about the real problem if his activity is considered below par of what is expected of him, he too, will be viewed as unworthy (1982 p. 1).

To support his view, he quotes the June 1, 1987 Watchtower which states that some individuals in the Watchtower Society are persisting in:

some secret practice that they know God's Word forbids. So they hang back or slowly drift away. The Bible says: "It was through spurning conscience that certain persons made shipwreck of their faith." I Timothy 1:19, The New English Bible (p. 5).

Actually, the majority of dissident Witnesses who become activists against them clearly did not take French leave over concerns about immoral behavior (at least not their own!). Interviews by the writer with the leading four dozen or so contemporary anti-Watchtower activists found that not a single one severed their relationship with the Society because of disagreements over their moral or behavioral teachings. To the contrary, most of them rigidly adhered to, and fully believed, both before and after they left, in the correctness of most of the Society's moral values. The reason most left is because of sincere questions about specific Watchtower doctrines which the Society cannot, or has not, been able to answer (Bergman, 1984). The Society also often claims that those who leave are weak in faith, knowledge, or both. As Frye notes:

The assertion that those among Jehovah's Witnesses who [as the Watchtower claims] express doubts "usually don't study much" is highly questionable... Many former Witnesses experience doubts because they were serious students of the Bible and accepted it as authoritative in matters of faith and practice (1984: 2).

Many persons who leave do lose their moral balance and involve themselves in immoral behavior. A major reason is because of disillusionment with the Watchtower and religion. Many become atheists and not uncommonly many throw the baby out with the bathwater.


The Author's Personal Experience

The writer, when he left the Watchtower, presented at an Elders' meeting what he concluded were clear, unanswerable Scriptural objections to several of the Society's central teachings. He had both firmly believed in and taught all of the Watchtower teachings from a very young age. Through his Bible study, he began to discern that much of what the Watchtower taught was not in harmony with what the Scriptures were saying.

One example is their use of Genesis 9:4 to prove blood transfusions are wrong. This scripture clearly states that God gave humans a prohibition only against eating meat with blood in it and nothing more. This passage says nothing about eating blood or accepting blood transfusions, as the Society infers. A reading of the context and a review of most all historical commentary scholars on this Scripture, and even the Society's own teachings for nearly a half a century, shows conclusively that the prohibition given here was only against eating living animals. Thus if blood is drained, the animal is no longer alive, and one is not profaning life by eating the meat because the body lacks life. The prohibition was designed to counteract a fad of the ancients to eat live squirming animals in the hope that the "fight" of the struggling creature would be transferred to the eater. This behavior obviously shows a gross disregard for God's gift of life.

The primary method that the ancients used to kill animals was to drain their blood. This process insured that the animal was dead. This intent is clear from Genesis 9:5 which says that "for the 'life' is in the blood," and after the blood is drained, the 'life' is no longer in the animal. Obviously, blood itself is not life, but necessary for life, and for this reason is a fitting symbol of life.

When this objection was presented to the Elders, they offered no satisfactory rebuttal whatsoever. They only offered the explanation that the prohibition against eating blood is part of the old law covenant. I reminded them that we, as the Society correctly teaches, are no longer under this law. They also noted Acts, 15:20, 29 where it is commanded that we are to "abstain from blood." The meaning of this Scripture is more ambiguous, but it clearly is a response by the early Christians to the Mosaic law which was not given to all humankind but the Jews only. From the context, it likely referred the four major sins, one of which is murder. Thus the term "blood guilt" refers to murder, and the phrase "abstain from blood" or, as some manuscripts state, "abstain from bloodshed," likely refers to committing or contributing to homicide or death in some way.

The elders at my disfellowshipping hearing could not even begin to answer these objections. The writer reiterated that if they could show clear Scriptural support for their position on this and other matters, he would be glad to become reassociated. There are certain things one can deal with, or at least attempt to, but I could not rationalize the numerous Scriptural objections to the Watchtower's teachings that I had encountered. I stressed that I still firmly accepted the Scriptures as God's word, and it was for this reason that I could no longer accept the teachings. And it was now blatantly obvious to me that their belief system contradicted the Scriptures.

The Elders at this point could state only that they disagreed with me, and would not, or could not, refute my position. They stressed only that their only concern was: "are you loyal to the Society or do you wish to stand apart from it? If you do, then you are an apostate." They noted that the term apostate refers to "standing apart," but the Scriptural meaning refers to those standing apart from Scripture, not the Watchtower Society. The Watchtower Society has clearly replaced the Scriptures, thus all who follow the Watchtower would be apostates in the Biblical sense. The fact is, most of those who leave fully accept many of the Society's teachings (such as viewing the Scriptures as inspired, most of their moral values, etc.). They disagree only with their doctrines which are heresy from historical Christianity and the Scriptures.

Rather taken aback at their disinclination to at least attempt to defend their position, I protested, "If, indeed, you are correct, are you not concerned about my everlasting life? I am fully open and willing to listen to your defense. If I am wrong, I am anxious to correct my position. I thus encourage you to please help me understand in what way I am erroneous." To this they said nothing. I then stated, "Are you not concerned about my everlasting life? Are you not concerned with helping me to see what I'm sure you feel are the errors of my ways?" They had no response, but changed the subject!

It was now apparent that they could not even begin to respond to my concerns, although one Elder admitted that he had disagreed with the Society relative to their past interpretation of Romans 13. He stressed that in view of the fact that since they later changed to conform to what was, to him, obviously correct, one should be patient. The Society may well come around to my "position on blood," if it was correct. My problem with this stance was that by that time I had come to realize that the Society simply had far too many changes to make, and they were adamant in resisting almost all input from others, no matter how well researched or valuable it was. I have since this time learned most Witnesses are far past the point where they feel that the Society can be reformed.

At one time in their sojourn out many believe that it is possible, and therefore try, but they soon reject this possibility. They find that, instead of trying to deal with problems, the Watchtower often aggravates them, causing a situation in which they become their own worst enemy. Most Witnesses are able to accept one or two conflicts, even three or four, and still believe that the Society is "God's organization." My discovery was they are unwilling to reason, and cannot even begin to adequately respond to the many Scriptural questions that typically surface from intensive Bible study. This forces thinking Witnesses to conclude that they are set in their ways and determined to adhere to the "traditions of men" as opposed to the Word of God.

When an organization begins to develop, it is fairly flexible and amenable to Scriptural counsel. Time often results in rigidity and they then follow only their own traditions, rejecting the clear teachings of the Scriptures. This was forcefully stressed in Ray Franz's book Crisis of Conscience, in which he stated that the Governing Body, in response to his Scriptural concerns over and over, appealed to the "traditions of Jehovah's people." They demanded that their teachings be accepted because they were viewed as correct in the past, not because they were then, or are now, Scripturally supportable.

The writer discussed at length these issues with attorney Hayden Covington, a former vice president of the Watchtower. He made it clear that the teachings of "Jehovah's people" for its first fifty years were almost solely the teachings of Russell or the ideas of others that he approved of. Likewise, he stressed, this was also the case with their second leader, J.F. Rutherford. The teachings of "Jehovah's people, "were in other words the ideas of one fallible human who held almost absolute control (and in the case of Rutherford, absolute control) of doctrinal development. Others may be able to influence the Watchtower president to a limited extent, but he always had the final say in all doctrine and policy. As Knorr reportedly once said to the writing staff at headquarters "you can discuss doctrine all you want to, but when it comes out in the Watchtower, it's the truth". And he had the final say as to what came out in the journal that they consider "quasi-inspired". Following one man continued even for some years after the Governing Body was established, as Franz discussed in his book.


A Common Way Out

In the writer's case, as well as those of many others, the path of leaving the Witnesses was to begin to doubt certain Watchtower teachings. This does not in itself usually create problems, but the Watchtower's response to one's sincere questions often does cause problems. Once questions are voiced, the questioner is all too often told that he or she is to accept whatever the Watchtower teaches, and is not to "reason" on the word but simply, blindly and dogmatically, fully accept whatever is taught. Your reasoning, they stress, is "human reason," but the Watchtower's is "God's reasoning." If one does not blindly accept all that is taught, however foolish, often their personality and spirituality is impugned, even for sincere, honest questions. One then learns that questions are not to be voiced. This is usually the first step out of the Society. Once the alienation begins, it tends to find its own fuel, often causing a raging fire, and eventually the abandonment of an organization which one formerly passionately defended, in many cases for decades (as was the case of the writer).

Thus, it seems that many persons do not leave the Society because they insist on following an "immoral path." They leave because of a "crisis of conscience." They can no longer consciously accept what the Society teaches (Botting and Botting, 1984). Those who leave are often spiritually in most every way the cream of those who have a Scripturally trained conscience. When it is violated by the Society, they must make a choice between the Scriptures and the Watchtower. They are not unlike those in Nazi Germany who concluded that Hitler was wrong, and must buck the tide whatever the cost. And leaving the Witnesses often has horrible costs, such as loss of friends, family, and one's business. The fact that Witnesses often at first attempt to reform, or at least help the Watchtower leaders become aware of the gross injustices committed almost daily in the congregations, shows where their heart is. As Frye notes, they do so because many of the Witness's problems are with the Society's teachings and practices, not the Bible:

But the Society tends to color all those who "hand back or slowly drift away" with the same brush stroke of immorality. The reality, oftentimes, is just the opposite. Instead of "spurning conscience" they have listened to their Bible-trained conscience and can no longer accept and proclaim certain dogmatic teachings of the Society that lack Bible support (1984: 2).

A good example of the fact that doctrinal deviation results in disfellowshipping far sooner than moral deviation is the case of Governing Body members Raymond Franz and Edward Chitty. Raymond Franz, through extensive research on Biblical questions, became increasingly convinced that the Society was clearly wrong relative to their interpretation of Scriptural prophecy and doctrine. As a result, he was removed from the Governing Body. The single incident of eating with his employer and landlord, who had previously resigned as a Witness, was the excuse that resulted in his disfellowshipping.

On the other hand, one governing member allegedly had a homosexual love affair with a 19-year-old Bethelite, a boy less than one-third his age, who reportedly jumped to his death off of one of the Bethel buildings over his guilt from the affair. Yet, he was merely asked to resign from the Governing Body, reportedly, for committing what most openly consider a grievous sexual offense, not only homosexuality, but pedophilia, which resulted in the tragic death of a guilt-ridden young man. And he was evidently asked to resign only because of the widespread awareness of the incident. Possibly if fewer persons knew about this incident, he would have even retained his Governing Body position. This is only one of many examples that illustrate that the Society is concerned primarily with loyalty. They are extremely reticent to disfellowship for grievous moral offenses, but are not at all shy about disfellowshipping those who they feel lack loyalty to the Society.


The First Step in Leaving

When the Watchtower leaders make it clear that they are not interested in responding to genuine concerns, the alienation often increases until finally the person takes French leave from the organization. Many depart quietly (actually the vast majority simply fade away) but some, partly because their disappointment is so immense, feel that they must respond in some way to what they conclude are the gross sins and injustices committed by the Watchtower.

Dissident Witnesses resemble the Blacks living in the American South who perceived that the system was wrong and defiantly state, "I will not move to the back of the bus." And so they refused to bow to injustice and the existing inhumane laws and traditions. Likewise, the dissident ex-Witnesses of today refuse to bow to the inhumanity being perpetuated by an organization they once fully trusted and were loyal to, giving it their all for years, even decades.

To betray someone's trust is a serious matter. The concern and goal of the ex-Witness movement is to let the world know the Watchtower's grievous wrongs. They are not content to be the "silent majority," but feel that it is their duty to humanity to speak out for what they believe is true. And this is what they are now doing in rapidly increasing numbers.


References

Bergman, Jerry. Jehovah's Witnesses and Kindred Groups. New York: Garland Pub. Co., 1984.

Botting, Heather and Gary. The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1984.

Franz, Raymond. Crisis of Conscience. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1982.

Frye, Ronald E. The Christian Respondent. No. 2, 1984, p. 2.

Vote for deletion

I agree with George... Mr. Polemotheos. The information has little to do with the article. In a subject such as religion, writing in a NPOV is nearly impossible since religion in itself IS a POV. However, the best way to handle it is to write the article in the "third person" as has been done so far (ie... "they believe this" or "they feel this way"). If you feel that this bit is important, may I suggest a separate page for it... such as a "Those Critical of Jehovah's Witnesses" page with a link. You could also place the external links of those critical of JW's on that page as well. Certainly a page written on any religion is going to have a certain bias in it's favor because religion is biased. Just look at the Catholic, Islam, and Mormon pages.

as a side note... I have done extensive research in the area of religions... and the statements by our Mr. Ph.D. friend, are simply put... false. I would gladly challenge him, or anyone really, to attempt to prove these things. There are nearly 7 million active Jehovah's Witnesses at present. There is nowhere near this quaintly excommunicated from the church. To date, there are about 400,000 world-wide that are currently under excommunication.

I've had the unfortunate experience of actually debating "Dr." Bergman. For lack of a better word, the man is a liar, and "quack." He stamps his BIOLOGY doctorate on ALL of his material as if to lend it some form of validity. I confronted him on his polemic regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and "Mental Health" (on the Evangelicals and JWs discussion forum). After a staggering amount of research I was able to prove that many of the sources he cited in his works are in fact HIMSELF published under the pseudonyms Havor Montague, and John Spencer. In his article on mental health he goes to great links to quote 50+ year old "research" out of context in an effort to suggest that being a JW somehow adversely effects a persons mental health; and not just that, but adversly more so than any other religion. He is not a brother, his articles are well designed to stigmatize, and affirm the most common biases against Jehovah's Witnesses. He has been doing this 45+ years now (since the day he was excommunicated for trying to cause division). [User:Duffer1|Duffer1]] 4 May 2005.

"There are now more persons who have resigned or left the Watchtower Society than active Witnesses." Seems your the one that failed to understand brother Bergman's claim. If there was an average of 100,000 baptized each year from 1974-1979 that would mean about half a million left in those five years alone. You can add in all those that left in after 1914, 1925, etc... If I had the exact figures I could tell you exactly how many millions have left. Maybe I will try to find those. Polemotheos 22:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Watchtower Society keeps extensive records. Another statistic that our Mr. Ph.D. friend fails to mention is that more than half of those who were excommunicated from the church are eventually restored. 5 out of every 7 to be exact. That is what happened to the rest of the so called "millions". The most common reason for excommunication is for "sex outside of a marriage", not for distrust of the Watchtower. The statistic is 2 out of every 3 persons. Mr. Ph.D. conveniently fails to mention this as well.

You see, the piece by Mr. Ph.D. is not accurate. He is most likely embittered by something like being excommunicated himself, or a relative, and instead of being humbled and learning from it, chose to arrogantly move in the other direction, as most people with a Ph.D. would do, since they can never be wrong about anything. He sounds like another ex-witness that everyone knows named Michael Jackson. Jackson was at one time a Witness, but he was corrected by the church for the making of a movie named Thriller because the movie involved demonism. He didn't like being told what to do and not do. He tried to justify his making of the film by donating the proceeds to the Watchtower Society. They refused to accept on the basis of how it was earned since they would not support anything demon related. He then sent a letter to the church stating that he no longer wished to be a member. Media has long sought ways to link his present behavior to the fact that he was raised as a JW. However, they fail to mention that only his mother was a practicing JW. His father, the route cause for his poor childhood, was not. These movies show the father singing praises in the church with his family, though he hardly ever went and wasn't practicing, and it was only when his wife prodded him to go, did he ever. Usually only for their Passover.

"Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked."-Awake! June 22, 2000, page 6 "The Manipulation of Information" Polemotheos 21:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In researching the subject matter of religion... it can be divided into two groups... those who believe in the Bible/Torah and those that don't. Those that do believe are Christian, Judaism, and Islam. Those that do not are Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, and others like them.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD... NO RELIGION FOLLOWS IT MORE CLOSELY THAN DO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. If I believed in a supreme being and my basis for belief was the Bible... Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones I would consult.

  • Not Mormons (who use another book supposedly a "New Testament of Jesus Christ" over the Bible, since the Bible states in itself that "an angel or anyone else who brings a new testament to you other than which was already spoken, let him stand accursed". Galatians 1:8) *Not Catholics, (who barely ever read the Bible; are well known for the atrocities known in history as the "dark ages", and allow their sex offender leaders to continue in their practice, refer to their leaders as "father" or "holy father", a title that even Jesus Christ himself refused)
  • Not any religion that has merged pagan teachings into mainstream Christianity - like Easter, the Cross, and Trinity; or who like many protestant religions, have lack of unity on a worldwide scale such as First Baptist, Second Baptist, etc...).

This would eliminate Episcopalism, Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Apostolicism, Lutherans, Methodists, and any other religion that practices those things.

  • Islam, like Mormons, have taken on another book, thus disqualifying them.
  • Judaism, doesn't believe in Christ, though the history of his life supports the statements made about the "promised one" in the Torah, so they too are disqualified.

All in all Mr. Polemotheos if I chose to follow an organized religion, that would be my criteria. There is no Biblical answer that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot provide. There are no mysteries with them, or questions they cannot answer with the Bible.

"For example, in times of national crisis or conflict, demagogues may use such slogans as “My country, right or wrong…” But do most people carefully analyze the real issues involved in the crisis or conflict? Or do they just accept what they are told?… such symbolisms as… the mother church are valuable tools in the hands of the shrewd persuader."-Awake! June 22, 2000, page 6 "The Manipulation of Information"
It seems fair that we substitute Witness-specific terms into the statement above to keep the scales of justice balanced.
For example, in times of organizational crisis or conflict, demagogues may use such slogans as “The Watchtower, right or wrong…” But do most Witnesses carefully analyze the real issues involved in the crisis or conflict? Or do they just accept what they are told?… such symbolisms as… the mother organization are valuable tools in the hands of the shrewd persuader. Polemotheos 20:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The Watchtower Society allows tours of all of it's facilities to everyone, and they hide nothing. The tour goes throughout the entire facility in all countries. Does the Catholic Church allow full tours of the Vatican? Do Mormons allow full tours of their Salt Lake Temple? I think not.

So... this page that you feel should be included, is not based on factual evidence, and therefore should not be included on this encyclopedia page. Like I suggested, make a separate page for "Those Critical of Jehovah's Witnesses", and that would become a fitting place for the article. --Anon 04:14, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you anon very well done. I agree with most of your comments. I did not suggest adding this essay to the wiki page. I only shared it because I am trying to understand why so many Jehovah's witnesses are critical of the watchtower corporation. Maybe it will help synthize posible additions that represent the views of Jehovah's witnesses not affiliated with the watchtower corporation. Thank you for challenging specific claims of our brother Jerry Bergman. I will do some more meditation on the specifics you challenge. Lots of love, Polemotheos 19:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok Anon it seems you only challenged one claim of Brother Jerry Bergman. Also it seems your challenge has been met. While as a Bethilite you may have some exacting statictics you should pay attention to what is being claimed. I would never want anyone to think you would purposefully disceve us. May I encourage you to read the Awake! June 22, 2000 "Propaganda Can Be Deadly" and "The Manipulation of Information". Lots of love, your brother Mars Turner Polemotheos 22:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've had the unfortunate experience of actually debating "Dr." Bergman. For lack of a better word, the man is a liar, and "quack." He stamps his BIOLOGY doctorate on his baseless hysterias as if to lend them some form of validity. I confronted him on his polemic regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and "Mental Health" (on the Evangelicals and JWs discussion forum). After a staggering amount of research I was able to prove that many of the sources he cited in his works are in fact HIMSELF published under the pseudonyms Havor Montague, and John Spencer. In his article on mental health he goes to great links to quote 50+ year old "research" out of context in an effort to suggest that being a JW somehow adversely effects a persons mental health; and not just that, but adversly more so than any other religion. He is not a brother, his articles are well designed to stigmatize, and affirm the most common biases against Jehovah's Witnesses. He has been doing this 45+ years now (since the day he was excommunicated for trying to cause division). Duffer1 4 May 2005.

User:Eyesopen edits

I am opening discussion on the Eyesopen edits that were removed. They were of higher quality and more neutral than was represented in their removal. Let's pause and consider carefully the meaning of NPOV and the policies of Wikipedia before we shoo away folks like Polemotheos and Eyesopen. I see this kind of protectionism as a serious potential stumbling block to the credibility of the WP:JW project. Can I have a witness from the congregation? Danny? George? Anybody? Tom Haws 19:01, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

The added text wasn't all bad, but there are a few points I'd like to see addressed before they are put back into the article.
  • "... further encouraged by overzealous speakers at their assemblies prior to 1975 ..." - this just sounds biased to me; what shall we define as 'overzealous?'
  • "While Witnesses have always been encouraged to increase the preaching work, and avoid personal life goals or careers ..." (emphasis added) - this simply isn't true; Witnesses definitely don't discourage having goals or careers, they discourage putting these before worship of God.
  • "There were many tens of thousands who left the organization in the late 1970s due to this major disappointment, and the organisation's numbers dropped markedly after 1975 for a few years." - I'd like to see this number substantiated somehow; I have never seen nor heard of any reputable figures on this produced, and I don't think a mere estimate should be used. Perhaps we could try to find their annual service reports for the concerned years and get an idea from that, but that alone certainly cannot be used to produce a reliable number.
  • The word "Eschatology" does not accurately reflect the contents of this section. "Prophetic Interpretations" would be far more accurate.
With a bit of cleanup, I don't have any problems with the text's inclusion, but I didn't want to simply edit the content with my own phrasing before discussing it here. -- uberpenguin 19:27, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
Thanks, UP. I invited Eyesopen. (I thought that part about avoiding personal goals or careers sounded like pretty pure Christianity, to tell the truth.) Tom Haws 19:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


My reply: I am surprised, and disappointed at the tenacity and hypocrisy of some JWs here in trashing a long-standing paragraph, regardless of which ones they are, and then hoping that no one notices. When someone does notice and correctly reverts it to its original state of just a day or so before, the JWs suddenly jump in deceitfully protesting that "new information" should not be allowed until it's been discussed. This kind of hypocrisy is transparent as they were as silent as the dead when the original article was vandalized to their biased favor, but they protest as it's reverted to its original state, as if it is something new that's been posted, when they know well that nothing is different or new.
This has just happened with the 1970s part of the eschatology. It was vandalized yesterday, and then I have just reverted it its long-standing original page without making a single change, and I get jumped on by user Uberpenguin who ignored the vandalism but then accused me of adding "new non-discussed information"! Where was Uberpenguin yesterday? Silent! I have posted nothing that was not there two days before and was happily there for WEEKS before that. Uberpenguin said "rv don't make large controversial edits without discussing them first; this text has been removed before and thus qualifies as 'controversial')
1. This text was there for weeks; why did you ignore this and not make a big fuss weeks ago? 2. Where did you discuss your re-vandalizing? You didn't! This appears as one rule for you and another for the rest of us? 3. So what if it's "controversial", that is a red herring and has nothing to do with anything as virtually every subject on the whole JW page has been classed as controversial at one time or another. Removing large chunks of text is just as much a non-discussed edit as adding new information. In my case, I was adding nothing new at all, nor editing, but just merely reverting vandalism by 71.108.4.251 on 18 April. Please can the trigger happy JWs learn to be less hypocritical, and more consistent. Reverting what was there two days ago, is not adding new information and it was neither controversial nor an edit, it was just reverting reasonable information that has been there for WEEKS. Let's have some balance and consistency please!
As for the repeated questions that have been discussed in detail before, please read the text on this page Please also listen to the audio file about the doors of salvation being closed before 1975. And please consult a year book for the JW publishers count for the 1970s. As for education and careers:
"If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the 'last days' in 1914, Jesus foretold: 'This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.' Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way towards its finish, if not actually gone! This is why parents who base their lives on God's prophetic Word find it much more practical to direct their young ones into trades that do not require such long periods of additional schooling… True, those who do not understand where we are in the stream of time from God's viewpoint will call this impractical. But which is really practical: preparing yourself for a position in this world that soon will pass away? or working toward surviving this system's end and enjoying eternal life in God's righteous" Awake! 22 May 1969 p.15
"The influence and spirit of this world is to get ahead, to make a name for oneself. Many schools now have student counselors who encourage one to pursue higher education after high school, to pursue a career with a future in this system of things. Do not be influenced by them. Do not let them "brainwash" you with the Devil's propaganda to get ahead, to make something of yourself in this world. This world has very little time left! Any "future" this world offers is no future! Wisely, then, let God's Word influence you in selecting a course that will result in your protection and blessing. Make pioneer service, the full-time ministry, with the possibility of Bethel or missionary service your goal. This is a life that offers an everlasting future!" Watchtower 15 March 1969 p.171
There are many more if you are familiar with the Watchtower's literature. Many JWs had terrible lives in low pay jobs with financial struggles due to this Watchtower message and never getting a good education or learning a trade/skill, along with other articles telling them not to have children.
If I sound annoyed I am, why should anyone have to re-justify what was happily there on the page for weeks? Can I delete the whole page, and then refuse any revert until all and ever single point has been re-discussed in endless detail all over again? Of course not, so why is this happening with some paragraphs that have been there for weeks? I will put back the text as it was, and please do some more research before you show any more bias in favor of vandals like anon 71.108.4.251 on 18 April. By Openeyes 19 April 2005
As far as "not making a fuss" about the text before, I simply didn't notice it. I keep track of changes in articles as most people do, through the watch list. I'm a very busy person (aren't we all) and don't have nearly the time I would like to have for Wikipedia, so I probably missed the discussion of the inclusion of these edits. So sorry if I came across as hostile towards you, that wasn't intended at all; please don't get in a huff or interpret well-intentioned edits as a personal affront. If I had taken note of the text before now I would have had the same issues with it (and those issues are largely addressed on the archive you linked). That's just how things go with articles like this; they are constantly under scrutiny, revision, and disagreement. You yourself have biases as well, so you cannot claim that your edits aren't affected by your opinions. I contribute all my edits under my own username and take responsibility for them and can admit when I'm wrong, no reason to get upset here.
uberpenguin said: "You yourself have biases as well, so you cannot claim that your edits aren't affected by your opinions."
Reverting exactly what was on a paragraphs two days before is hardly "bias", and the other edits I have made are factually based, if you wish to challenge them then bring it on. If not, then why come out with another red herring? Eyesopen 20 April 2005
On to specifics. I understand your point with the discouragement of a secular goals, and should have clarified in my comments that JWs no longer endorse this point of view, though they certainly did in the time period we are talking about. So it's really just an issue of tense; JWs did discourage secular education through much of the 70s, but that policy has greatly changed since (Watchtower content also changes accordingly). If the tense is changed to reflect that, then I'm fine with it.
uberpenguin said: "JWs no longer endorse this point of view. . . but that policy has greatly changed since"
It is irrelevant what they teach now as the paragraph was specifically about the 1960s and 70s. Why you feel the need to mention the fact that now they have backed down (after decades of criticism about all the lives they messed up), is not relevant as the past is historical and what they now teach has no effect on the facts of the past. Eyesopen 20 April 2005
My last issue still stands. I'll try to find some yearbooks from the 70s, hopefully that will give a good idea of the decreases in membership due to the 1975 predictions, but it is still an estimation at best (people come and go from organizations for various reasons).
Again, sorry if I have offended you, please don't take this as personally as you seem to have for no ill was intended by it, and thank you for providing explanation for the edits. -- uberpenguin 21:41, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
And thanks from me to both of you good folks. Tom Haws 22:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please read this

Ok, I have made some edits to various sections in order to make improvements and find compromises. Please discuss what you have a problem with before editing further so we may reach consensus. (hopefully) Let me say that I have edited according to the evidence presented and have readthe information at the quotes page and still find no explicit published info from the WT pubs listed saying 1975 would bring about armageddon.

I have hard copies of the yearbooks for the years 74 onward except for 78, only one of these shows a decline of just over 2% the rest show growth of between .5% and approx. 4% for the years following 1975. Therefore the assertion that "the organisation's numbers dropped markedly after 1975 for a few years" is obviously incorrect. (or at the very best anecdotal)

George 02:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

George said: "Therefore the assertion that "the organisation's numbers dropped markedly after 1975 for a few years" is obviously incorrect. (or at the very best anecdotal)"
Numbers of publishers: 1976: 2,138,537. 1977: 2,117,194. 1978: 2,086,698. And remember there were far more leaving as the number of new publishers/baptized should be also deducted. If you look at the preceding three years up to 1976, you can see what a large and dramatic change occurred. 1973: 1,656,673. 1974: 1,880,713 (13% increase). 1975: 2,062,449. The lowest was –1.4% increase in 1978, a swing shift of 14.4% down compared to 13% growth in 1973! The original text should be reinstated, as it is reasonable and factual. Eyesopen 20 Apr 2005
OK, You said "the organisation's numbers dropped markedly after 1975 for a few years". That is not the same as the organzations growth dropping off markedly. Please be specific in your wording, we must strive to be accurate. I will change the reading to fit this information correctly and hopefully you will not get insulting about it or accuse me of being a borg. whatever that means. George 22:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello George, in regard to the original text saying " the organisation's numbers dropped markedly after 1975 for a few years" is correct. From 1976 to 1978, they fell by over 50,000. This in not the whole, as there were nearly 200,000 new baptized in 1976, and almost 100,000 in 1978. The Society has hidden the baptized numbers for 1977, but regardless, if they were in the middle, say 150,000, that would still be 450,000 new baptized in those three years, and still the numbers dropped by over 50,000. It doesn't take a genius to see that to just keep the publishers at zero increase would mean that the same numbers becoming new publishers would be leaving by the back door. If there were 400,000 publishers leaving, there would still need to be 400,000 new publishers to just make a zero increase, and yet there wasn't even a stand still, there was a 50,000+ deficit in numbers, and a whopping 14.4% reduction on general increase. As you can see George, there were hundreds of thousands leaving over the three years, which is no mere blip in a sea for such a small religious group. I will put back the original word, not for the sake of point scoring, but because it was factual and reasonable, and should not be watered down of the sake of sensitive JWs, or anyone else.
To all here, it is hypocritical to delete information when you have no base for this action, but then you complain loudly when information is inserted. If you feel a fact is incorrect, then do some research before you haphazardly go zapping text. If any text is proven inaccurate it can then be changed, but get the facts first, don't just remove it in ignorance, or you will look like erratic fools for not doing your research first if you are proven wrong.
PS. The reference to The Borg was a joke. The Borg was an Alien race that appeared on a Sci-fi series, which did not kill its opponents, it assimilated them and used them as a tool for spreading its propaganda and assimilating others into the mastermind of the Borg. It is sometimes used as a joke by JWs or Ex-JWs to refer to the "Org" a common phrase among JWs for the Watch Tower Society who may be likened to using the same assimilation methods and brainwashing control of its members. It was a joke :o) Eyesopen 21 April 2005

A 'few' generally imples more than two, that is the image I get anyway. 50,000 out of 2,000,000 is significant but I don't think it calls for the language used. The numbers you and I both brought up show the same facts. when you look at percentage drops the amount of people who left is much less than those who came in thus the majority of those who were baptised leading up to '75 were retained. Sorry, but I cannot agree with your assessment.George 21:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

George you said: "50,000 out of 2,000,000 is significant but I don't think it calls for the language used". Please read the paragraph above, as there were far more than 50,000. There were 200,000 baptized in 1976 and 100,000 in 1978, and yet the numbers still dropped by over 50,000. That means the organisation lost a minimum of 350,000 publishers (I have not counted 1977 as the Watchtower has chosen to hide them, as they were obviously less than flattering). A 350,000 loss (if zero were new in 1977) to 500,000+ (if a middle ground of 150,000 were new in 1977) are not small numbers in a total of just over 2 million members. Eyesopen 22 April 2005


OK, I am going to go to the bottom of this section and ask you guys some questions. Tom Haws 22:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

George M said: "Ok, I have made some edits to various sections in order to make improvements and find compromises. Please discuss what you have a problem with before editing further so we may reach consensus."
I have to say I am amazed by your cheek, YOU are supposed to discuss any edits BEFORE they are made, not just act like you are God and then ask everyone else has to justify their reverts or their edits, but you just make them arbitrary as you please. I notice you have done this trick before George, on 11:25, 9 Apr 2005 Emyth deleted half a page and all the links, whether deliberately or unknowingly is not relevant. On 13:09, 9 Apr 2005 George m claimed to "(rv (vandal?))" but interestingly decided upon himself to remove the entire 1960s and 70s, 200+ word paragraph with no discussion nor even an admittance. He later protested the same argument that when it was reverted by someone else they were also accused of adding "new information", but the text was exactly identical to the pre-vandalized version! Is this a common JW tactic? Trash a page, and then lie and act all coy and innocent, then make up an excuse of ignorance when the page is identically reverted and complain as if it's all "new information" when they know damn well its been there for ages, and hasn't been changed a single bit. Now we have George doing the same again, as if something new was posted, when he knows well that nothing new was posted, I just restored the vandalized text exactly as it was before. Why are you playing these games? Is this supposed to be a mark of JWs' "Christian" character?.Eyesopen 20 April 2005

Upon futher reading I see we have two examples of the same thing, I don't think we need two, pleae help us decide which of these two we should include:

Typical examples are found in the Watch Tower Society's book publication The Finished Mystery (SS-7), 1917 edition: "Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of 'Christianity.'" (Page 485) "The people who are the strength of Christendom shall be cut off in the brief but terribly eventful period beginning in 1918 A.D. A third part are 'burned with fire in the midst of the city.' Fire symbolizes destruction. . . .After 1918 the people supporting churchianity will cease to be its supporters, be destroyed as adherents, by the spiritual pestilence of errors abroad, and by the famine of the Word of God among them." (Pages 398, 399)
An example of the language used by the Witnesses and their organisation during this period is found in the book The Finished Mystery pg 128: "It seems conclusive that the hour of Nominal Zion's travail is fixed for the Passover of 1918. (See Rev. 3:14.) That will be 7 years prior to 1925. At that time there is every reason to believe the fallen angels will invade the minds of many of the Nominal Church people, driving them to exceedingly unwise conduct and leading to their destruction at the hands of the enraged masses, who will later be dragged to the same fate." (Page 128, The Finished Mystery book)George
George said: "Upon futher reading I see we have two examples of the same thing, I don't think we need two, pleae help us decide which of these two we should include"
Is that a Royal "we"? Or more like the Borg? I love the way you start a question with a leading presumptuous answer, a wonderful use of a logical fallacy if anyone missed it. If that is the case George, that is "one only rule"; the second part of the second quote can be pasted to the first paragraph as one, seeing as they are all from the same Watchtower book. Also, if this is some new "rule" to materialize out of the ether, then you have to apply the same rule to the JWs "persecution" claims. Only one is acceptable, any more could be viewed as manipulative Watchtower propaganda could it not? Would that be fair? I also noticed that the quotes are not the same, they are from different pages, and are demonstrating different ways of expressing their beliefs, so they are valid and reasonable. I have just edited out the repeat wording of the page reference in the second paragraph, as that was all that was repeating, so it now reads clearer.Eyesopen 20 April 2005
I'm going to stay out of this for now, but Eyesopen is showing no small amount of hostility and sarcasm; something that is not condusive to any productive progress on this article. Is your intent to make this a fair, non-biased article, or to include your own phrasing at all costs? Don't bother responding to this with another string of half-insults, I've spoken my peace. -- uberpenguin 20:56, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
Eyesopen, thank you so much for being so interested in helping Wikipedia be a better source of information. Please try to understand and believe that we are all doing our best here, as are you. Perhaps we seem at times jaded and tired, but we are honestly trying to learn from you and come to a better solution through your presence and efforts. If there is anything that characterizes successful controversial editing at Wikipedia, it is patient, slow, kind, respectful collaboration, sprinkled with lots of compliments and apologies. Hang with us and we'll hang with you. Tom Haws 21:40, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've been less active in general lately, and evidently missed a bit of excitement here. Anyway, just looking at the two paragraphs above and given a choice between them, I think I'd vote for the first. (shrug) And for what it's worth, the bit about numbers dropping after 1975 should probably be dropped if supporting evidence can't be found, especially of the stats George cites from the yearbooks are correct. And of course I don't have any reason to suppose they're not. Wesley 02:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here are my first questions: Tom Haws 22:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) 1. How many JWs were there in 1976?

  • Eyesopen's answer: 0000
  • George's answer: 2,138,537

2. How many JWs were there in 1978?

  • Eyesopen's answer: 0000
  • George's answer: 2,086,698


Tom, your so-called "questions" above are for what reason? Are you lying for amusement, or do you actually think you will fool the gullible? Or did you misread my post? If you open your eyes, you will see I have never said there were zero JWs in 1976 or 1978. The numbers of publishers are there in my post further up the page and were posted by me on 19:06, 20 Apr 2005: "1976: 2,138,537. 1977: 2,117,194. 1978: 2,086,698" Eyesopen 22 April 2005

I would imagine that User:Eyesopen's observation that the organization had somewhere around from 15% - 25+% turnover in its membership between 1976 and 1978 is probably fairly relevant to this topic. The true number won't be known until we know how many new baptisms there were in 1977. Quite frankly you guys are talking past each other. Tom and George seem to be talking just about membership numbers while Eyesopen is clearly talking about turnover. Kevin Rector (talk) 03:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Taken from above: "When you look at percentage drops the amount of people who left is much less than those who came in thus the majority of those who were baptised leading up to '75 were retained. Sorry, but I cannot agree with your assessment." George 13:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, George, for the numbers. Assuming your numbers above are right, I can say the following: 1) The JWs were losing members faster than they were baptizing them and 2) their membership declined. In light of the fact they were baptizing over 100,000 per year, I can say the following: 3) They were losing over 100,000 per year and 2) they were losing 5% of their members per year. Putting it all together in an appropriate tone, I think the article should say something like, "Between 1976 and 1978, while baptisms continued at over 100,000 per year, attrition was fast enough that in 1978 membership was slightly lower than in 1976, representing an annual simultaneous loss and replacement of 5%." We cannot say that there was or was not a revolving door. We don't know who was being lost. All we know is that there were as many losses as baptisms in those years. Do we all agree on that? Also, it appears to me that this statement is inaccurate: "the organisation's numbers dropped markedly after 1975 for a few years" I would revise it to say: "while baptisms continued at over 100,000 per year, the organisation lost more members than it gained after 1975 for a few years" Tom Haws 14:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Publications Advertising?

I was just working my way through the article doing some mostly minor copyedits, seeing what it looks like now, when I found the Publications section. I have to ask, does an encyclopedia need this much product detail? If it does, why not just add the catalog ID numbers and a links to subscribe to each directly? Seriously though, can we trim this down, just describe each publication, mention that it comes in lots of editions and languages, and link once to the publication's main off site page where people can find all the fine details if they're interested? Any serious objections before I do that? Wesley 03:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, we're not here to market JW publications. Kevin Rector (talk) 06:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

We have been asked for details! details! details! on everything. If you want to cut it down, I don't object, but if we get hit up for more detail again I will send the requester your way! :0D George 11:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh, ok, fair enough. Send the complaints to me. I'll try not to cut out too much. :-D Wesley 16:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

the last editor apparently added this line to the origins sections

"Jehovah's Witnesses are a group of false prophets whose prophecies do not come true."

that IMO is not a NPOV

I think we can safely classify that as "vandalism" and not bother giving it much more discussion. That is, of course, unless the author of those changes would like to justify them and explain how they can possibly be a NPOV. -- uberpenguin 01:34, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
On 13 Jun 2005, EliasAlucard added a NPOV Dispute link but did not offer any explanation or make any commentary here on the Talk page. He/She/It did leave this cryptic Edit summary:
"This article is the result of ongoing compromise and effort by JW and other editors." If that's the case, then NPOV'ed. Jehova's [sic] Witnesses may very well not be neutral when editing.
Since this user did not raise a valid point of dispute I am removing this warning. Discussion is welcome. --DannyMuse 18:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May anon edits

There is also Bethle and Gilliad that are used to help furher the knowlege of Jehovah. These places are used for teaching the baptised pioneers and the baptised pioneer couples the are thought to teach were the need is get. The link to the offical web site is not listed here which would make most of this document here-say. -anon move by Tom Haws 19:24, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

This information is probably worth including, but obviously the grammar and organization needs some work first. I'll look for a good place to re-add it. -- uberpenguin 20:00, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
I agree with uberpenguin about needing work on the grammar and organization of the sentence. However, I'm quite confused with the last sentence: "The link to the official website is not listed here which would make most of this document here-say." Does anon mean, the official website of JWs is not listed in Wikipedia? And that this document (wikipedia) is heresay? (But I saw the official website of JWs at the bottom of the page).
Regarding 'Bethel': The March 1, 1909, WatchTower [magazine/publication] joyfully announced: “The new home we shall call Bethel,” supplanting the Pittsburgh term “Bible House.” So in April 1909, Bethel opened its doors, and the family moved into its new home. Brooklyn Bethel has been in this same location for 85 years. -excerpt from 03/1995 pp.3-6 Kingdom Ministry (published by the Watchtower for its members). [italics, mine]
After reading the article found in those pages, one can see that the word Bethel is used by JWs to refer to a Branch Office of the Watchtower organization. Furthermore, work or tasks done in those Branches are called Bethel Service and those members who volunteered their time and skills in a Branch Office is a member of the Bethel family.
Regarding 'Gilead': There are schools for the advanced training of Bible teachers, such as the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead for missionaries and the Pioneer Service School, conducted in lands around the globe. - excerpt from Watchtower 10/1994 p.12 par.10.
Hope these information will help you dear editors to see the difference between Bethel and Gilead.
Since I discovered wikipedia, I always come here to learn about anything. And I wanted to commend all of you for presenting information in a non-biased way. There is just a lot of negative information I read about Jehovah's Witnesses in the web that I found your information here refreshing. Please keep up the good work. Regards!


Links

I have very much enjoyed the positive Links found on this site. It has added to my knowledge. Thank you for the information.



Message to Eyesopen

Eyesopen it is not your place to delete users legitimate edits to this forum, leave that to the sysops. This forum is ‘free-content’ open for others to add information or opinions that may differ from yours. I would much appreciate being allowed to add some insight to the information presented on this site. If you want no edits you need to put your views on your own web page.

Administrators I would appreciate your input on this matter. Eyesopen has repeatedly deleted or severely altered any addition I have added. Apparently he maybe the original author to the paragraphs but 'my understanding' on this forum others are allowed to add their knowledge to this information. --Saujad 16:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Saujad, you need to calm down and do as suggested, and read all the previous discussions on this matter, which you clearly have not done. As for you saying "open for others to add information or opinions that may differ from yours" is not the point. This site is for factual information, not "opinions", and you should keep this in mind. Some of the things you have posted are blatantly false.
1. You said "all Jehovah's Christian witnesses are God's Prophet", this is false, as you are very aware all the prophecies came from the Watch Tower Society's presidents, or later, the Watch Tower's writing department/Governing Body with the full approval of the Governing Body. Ordinary JWs are never classed as been given the interpretation of prophecy. The Watchtower makes this clear as it links to the "faithful and discreet slave class" as the only ones God uses (and they are obviously also called Jehovah's Witnesses as the link image shows) as I'm sure you are aware. They state: "In behalf of such individuals who at heart seek God's rule instead of man's rule, the "prophet" whom Jehovah has raised up has been, not an individual man as in the case of Jeremiah, but a class. The members of this class are, like the prophet-priest Jeremiah, wholly dedicated to Jehovah God through Christ and, by the begettal of Jehovah's holy spirit, they have been made part of "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession." (1 Peter 2:9) At this late date there is a mere remnant of this "prophet" class yet on earth. The "war of the great day of God the Almighty" at Har-Magedon could not start before this composite "prophet" ends his work." Watchtower magazine 1 October 1982, p.27
2. You then claim "often warning them of dangers and calamities, and declare things to come that are written in the Bible." I would like you to demonstrate to us all where the Bible reveals the Armageddon dates of 1878, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, and heavily points to 1975 and 1994? While you are doing this you can show us where the date of Eve's creation is, and also when Adam and Eve rebelled from God and the date for this. As you are aware, none of this is anywhere in the Bible as you claim. I also find it specious that you add on a deceitful strawn-man diversion by saying, "They believe all prophecy is complete in the Bible and no new foretelling of events is needed". You know very well there were no comments on what is actually written in the Bible, so why try and link false dates of men with God's word as if they are the same? None of the Watch Tower Society's dates are anywhere to be found in the Bible, so your edited claims are incorrect and should not be carried. Eyesopen 23 May 2005
This is a touchy article and a lot of people maintain strong opinions on what it should contain. Eyesopen is generally fairly reasonable though, just be patient and explain your edits here and things should be fine. -- uberpenguin 17:20, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Uberpenquin it is a good subject to discuss but to be fair others need to be allowed to input some information. I would like to add to the article but as the history shows eyesopen repeatedly has deleted any of my edits. I have tried to provide accurate historically documented edits to no avail.

As to the Deletion 1. He writes,"The Watch Tower Society's claimed authority as "God's Prophet" (Eyesopen provided the link) If you go to the link, which is a photocopy of a Watchtower 4/1/72 p. 197, it clearly states, "All Jehovah's Christian witnesses are Prophets." And their meaning behind this is: 'in that they served the people by telling them of God’s will for them, often warning them of dangers and calamities, and declare things to come that are written in the Bible.' Eyesopen is trying to mislead by writing the Watch Tower Society considers itself 'God's Prophet'(using the title of the link to complete the sentence, implying WTS believes they can foretell the future.)Watchtower does not believe they or any JW can fortell the future. I would like my edit on 15:54, 23 May 2005 reverted back to clarify this.

In reply to Saujad's comment above, you are making it up as you go along. You said, "it clearly states, "All Jehovah's Christian witnesses are Prophets." I'm not being sarcastic, but do you need glasses? Nowhere on that one article does it say anywhere that all JWs are prophets. You have made that up. Some claim to be, as described in the other article I have quoted above, and they are all from the so-called "anointed" group. You have also made the mistake of not bothering to read their other articles on who God is using according to the Watch Tower's doctrines, and it is only the so-called "anointed", or "faithful and discreet slave group". Why you keep insisting that "all" was written in the article, when everyone can clearly see it's nowhere to be found, is very interesting in revealing what mindset you are in. According to JWs' doctrine, only the anointed are used by God as His channel, and prophet, not all JWs, and that article link image does not contradict this, especially if you read other articles on the same subject like the one above from the Watchtower magazine 1 October 1982, p.27 eyesopen 24 May 2005


As to Deletion 2. He actual left some of my edit this time but added "in 1974 just prior to the failure of the 1975 date." This implies that The Watchtower only addressed this subject in 1974. This is not correct. Here is a few examples: The Watchtower on 5/1/1968 page 273,"Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows." And again 10/1/1973 page 583 "However, Jesus also said that no one but God knew the "day and hour" for the "great tribulation" to occur. We can be sure that Jehovah will act-but not until the proper development of all details and the arrival of his exact appointed hour. That is why he has not ended this "system of things" before now." Eyesopen deleted these quotes.

I would actually like the edit to be reverted back to my edit on 07:56, 22 May 2005 in which I wrote a direct quote, 'The Watchtower on 10/15/1974 printed, "But these publications have never said that the world's end would come then. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation "Why We Have Not Been Told 'That Day and Hour'" was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end."' Eyesopen deleted this quote. (A direct quote may prevent Eyesopen from altering sentences.)

Uberpenquin I would like to revert back to my two edits on 15:54, 23 May 2005 and 07:56, 22 May 2005.--Saujad 21:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Saujad's, your comments above interestingly missed off all your claimed "biblical" dates of 1878, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975 and 1994, why? You claimed they were all based on the Bible. Also, the vast majority of 1975 publications, over 95%, are pointing to '75 as the date for the beginning of Christ Millennial reign, and therefore Armageddon. It's not a 50/50 issue, so posting a few vague disclaimer comments from the Watch Tower, is not balanced unless you post the 95% of pro-75 Armageddon articles, and then you would end up with a massive page, which would destroy the whole point of Wikipedia. If you do your research, and read all the articles, and all the discussions of past pages, you will see the vast majority of the Watch Tower's articles, talks, and imploring were directed specifically at one date, and that was 1975. A few whimpers of backtracking just before they fell on their face in 1975 means little, as their publisher numbers show. Even the Watch Tower was forced to print a statement as the Witness numbers were going into reverse, as hundreds of thousands left, and they had to admit they were responsible for the cause of the false prophecy about 1975. Mind you, in their next paragraph they reverse this and blame the JW rank and file as they predictably did with 1914, 1920, 1925 etc. Here is the first paragraph, you can look the rest up on the Watchtower CD, note how they try and mislead the reader by mentioning only one publication, rather than the dozens and dozens of articles in different publications over many years:
"In modern times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting-in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man's existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated." Watchtower magazine 15 March 1980 p.17. Saujad, you need to learn to accept that reality may not be the way you like it, or want it to be, but in the end, you will have to accept it, sooner or later, no matter how much you choose to deceive yourself and stay in denial.eyesopen 24 May 2005

Eyesopen you have a right to your opinions, the problem here is; you will not allow users to add information to YOUR paragraphs if the information doesn't fit just right with you and your thinking on these matters.--Saujad 20:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You need not convince me of your edits, you need to convince Eyesopen, or at least enough other users so that your opinion is that of the majority of those following the article. (Incidentally, I'm not an admin if that is what you were thinking) -- uberpenguin 22:42, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

By your input I thought you were a sysops or an administrator. I was informed to try to stop the unwarrant deletions or the severe alterations to user edits here first. This is written proof I tried. If Eyesopen doesn't stop, I will directly contact an administrator. --Saujad 23:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


Bias, Accuracy, Objectivity, Scrutiny

You didn't actually address the meat of Suajad's argument: "..Watchtower does not believe they or any JW can fortell the future.." which is true, contrary to your portrayal of them. In failing to face the truth of his argument you tacitly acknowledge that your polemic is nothing more than specious and exaggerated lies. Not to mention the fact that the 1975 "issue" has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Eschatology." Duffer1 4 June 2005
To Duffer1 above. I find your obsessive vandalism worrying, and your argumentation weak to say the least. You say "You didn't actually address the meat of Suajad's argument: '..Watchtower does not believe they or any JW can fortell the future..'". duffer1, your diversion is a straw man argument, as they clearly do believe that they are revealing God's dates, and that they alone have this gift, and are His personal chosen channel to mankind. As has already been posted (and you vandalised) they make is extremely clear that they believe they are revealing God's dates for His actions towards mankind, to quote them: "It is on the basis of such and so many correspondencies-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." (Watchtower, 15 June 1922, p. 187.) "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."—Watchtower, 15 July 1922, p. 217.
They used that mentality of "God's stamp of approval" with all their date settings for Armageddon, 1878, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975 and 1994 "last generation will not pass away", and all of them were described as the "revealed purpose of God", therefore to question the dates given was to "question God" as the Watch Tower claims they were not their own dates, but merely publishing "God's revealed dates" for His action. It you want more info look at the quotes here: Page 1 and Page 2. To quote "Jehovah as the great Interpreter makes known the meaning of his revelations in his due time, and speculation by men cannot bring to light the true meaning of prophecy before time. Jehovah has provided a channel, the "faithful and discreet slave" class, who are given spiritual "food at the proper time", and this spiritual food includes among other things the understandings of the prophecies in the course of their fulfillments. (Matt. 24:45, NW) Jehovah's witnesses themselves are not nor can they be interpreters of prophecies. But as fast as the "superior authorities" Jehovah and Christ Jesus reveal the interpretations through their provided channel that fast do God's people publish them the world over. . ." (Watchtower, 15 April 1952, p. 253.) On your last claim of: "the 1975 "issue" has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Eschatology." I suggest you go and look up the meaning of eschatology. User Duffer1, Please do some detailed research before you haphazardly vandalise any more pages, including Watch Tower quotes on prophets and "God's channel" that you seem so terrified to allow the public to see. eyesopen 5 June 2005
Hypocrite. I find your obsessive need to slander and lie worrying, your reasoning is tangential at best, and your motives for such behavior, highly questionable. When using the word "prophet", semantically, the WT claimed nothing more than being messangers and interpreters of God's will. And as YOUR article points out, the WTS claimed "prophet" not of themselves but of: "..a bod of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses." Despite this you claim: "Jehovah's witnesses themselves are not nor can they be interpreters of prophecies." Though with YOUR use of the word "Prophet" it is clear you are being deceptive and selective. In the first paragraph you cite an article (that does not say "the WTS claims authority as "God's Prophet"") that shows semantically we use the word "prophet" as one who relays biblical interpretation (contrary to your portrayal of the word in your polemic), the article you cite clearly includes ALL Jehovah's Witnesses. In the second paragraph you equivocate our use of the word "prophet" to mean the same as Jehovah's "provided channel" and "faithful and discreet slave", since we did believe that ALL JWs are "prophets" (though we no longer use that term) and believe that only VERY FEW are of the "faithful and discreet slave class" that alone shows your conclusions are entirely false. "All" cannot be a "few", and a "few" are NOT "prophets" (in the sense of the word you are infering). Your own "detailed research" clearly mitigates against such a conclusion. So you can say accurately that we do indeed claim that the "faithful and discreet slave" is "God's channel", but you cannot say that they claim to be a "prophet" in the sense of the word you are attempting in your polemic. I recognize this is not a debate forum, though I am seeing the necessity to dismantle your polemic point by point, and see what really stands to scrutiny and what does not. Duffer1 5 June 2005
Duffer1 said: "When using the word "prophet", semantically, the WT claimed nothing more than being messangers and interpreters of God's will"
What else is a prophet supposed to be? They claim to be revealing God's will, they misrepresent Him, and they've made multiple false dates up using a claim they alone are His chosen channel and mouthpiece to mankind, and are "revealing God's dates". All in all, they have blasphemed and false prophesied at alarming levels, if you cannot grasp that you have a severe problem with cognitive dissonance, which is quite understandable if you are a JW. Eyesopen 6 June 2005
There is "prophet" that interprets and relays interpretation of biblical prophecy. There is "prophet" in the sense of the word prophesy, this is the one you are ascribing to us. Duffer16 June '05
Duffer1: "the article you cite clearly includes ALL Jehovah's Witnesses"
Incorrect, there is no word "ALL" in that article. And if you were remotely honest you would know that they only class the alleged "faithful and discreet slave" to be the supposed "channel", not all JWs.
Incorrect? YOUR article clearly says: "..a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses." How you can say that that is not refering to "all" is beyond reason... What are you talking about with your "shred of honesty?!" Frankly I stand in awe of your hypocracy. Yes I am aware that VERY FEW are claimed to be part of the "Faithful and discreet slave", it is YOU who are are saying that the claim of "prophet" from your article are ONLY the FDS when YOUR article clearly shows it was speaking about the entire body of Jehovahs Witnesses. Duffer1
As for the rest of your rant, you appear to be clearly trying to convince yourself, more than anyone else. PS. Go and buy a thesaurus, as your obsessive use of the word "polemic" is becoming wearing. Eyesopen 6 June 2005
As for the use of the word "eschatology" I was wrong. I'm sorry. I criticised you unfairly.Duffer1 5 June 2005.

Scrutiny of the "Eyesopen" polemic:

"...the book Millions Now Living Will Never Die, and various other Watch Tower Society publications. When these events did not occur, there was a period of discouragement and some left the organization at that time, but the majority saw it only as a temporary disappointment."
Who left? What is your reference for this statement? Verify it or I'll delete it.Duffer1 5 June 2005
"The Watch Tower Society's claimed authority as "God's Prophet"

No they didn't. Did you not read the very link you are citing? They use the word not of themselves but of ALL Jehovah's Witnesses. Not only is the phrase "God's Prophet" not found in your cited reference, but also neither is the "claimed authority" even infered here. Your conclusions are entirely spurious and outright decietful.Duffer1 5 June 2005

Again, there is no word "ALL" in that article. Eyesopen 6 June 2005
"...as its prophecies and predictions were classed as "of God," "God's revealed interpretations," and "God's channel to Mankind"

Our beliefs, current and past, are not "prophecies", they are interpretations of prophetic biblical passages, and the WTS openly acknowledges that they have been wrong, several times. There is a difference the size of the Grand Canyon between prophesy and interpretation of prophecy. You attribute to us the claim of the former, while we have never claimed anything more than being interpreters of the later.Duffer1 5 June 2005

"...therefore to questions their validity is often negatively inferred to be questioning God Himself."
Where is your source for this statement? To be specific, we believe persistent promotion of ones beliefs that differs from the WTS's is refered to as "running ahead of the organization," not "questioning God himself". Of course, that's in reference to our doctrine and interpretation. An instance where we believe someone would be "questioning God himself" would be if they questioned the Bible, or it's authority, historicity, or chronology.Duffer1 5 June 2005
Duffer1 said: "Where is your source for this statement?"
There are many :-) Eyesopen 6 June 2005
You did not cite this before as the source of your statement, and infered that the conclusion was based from the two highly misleading chronology quotes. Duffer1 6 June '05
"The Watch Tower Society's prophetic dates were never suggested to be the thoughts of imperfect men, or mere passing theories of men."
When writing about biblical interpretation, the authors of the Zion's Herald magazine often included phrases such as: "if indeed our interpretation is correct" and "if we are correct, then...". This attitude changed however to where such phrases are no longer found in in WT articles. To say "were never suggested" is less than half of the full truth.Duffer1 5 June 2005
"This is demonstrated clearly in two issues of the Watchtower magazine published by the organisation: "It is on the basis of such and so many correspondencies-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." (Watchtower, 15 June 1922, p. 187.) "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.";Watchtower, 15 July 1922, p. 217."
The only thing you demonstrate here is your profound lack of knowledge on the subject you are so vociferously trying to criticise. The issue of bible chronology has been a hotly disputed topic. It is generally understood that the chronology of the bible (dates and times of kings ruling mentioned in the old testament) differs from the secular interpretation of the dates that those kings supposedly ruled. Our interpretation of bible prophecy is based not on the secular interpretation, but on the chronology of the bible. And this is where your (mis)quotes come in. You (falsely) claim that our interpretations were posited as inerrent, in support of this conclusion you cite two quotes that speak of the bibles chronology, NOT inerrency of the interpretations BASED on said chronology. Your "quotes" do not support your baseless assertion: "This is demonstrated clearly."Duffer1 5 June 2005
Duffer1 said: "Our interpretation of bible prophecy is based not on the secular interpretation, but on the chronology of the bible."
Maybe you would like to show "us" where the Bible, (yes that's God's word to the believer), said that Jesus took up his reign in 1799, then 1874, then 1914? And where God tells us in His Bible that Armageddon will come in 1878, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1940s, 1975, and 1994 and before the end the millennium? Eyesopen 6 June 2005
This is not a debate forum. I accurately criticised your rediculous and decietful portrayal of Jehovah's Witnesses. If you feel the need to debate, do so on an appropriate forum.
"Many Witnesses gave up jobs..."
Oh they did? What is your source for this information? Though your claim is not entirely without merit, that's why I changed it to "Some Witnesses.." Duffer1 5 June 2005
"abstained from having children"
I deleted this as well. You cannot possibly know if they "abstained from having children" any more so prior to 1975 than any other time. The fact of the matter is, Witnesses are predominately found on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, thus the decision a responsible JW couple makes to have children, or not, is largely based on finances.Duffer1 5 June 2005
The WT has constantly discouraged people from having children, here are a few quotes out of many to help you Eyesopen 6 June 2005
You infered it happened more-so just prior to 1975 than any other time. Reading your source it shows dates 1938, '41, one sentence in '74, and 1988. The first two quotes appearing far before the "idea" that '75 could bring Armageddon. Therefore your inference that they "abstained from having children" happened more-so prior to '75 than any other time, is by YOUR OWN SOURCE AGAIN shown to be verifiably untrue, thus further justifying my deletion of it. Duffer1
"The Watch Tower Society made a tentative admittance of its responsibility in the whole 1975 prophecy incident:"

Remove "tentative" and "whole", and you would have the first objective claim in your entire polemic.Duffer1 5 June 2005

I see you removed the whole quote several times, revealing your intense hatred of freedom of information. I'm glad you have posted the logical fallacies you have, as they demonstrate what mentality many unfortunate JW victims are, and how they have lost rational ability as they hand their minds over to a religious book publishing organisation. I am also impressed with your total lack of any Christian love, as you rip into me with your circular reasoning, and hopeless logical fallacies in the vain attempt to try and convince yourself of your own arguments. I'm sure this would be a fine qualifications as a JW Elder or higher? I'm glad you posted here describing your opinions "us" trying to represent all Jehovah's Witnesses. You help many see the dangerous religion for what it is, and the superficial "love" veneer for what it is. A little probing and it all falls apart, as your hate busts forth when anyone dares to expose your religion's nakedness for what it is. Bye for now "brother", your doing a great job stumbling others! Eyesopen 6 June 2005
Your hypocricy is nothing short of appalling. You lecture Duffer about "Christian love" and then go on to personally attack him and JWs as a whole with phrasing that is simply dripping with sarcasm? You're neither trying to compromise nor to write an accurate article, just to convey in whatever way possible your own criticisms of the WBTS and JWs as a whole. Don't bother responding to this, I have a severe distaste for your insulting sarcasm and am offended that you cannot seem to make a point without attacking either JWs or the person challenging your position. I'm not here to engage you in the war of words you seem to desire every time I have seen you post on the talk page. Duffer is doing a good job so far of making criticisms of your edits. -- uberpenguin 21:18, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Your first sentence should read "..revealing your intense hatred of disinformation." "..as they demonstrate what mentality many unfortunate JW victims are..." The mentality of objectivity, in my opinion, is admirable, not pitiable. "You help many see the dangerous religion for what it is..." if people wanted to read such one sided and hateful crap they would click on one of the various links at the bottom of the JW page. Your demonstrable lack of compassion and objectivity is only surpassed by your hypocracy. The attitude you take against truth and objectivity is against this websites policy. I am not afraid of accurate criticism. I am not your "brother". Duffer1 6 June '05

Objectivity

To all editors of this entry:

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have found that even well-meaning attempts by editors are skewed by outside research into what others think Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and what the Governing Body and the Watchtower Society said, or didn't say, or what they meant by such things. Attempts to document previous viewpoints are likewise touchy, because individuals who may have been within the organization may have taken exception to the principle, or to it changing; as well, other individuals who may have been interested in the beliefs of the Witnesses may have held similar feelings. Individuals like these are prone to try to make their interpretation of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe as part of a cannon of factual information such as this online encyclopedia.

Individual Jehovah's Witnesses voluntarily submit to the Governing Body's opinions on many issues; on other issues the general principles laid out in the Bible are their only source for individually choosing what course he or she will take. Jehovah's Witnesses do not brainwash anyone; nor do they force their views on people. People are fully entitled by society and by the laws of the lands in which they live to choose to accept a belief or not. If they genuinely feel that they are being forced, then they probably should take a step back and decide if they truly wish to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The best way to find out what Jehovah's Witnesses believe is to ASK THEM. (Would you rely on critics of the Catholic Church to get a factual statement on Catholic doctrine???) Editors should read up on the www.watchtower.org website, and even try writing to the Society, explaining your intentions, and the history of the entry on Jehovah's Witnesses here on Wikipedia.

CobaltBlueTony 20:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the spaces at the beginning of those two paragraphs so the text wraps properly. -- uberpenguin 22:50, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Thank you! CobaltBlueTony 13:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Classification (taxonomy) of Jehovah's Witnesses

Regarding the Restorationism article, I need some help clarifying how Jehovah's Witnesses fit into the mishmash of Christian branches. For example, see Latter Day Saint movement and Christianity. Are Jehovah's Witnesses a form of Christian Restorationism? If so, we need to add them to that article and state so in this article. Tom Haws 17:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can tell you that we do not claim any denominational heritage. From the very early days of C. T. Russell, the denominational backgrounds of the various members were from all over the "Christian" spectrum. Many of the ideas that Russell and his associates began to adhere to were not of their own origin, but were common topics of dispute among Christendom's various scholars for centuries. Russell's group was not interested in the traditions of other religious groups; what they tried to ascertain was the original beliefs of the first congregations of Christians.
Organizationally, JW's did not break away from any major or minor sect. Instead, they took much of their religious and organizational ideas from first century Christians, as they read in the Bible.
I know this probably does not answer your question at all, but it's the best answer.
CobaltBlueTony 18:48, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Tony. You are right that it does not answer my question. To answer it properly, we have to step outside our skins for a moment and look at ourselves from the outside. Or we can look to the scholars to do it for us. I will research the answer on my own and see what the scholars say. We can't properly make sense of Christianity by placing every "independently true" variant alone. The world makes sense of it all by grouping us into "like" categories. The Campbellites must squirm to be categorized with the Mormons, but that is how the chips fall. That is the kind of answer I am hoping to find. Thanks. If anybody else has any info, I would appreciate it. Tom Haws 20:25, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

We are a "restorationist" group so to speak. We form our congregations in likeness of the first/second century organizational structure. We practice excommunication and shunning of wayward members as they did. We practice strict abstination from military service and political office as they did (as revealed by historians and the Ante-Nicene Fathers). We don't subscribe to post-apostle doctrine like the Trinity, hellfire, the "once-saved-always-saved" nonsense, or the idea that the soul is a seperate entity that indwells in the flesh and is released upon death. If their doctrine was good enough to get them "saved", it's good enough for us. Though admitedly our interpretations of biblical prophecy is.. more modern? It's different, not different bad, just different in an evolved sense of understanding of it (we like to believe at least hehe). Does that help? If you need answers to specifics or some research just let me know. Duffer1 7 June '05

Jonadab reference near the beginning of the article

I removed the Jonadab reference at the beginning, as the language was both archaic to the modern faith and inconsistent with how Witnesses view the belief. I think this entire article needs to have older ideas and language updated to the Witnesses' current beliefs and how they express such. Editors should be both neutral and fair, as well as current, with their edits, IMHO. CobaltBlueTony 13:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Many Jonadabs do not know the full impact of belonging to the Jonadab Slave Class (It has not been Repealed) It means eternal separation from Jehovah God. The JW handbook states that flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of Jehovah. Be open and honest. -Melissa

I support your edit and the current verbage. -- uberpenguin 14:31, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
As Tony said, this view is totally archaic and doesn't reflect in the slightest what the current beliefs and teachings of the JWs are. Most newer JWs won't even know who the "Jonadab class" is because that phrasing went into disuse many years ago. If you really think this information should stay in the article, it should be moved to a history section, and not to the summary in the beginning since it is in no way an accurate reflection of current JW teaching. Incidentally, to what "JW handbook" do you refer? The WBTS currently maintains hundreds of publications. -- uberpenguin 13:25, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)


I agree with Melissa. There are lots of good things about the JWs, as long as you go "First Class". The Great Crowd will not even see the kingdom of Heaven, are not considered brothers and sisters of Christ, are flesh and blood, not spiritual, are eternal slaves (ruled over by the upper class) and if you read some of the older literature, most will be doomed to wander the earth picking up the dead and rotting bodies after Armageddon. The "Little Flock" keeps the Great Crowd in the dark about what truly happens when this earth passes away and the New Jerusalem arrives. However, the JW organization is in the process of removing its apartheid system and making all believers, male and female, Jew and Greek, free and slave, equal children of Jehovah. -- Eberhart the Good

I think you would be very hard pressed to find any JW that shares this view. Those of the Great Crowd do not aspire to have more an inheritance than is promised to them, and they are not "jealous" of the privileges that are promised to the little flock. -- uberpenguin 13:25, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

To Melissa and her like-minded associates: Certainly you've seen in hundreds and hundreds of pieces of literature pictures of the earth transformed into a literal Paradise? This was Adam and Eve's destiny, which they had forsaken. Revelation says that "the rest of the dead did not come to life until after the thousand years [had] ended." This ties in with the idea of "getting a firm hold on the real life," of which no human has ever experienced since Adam and Eve. Witnesses focus, not only on the physical restoration of the earth, but on the spiritual restoration of the human species. Indeed, after the thousand years they get to be called sons of God themselves, regaining in full the relationship God began with Adam at his creation. Humans who survive the following "final test" of Satan being released to mess with humanity again will be forever sealed as everlasting creatures (technically, as a classs, and not as individuals). Only then will God's purpose for the earth be truly fulfilled. Cleaning up dead bodies may likely only take a few years at most, IF that is one of our tasks. There is a reference in Revelation to the carrion-eating birds eating up the bodies of those struck down by God, but it could be symbolic only. CobaltBlueTony 20:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Of course they are not "jealous" of the privileges that are promised to the little flock. It would lead to death! Jonadabs are under the rule (enslavement) of the Kings and Priests. They remain flesh and blood only if the are faithful. Many who question receive eternal death. They never will Know the true Freedom of Christ Jesus. BE OPEN AND HONEST! Melissa

You have two JWs telling you that what you are stating absolutely does not reflect modern JW belief. Those of the "Great Crowd" class do not follow the direction of the "Little Flock" for fear of eternal punishment, but rather because they believe from their study of scripture that this group is Jesus and Jehovah God's established channel to his organization on the Earth. You ask us to be "open and honest," but when we try to be you refuse to acknowledge what we, as average common JWs, are telling you that we and others we know feel and believe. Your edits only reflect archaic beliefs and terminology that have long since been abandoned or revised. Insisting that these old beliefs and principles still accurately portray JWs today is tantamount to claiming that all the beliefs of the Russelites, Judge Rutherford's followers, etc are also representative of today's organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.
As a Jehovah's Witness I am plainly telling you that your edits are misleading, confusing, and inapplicable to Jehovah's Witnesses today. We have nothing to hide about our doctrine, but I refuse to allow someone to imply that JWs today are identical to JWs 50 years ago. It's for this reason that your phrasing does not belong in the summary section; the casual reader assumes that this section is an accurate overview. How does portraying long-revised JW doctrine as their modern belief create a correct and unbiased encyclopedia article? I will remove this phrasing until you have provided sufficient answer, since your answers so far have just been your own personal views formed from shreds of doctrine that JWs no longer hold to. If you feel that this information is justified for inclusion in the history section, by all means explain why. -- uberpenguin 03:03, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Melissa, I am thankful that you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia. I hope that we can rise above the base and mean toward productive knowledge sharing. From what I know, uberpenguin is a seasoned editor who has a very good grasp on what works and doesn't work here, though of course he is learning, as are all of us. If you will speak with him respectfully, I am certain he will help you to find an appropriate way to share the knowledge in question. If you don't get satisfaction, feel free to visit the WP:JW project page or my talk page. I don't say a lot here or even read a lot of what goes on because so much of it is base and mean, and beyond my knowledge, but I am just a stone's throw away, and always I have this page on my watchlist. You can also get Orthodox User:Wesley if you despair of neutrality. Hang in there. Tom Haws 20:32, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've been away for a while and am trying to get a handle on the current round of argumentation. Nevertheless, as a JW for over 20 years I can offer this perspective as my initial take on this issue: everyone of Jehovah's Witnesses that I know thinks the idea of everlasting life on a paradise earth is a pretty good deal, especially when you consider it light of the fact that this was God's original purpose for mankind. It's a good thing. --DannyMuse 21:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't all this Little Flock & Great Crowd doctrinal points be better explained later in the article?!?!?!? --DannyMuse 21:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Duffer's current revision of the first paragraphs are pretty nice, this conversation is mainly for Melissa's benefit so she knows that I'm not just mindlessly reverting because of my opinion, but rather for factuality and clarity. -- uberpenguin 22:39, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)


The Great Crowd (Arc. The Jonadab Slave Class) and The Little Flock (Annointed Ones)

Don't get me wrong. There is much in JW theology that I respect and admire. However my greatest concern is the development of upper and lower class Christians.

The Watchtower Society has defined a two-class system of believers: the Annointed Class (144,000) and the Great Crowd (originally called the Jonadab slave class). Their job after Armageddon to pick up dead and decaying could be unsettling to some.

The Watchtower states that only the Anointed are "born again," and that, technically, Jesus is the mediator for this Little Flock alone. The Great Crowd cannot look to Jesus as their mediator (Watchtower, 1 April 1979, p. 31).Therefore must face great hardship.

The Great Crowd have often been left out of upper-level leadership and decision making because the Watchtower teaches that they have spiritual handicaps. They are not anointed with the Holy Spirit and they are eternally separeted from Jehovah god..

What Happens to Us When We Die? p. 26-28

The Great Crowd will be tested, living for 1000 years on earth. They are not born again and have no hope of heaven, but hope to survive Armageddon to live on paradise earth (Jehovah's Witnesses In The Divine Purpose, p. 140). 1935

Many Jonadabs do not know the full impact of belonging to the Jonadab Slave Class (It has not been Repealed) It means eternal separation from Jehovah God. The JW handbook(Reasonings) states that flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of Jehovah. Until this article fully speaks of the full list of things being denied the Great Crowd this article is factually untrue and is very biased. Therefore I am placing the Template

Removed template as a sign of good will. Melissa

The problem is that you are interpreting JW doctrine totally different than any JW would themselves. They don't perceive the different privileges of the Great Crowd and Little Flock as "handicaps" as you suggest, but as just that, different privileges. Particularly misleading is the phrasing "eternal separation from Jehovah God." That is not something JWs believe to be true regarding the Great Crowd whatsoever. On the contrary, they view the Great Crowd as having a good standing and close relationship with God during and after the 1000 years. I find it somewhat disturbing that you keep suggesting that "Jonadabs do not know the full impact..." of their position, both because "Jonadab" is not a term that has been used by the WBTS or any JW for quite some time, and it's quite untrue that JW members of the Great Crowd class don't know what is involved for them. They realize quite well that they do not have a heavenly hope, but don't see this as a limitation or a withholding of something good in the least. You are highly misinterpreting the general reaction to differences in the Little Flock and the Great Crowd. Just because they have different privileges and responsabilities doesn't mean one is resentful of the other or has regrets of things they are "missing out on." I think you are reading JW doctrine and assuming that your interpretation or feelings in this regard are shared by other JWs, and that's simply not true. -- uberpenguin 11:36, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
To add a bit more to what Uberpenguin said; you have some misconceptions about our belief system, but that's ok many do. It is true that we believe that Jesus is the mediator of the 'little flock' alone, only in regards to the 'New Covenant.' He is a "mediator" (so to speak) for the Great Crowd as well, he is still the only one whom we can attain salvation through (Act 4:12). He is still the only one through whom all of us approach the Father (John 14:6). We suffer together along with the little flock, each and everyone of us with the ability to approach Jehovah through his mediator the Christ Jesus, and beseach Him for strength. So it is innacurate for you to say: "Therefore must face great hardship" of one group and not the other because we suffer together. The Little Flock recieve no special treatment, more-so than any other regular elderly member of our congregation.
You say: "They are not anointed with the Holy Spirit..". That is true, but it is (probably inadvertantly) misleading. We do believe that we are not annointed (the "Little Flock"). "Annointing" in Holy Spirit (HS), is just one function of the (HS), and we believe is limited to only the 144,000, however, every regular member of the congregation can (and does before every meeting and study) request Jehovah to let his HS guide the meeting/study/gathering/individual/etc. Holy Spirit is not exclusive to the Little Flock, Annointing is.
"Many Jonadabs do not know the full impact of belonging to the Jonadab Slave Class (It has not been Repealed) It means eternal separation from Jehovah God." Every Jehovah's Witness knows full well what they are getting into before being baptised. On top of written tests, every baptismal candidate must be in good standing in the congregation, they must attend meetings regularly, they must participate in the ministry at least 1 hour a month. And it is not an eternal separation from God, it is life on a paradise Earth as Jehovah originally intended. Personal relationship with Jehovah takes place whether on Earth or in Heaven. Abraham was said to be "Jehovah's friend" (Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23), something that was not even said of any of his angels. And as Uberpenguin pointed out, each and everyone one of us strive to cultivate a close, personal, loving relationship, before during and after Armaggedon. You say: "The JW handbook(Reasonings) states that flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of Jehovah." Technically, the bible says that as well :) (1 Cor. 15:50).
I didn't want to delete your Great Crowd introduction entirely, I think it should be re-worded to more accurately reflect our theology. And honestly I don't have anything better to put there so... (hehe) Your words are factually correct (for the most part), though inadvertently misleading. I don't mean that in a rude way, I'll try to explain. Your opening reads:
"Faithful non-anointed ones (those not of the 144,000) are the class of individuals described as the "Great Crowd" of faithful ones that may have everlasting life on earth as perfect humans if faithful according to Witnesses’ beliefs. They are not Born Again nor do they partake of the Lord's Supper bread and wine ritual practiced annually by the Jehovah's Witnesses"
The first part of the first sentence would be more succinct if read: "The "Great Crowd" is comprised of those who both survive Armageddon, and those resurrected aftwards. This includes not only resurrected Jehovah's Witnesses, but also those righteous and unrighteous who died prior to Armageddon." Even that sounds stiff and not well written, because it still fails the relevancy test (imo). The second part of that sentence: "according to Witnesses' beliefs", is hard to understand. Do you mean: "According to their belief system, they teach x,y,z."? Or do you mean: "may have life on earth if faithful TO Witness beliefs."? Either way, what we currently believe will more than likely have little to do with post Armaggedon theology when "new scrolls" are opened (Rev 20:12). In your second sentence you say "they are not Born Again", which is true, however, in our interpretation of the bible, only the 144000 are said to be "Born Again", "Anointed". To say that we are "not born again" without saying WHY we are not "born again" infers that the statement is being used as an "alert" to orthodox readers, it's the same with your last statement: "nor do they partake of the Lord's Supper bread and wine ritual practiced annually by the Jehovah's Witnesses". It's true that we do not partake of the "emblems" (except the 144,000), It's true that we practice the Memorial once a year, but the way you phrased it is convoluted and hard to understand. Please do not take that as being condescending. It's just that it seems you're trying to pack in more information than what's necessary, and overcomplicating individual issues. It would be great to have a 'bullet' style introduction at the top of the JW page that succinctly covers the major tenets of our faith. Frankly what we have now, just isn't it. All of these things you're trying to bring up are found just a couple scrolls down from the intro, on the same page. Duffer1 8 June '05 (too early in the morning)(THANK YOU Uberpenguin :)) Duffer 22:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me, as someone largely unfamiliar with JW ideas, that the existence and distinction between the "Great Crowd" and the 144,000 is a pretty significant feature of the JW, in that it is pretty clearly an idea which they do not share, so far as I am aware, with any other Christian group. The idea of two classes of believers would be an alien one to most denominations. Highlighting it (in an accurate way, of course), would seem to be a good thing to do. john k 15:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. It is part of the special color of the JWs. Tom Haws 15:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it most certainly should be highlighted in the article; that point was never in contention. The point here is that we need to be careful to phrase it in a way that is actually in line with JW beliefs and isn't misleading. Duffer does a good job of explaining that in more detail above, so I won't repeat what he has already said. -- uberpenguin 17:29, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I enjoyed what you wrote! I came to understand much of the problem is with me! I am prejudiced against 'class systems' I hated the old South Africa and agree with what Gandhi said about the Caste System. My problem not yours. Melissa

And a big "thank you" to you, too for being so reasonable and talking this out with us! -- uberpenguin 01:02, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
Please forgive me, I did not mean to infer that it was your problem. It was just a problem with the way it was worded. Duffer 03:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

QUESTION-- Why do the Great Crowd refuse the Lord's Supper? Melissa

Melissa, It is not a refusal so much as the fact that we are not entitled. The bread and the wine represent the covenant with the anointed. The great crowd is not part of this particular covenant, to be 'kings and priests with him' in heaven. However, in Revelation Chapter 7, the great crowd is identified right after the 144,000 anointed ones:

"After these things 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, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. That is why they are before the throne of God; and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat, because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and will guide them to fountains of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.'" (Rev.7:9, 10, 14b-17, NWT)

Obviously, those who identify with the Great Crowd are not denying themselves of anything that has been offered to them. Rather, they are recongized by God for their devotion, and are 'shepherded' by Christ (as the Lamb) as he does so with the congregation as one flock.

If you would like to use references not dated back to 1935, but reflect our current beliefs and means od expressing them, try this web page: What Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe? - CobaltBlueTony 14:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Commercial break: I invite you all to add WP:JW, the WikiProject Jehovahs Witnesses, to your watchlists. The project is having a hard time getting off the ground, but increased watchlist participation will help. Thanks. Tom Haws 14:52, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Use of "Jehovah" intro

I'd like to solve this amicably. I prefer:

Over:

Technically the transliteration is not archaic, first appearing in the early 15th century by cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (contrary to the blurb on the Tetragrammaton page.. so much editing so little time!!), On top of that "Jehovah" wasn't an overnight decision. The evolution of the transliterated name spans several centuries. Most of those scholars venturing to render the name as accurately as possible, cite the 12th century Jewish philosopher Maimonides, and transliterate from there (contrary to the myth that it was a concoction of the consanents of "YHWH" + the vowels of the Hebrew word for "God": Adonai). It wasn't really "Romanised" or "Latinized" though it certainly is a transliteration. It's more a product of evolution than any form of latin transliteration. The author Gérard Gertoux shows just how influential Maimonides was in the evolution of the name (The "Summary" and "F.A.Q." sections of the website are great resources). The point is: We use the most commonly accepted ENGLISH rendering of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton "Jehovah", and I feel the first option (the way it was) reflects that better than the later. Duffer 02:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with Duffer's reasoning. Also Fire Star's edit put the emphasis on the transliteration rather than the name of God, which is what JW's emphasize: The God of the Bible has a personal name. JW's say it in whatever form is common in the language they speak. This is the English WP so we use "Jehovah" here. --DannyMuse 05:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite obviously the second version above is unacceptable and had to be replaced. It is intentionally disrespectful of the JWs. I think the first version (standing in the article at the moment) is just fine. The JWs want to emphasize that they are trying to use the Hebrew name of God; that's fine. There is no reason for mockers to point out that it is an archaic transliteration. Peace and love to you all. Tom Haws 15:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I can see why calling it "archaic" is debatable, but what's wrong with calling it a "transliteration?" That seems like a more precise version of "rendered" without being insulting or excessively wordy. I'm going to try changing that back. Wesley 02:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Covenant with the Anointed but not the Great Crowd (aka Jonadabs)

QUESTION-- Why do the Great Crowd refuse the Lord's Supper? Melissa

ANSWER It is not a refusal so much as the fact that they are not entitled. The bread and the wine represent the Covenant with the Anointed. The great crowd is not part of this particular covenant- CobaltBlueTony 14:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Who edited my reply here??? - CobaltBlueTony 15:39, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I did not edit but merely quoted from this text.- Melissa


It is not a refusal so much as the fact that we are not entitled. The bread and the wine represent the covenant with the anointed. The great crowd is not part of this particular covenant, to be 'kings and priests with him' in heaven. However, in Revelation Chapter 7, the great crowd is identified right after the 144,000 anointed ones:

"After these things 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, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. That is why they are before the throne of God; and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat, because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and will guide them to fountains of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.'" (Rev.7:9, 10, 14b-17, NWT)

Obviously, those who identify with the Great Crowd are not denying themselves of anything that has been offered to them. Rather, they are recongized by God for their devotion, and are 'shepherded' by Christ (as the Lamb) as he does so with the congregation as one flock.

If you would like to use references not dated back to 1935, but reflect our current beliefs and means od expressing them, try this web page: What Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe? - CobaltBlueTony 14:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

REQUEST--List the benefits and duties of the Covenant with the Anointed compared with the Great Crowd. Then we will have an honest article. --Melissa

Melissa, If you'd like to prepare a draft list and submit it to the JW Talk page for discussion I'm sure we'd be happy to review it! Cheers, --DannyMuse 06:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes to the Intro Section

Melissa, Please, let's not get into an "Edit War". You have several doctrinal errors in your changes and reverts. Please discuss before you modify further. For example:

  • JW’s believe that there is a "Great Crowd" … that will survive the coming battle of Armageddon. It’s a different story regarding individuals, they may or may not survive, but the “Great Crowd” WILL, not "may"!
  • According to JW beliefs, the bread and the wine DO NOT represent the Covenant; they represent Jesus' body and blood.

I would appreciate it if you read the explanations to my edits and gave them some thought before making wholesale reverts. It is my habit to make one revision at a time whereever possible so I can explain my purpose for that particular edit. I made fourteen separate edits to this page, so I really don't appreciate you just reverting them all. That is hardly in the spirit of WP cooperation. If you have an issue with a particular edit let's discuss that. Perhaps it was a mistake on your part, but it is really inappropriate WP behavior to revert a page and then label it as "minor" edit, particularly without any explanation whatsoever.

Thanks. --DannyMuse 07:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Melissa, It is not a refusal so much as the fact that we are not entitled. The bread and the wine represent the covenant with the anointed. The great crowd is not part of this particular covenant, to be 'kings and priests with him' in heaven. However, in Revelation Chapter 7, the great crowd is identified right after the 144,000 anointed ones:

"After these things 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, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. That is why they are before the throne of God; and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat, because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and will guide them to fountains of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.'" (Rev.7:9, 10, 14b-17, NWT)

Obviously, those who identify with the Great Crowd are not denying themselves of anything that has been offered to them. Rather, they are recongized by God for their devotion, and are 'shepherded' by Christ (as the Lamb) as he does so with the congregation as one flock.

If you would like to use references not dated back to 1935, but reflect our current beliefs and means od expressing them, try this web page: What Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe? - CobaltBlueTony 14:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Cobalt & Danny you have some talking to do!--Have fun and I look forward to reading what you have to say, Melissa

Melissa, This is going to take a little thought and some careful consideration to give a proper and complete response. In the meantime here are two scriptures for you to ponder on:
  • Jesus, when instituting the Lord's Evening Meal, "As they continued eating, he took a loaf, said a blessing, broke it and gave it to them, and said: 'Take it, this means my body.'" (Mr 14:22 NWT)
  • After Jesus had passed the bread, he took a cup and "offered thanks and gave it to them, and they all drank out of it. And he said to them: 'This means my "blood of the covenant," which is to be poured out in behalf of many.'" (Mr 14:23, 24 NWT)
Those that partake of the emblems indicate that they believe they are in the new covenant and are receiving the benefits of it, that is, God's forgiveness of sins through Christ's blood. - --DannyMuse 06:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and the question of blood

On 14 Jun 2005 user Central made some lengthy additions to this section of the main page. Although his additions had some good points and interesting facts, it is unfortunately so slanted and full of inaccuracies that it will take a lot of work to clean up! I've taken an initial whack at editing for accuracy and NPOV, but it will take a lot more by others. Plus some fact checking will be needed. It is sad that some contributors don't seem to realize when they add material that contains gross errors that are easily disproved that ALL of their additions become questionable!

Hello Danny, you said of my post: ". . .slanted and full of inaccuracies. . . contains gross errors that are easily disproved". But you have posted this rhetoric, but failed to give a single bit of proof for your accusations, why? If you make such statements then give your proof for them please. Central 15 Jun 2005
Fair enough. You want examples I'll give you examples:
  • INACCURATE STATEMENT: You wrote "... Jehovah's Witnesses state that they do not accept blood transfusions ...."
FACT: Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood.
  • INACCURATE STATEMENT: You wrote "... Jehovah's Witnesses claim they do not take blood in any form ..." but then you contradict yourself by acknowledging that we accept products made from blood products.
I attempted to rectify the above two inaccurate and slanted statements with the following edit:
"Although Jehovah's Witnesses do not take whole blood in any form including transfusions, they may according to the conscience of the particular individual accept certain blood fractions and derivatives."
  • SLANT: Your use of words such as "claim", "ironically" and "they state" are evidence of your slant. If you can make your point without the apparent sarcasm then you'll have something of merit. --DannyMuse 20:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, his edits contained some sweeping generalizations of highly questionable accuracy. For example, he wrote suggesting that it was the position of groups such as AJWRB that this "major/minor" blood fraction issue is:

"... a complex and ethically confusing command from a religious authority with little or no scriptural support for complex rules and classifications of what is-or is not-allowed by the individual."
Again Danny, you say: "sweeping generalizations of highly questionable accuracy" but you give no evidence, why? You then state: "he wrote suggesting that it was the position of groups such as AJWRB. . .". If that is your opinion then you are mistaken, those words are mine, not from any website. If you would like to give the scriptures elaborating the "major and minor" classifications from God I would appreciate them very much, as I cannot find them in my Bible, but I know you (JWs) are well known for studying the scriptures, and I would appreciate it if you would show me them, as I would like to keep my posts in line with God's Word. Central 15 Jun 2005
I'm not sure how you could fail to miss the above example which is a exact quote of your edit. The way you wrote it implied it was the opinion of the AJWRB. You clarified that it is not. Since it is, as you've made clear, your opinion it does not belong here. Thanks for the clarification. --DannyMuse 20:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However a search of the AJWRB website failed to turn-up a quote substantiating such a claim. If it is their position he needs to follow the WP policy of cite your sources so others can check his work. If it is only his opinion then he should leave it out unless he can establish his identity as a recognized expert in the field.

Danny, you say: "unless he can establish his identity as a recognized expert in the field" That is a classic fallacy, and an appeal to authority. If you can prove by facts, not "authority" of posters then go for it, but please lets leave out the ad hominem stuff. Central 15 Jun 2005
No, there was no fallacy. The point is that this page is to be about facts, not your opinion or mine or anyone else's. You are clearly missing that point. --DannyMuse 20:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion and comment is welcome! --DannyMuse 21:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One thing I noticed right away was the mention of leukocytes. When a leukocyte passes from the bloodstream through the mothers mammery gland it is changed dramatically before entering the suckling child. A note on Hemopure, "Central" says: "..of Hemopure® for Jehovah's Witnesses, which is ironically made from large quantities of stored cow's blood." The truth of the matter is that it's based on highly refined bovine hemoglobin, not whole blood. That stuff has a shelf life of 3 YEARS AT ROOM TEMPERATURE, to even compare it to organic, whole, blood is just wrong. Duffer 00:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Daffer1. You've contrived a straw man in your next point, you appear to be trying to create a cleaver division where it does not exist. What is "made from large quantities of stored cow's blood" and "based on highly refined bovine hemoglobin" is the same thing!. How on earth do you think the "bovine" (cow's) blood is processed and the haemoglobin is removed? The fact that you are trying to avoid is the fact that cow's blood is stored and processed and its haemoglobin is used (which is 98% of the red-cells by the way), and also directly breaks the Divine command in Leviticus of 'pouring blood out onto the ground', as I'm sure you are very well aware and seem desperate to avoid dealing with. I look forward to Danny's facts from the Bible, as I have looked long and hard and cannot find any blood products that are permitted in the scriptures, especially storing and processing cow's blood for human use. Central 15 Jun 2005
Central, what's your point? If you don't agree with the WTB&TS's position on blood then you should not be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, (perhaps you aren't, I don't know). If the WTB&TS were to change it's position on blood would you then become a JW? In the meantime, I suggest you read (or re-read) the June 15, 2004 Watchtower articles on blood to get a clear understanding of what we currently believe and teach. You may find it useful to review the summary at the University of Pennsyvania Health website. They have a clear and simple overview of our beliefs, what we will and will not accept. Then if you want to offer thoughtful commentary respecting the beliefs of JW's on this point you'll be in a position to do so. Thanks for reading! --DannyMuse 20:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not a straw man argument to de-mystify your misleading rhetoric. You said: "..ironically made from large quantities of stored cow's blood." Refined bovine hemoglobin is NOT whole blood, contrary to what you implied. Duffer 03:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: The purpose of this article, and even this section, is not to debate Jehovah's Witnesses position on blood and blood parts, but to explain in a factual and neutral manner what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, not what you think they think, or how you interpret their views, right or wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for debating pints (no pun intended) points of faith and conscience; at least, this explanatory article most certainly is not. - CobaltBlueTony 13:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, CBT. I want to validate the correct assertion that Wikipedia is not against the JWs, and this article cannot appear so. Please keep that firmly in mind. In fact, I will go so far as to remind you to keep a sympathetic and positive tone. Of course you are permitted to say "Many critics, largely former JWs, believe that the position of the JWs on blood is inconsistent and irrational. Blah Blah Blah." That is perfectly permissible and desirable. Carry on brethren. Tom Haws 16:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding other denominations and religions

From time to time some WP editors will add content or make comments which do not reflect current JW teachings. While the comment may have been true in the past if it is not now then it would be inaccurate to let it remain. (Of course if it is included in a way to show the historic development of JW teachings then it is appropriate. This, I believe, is not an example of that.)

On 15 Jun 2005, anon editor 213.123.213.176 added:

"However as they believe that people following other religions will likely be destroyed at Armageddon this does tend towards a dismissive attitude towards followers of other religions as being "part of Babylon the Great". Witness language is peppered with references to "worldlings" and to be considered a "worlding" or displaying "worldly behaviour" is incredibly pejorative."

Interestingly, the word "worldling" only appears twice in any Watchtower or Awake! since 1965. The instance in the Watchtower is in the 1995 issue, July 1st on page 3 in a footnote which quotes Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski, and is describing Pilate's attitude when asking Jesus what is truth. It reads:

[Pilate's] "tone is that of an indifferent worldling who by his question intends to say that anything in the nature of religious truth is a useless speculation."

The most recent occurrence of the term is from the 1998 Awake June 22nd issue, page 30. It includes an excerpt from a letter "From Our Readers":

I just loved the article "The Bible's Viewpoint: 'No Part of the World'-What Does It Mean?" (September 8, 1997) After studying it, I decided to stop using the expression "worldling" to describe non-Christians. After all, 30 years ago, I myself was not yet a Christian. If the person who first introduced me to the Bible had taken a supercilious attitude, then I might never have wanted to speak with a Witness again!

Notice how this comment highlights how JW's are discouraged from using derogatory, pejorative words to describe those not of their faith. The referenced article, "The Bible's Viewpoint: 'No Part of the World'-What Does It Mean?" (Awake! of September 8, 1997), encourages JWs to "Speak Injuriously of No One". It specifically says:

In the Bible the term "unbeliever" is at times used to designate non-Christians. However, there is no evidence that the word "unbeliever" was used as an official designation or label. Certainly, it was not used to belittle or denigrate non-Christians, as this would be contrary to Bible principles. (Proverbs 24:9) Jehovah's Witnesses today avoid being harsh or arrogant toward unbelievers. They consider it rude to label non-Witness relatives or neighbors with derogatory terms. They follow Bible counsel, which states: "A slave of the Lord . . . needs to be gentle toward all."-2 Timothy 2:24.

Your comments and discussion are welcome! --DannyMuse 15:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Danny - as you can probably appreciate it is difficult to stay up to date on doctrinal matters if one is no longer a Witness. I welcome this change in stance and apologise for muddying the waters. This does however raise an interesting dichotomy. Only current Witnesses can be completely up to date with current doctrine, but by the very nature of Witness teaching neutrality cannot be relied upon. For example it used to be taught that lieing to non witnesses to protect other Witnesses and/or the organisation was acceptable. I do not know whether this is current belief - but you can see that it introduces a problem in taking assertions at face value. Regards Andrew
Andrew, understood. Regarding your concluding comments there was a discussion awhile back regarding the so-called "theocratic warfare strategy". You can read about it in these archives:
Try a keyword search using: "theocratic warfare". I think you'll find it most enlightening. Cheers! --DannyMuse 16:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It was fascinating - I thank you. It has been over 20 years since I heard such terms and they are sorely not missed ;). I apologise for my intrusions and will ensure that any subsequent interjections are better founded. Regards Andrew
Andrew, no intrusion at all. I take it you're (relatively) new to WP. If so, then Welcome! It does take a while to get a feel of how to contribute effectively. If you've not done so already, I recommend you check out the following WP references and links:
Glad to have you with us! --DannyMuse 16:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Extremely new - first time I've even visited today. I have moved the comment you suggested moving to the beliefs section. I appreciate the warmth of the welcome and will endeavour to review these links before posting further. Regards Andrew
What a wonderful place is the Wikipedia! Andrew and Danny sitting down together in peace. The full-fellowship JW and the long-since-disaffected member. Tell the world there is good afoot! Tom Haws 16:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
<rofl> - there's always good afoot if you look closely enough. 213.123.213.176 13:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that the truth! Tom Haws 16:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses

I think that opposional views and criticism should be treated in its own article. Please compare what is written about Latter-Day Saints and the article about JW at Religious Tolerance. So I made this article and moved stuff. Summer Song 09:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We should discuss this. There is a general attitude among Wikipedians that splitting article on POV lines weakens our commitment to bias avoidance. Perhaps the Latter Day Saint articles should be brought into line. This is bad practice, and I would rather root it out than propagate it. Please help me fix the Latter Day Saint articles rather than ruining this one. Tom Haws 14:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me or is everyone unable to access the Jehovah's Witness page? Duffer 15:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have no problems at all. - CobaltBlueTony 15:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
That was weird. I had to log out, then log back in before I could access the JW Wiki, works now though Duffer 18:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only justification I can think of for moving that to its own article would be for the sake of keeping this one shorter. In that case there would be a summary of oppositional views and criticism here with a link to the other article for a longer discussion. However, articles should not be separated based on their POV; rather, all of them should be NPOV. I agree with Tom, if some LDS articles (or any others for that matter) don't meet this standard, let's bring those up to snuff. Wesley 16:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wesley, your dedication is wonderful. I think it is disrespectful here (and in LDS areas) to speak of "word games" as though the JWs are doing their best not to communicate. JWs believe Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, and angels have divine nature. This does not mean they believe Jesus Christ is God. That sounds straighforward to me. Mormons believe that God, angels, and humans all have divine nature. And Mormons believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. When they told me they consider Jesus divine, I accepted it at face value after some pointed inquiry. It is not fair for us to question their sincerity or make charge of game playing. As I understand after questioning them, they do after all believe that Christ is divine, but they do not believe that He is Jehovah God. Can we not accept that and say simply, "JWs do not believe that Christ is Jehovah God [to use their name], but do believe that he has a divine nature"? Tom Haws 16:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that both the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day saints are deceptive when they claim to affirm the same beliefs as other Christians and follow it up by using the same words that other Christians do, but with very different definitions. In this case, in the history of Christian theology, saying that Christ has divine nature is basically equivalent to saying that he is fully God. They don't apply this term to angels or humans; in the case of Jesus, it is said that he alone has two natures, one divine and one human. The rest of us have a human nature, not a divine one. If the JW's want to say that Jesus has a divine nature, it needs to made crystal clear that they don't mean what other Christians mean when they say this. To take your example, Mormons say they believe that "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God" but they also believe these are three separate gods, which is not what most Christians believe when they use those words. Most Christians also use "eternal" to mean forever, without beginning or end, when they say that God is eternal and eternaly God. Mormons will say the same thing, but then waffle and say something like "eternal relative to this particular universe, which is just one of many" or "eternal for all practical purposes as far as we're concerned, even though he used to not be God and was actually created by some other god." Hence, affirming those words but with radically different meaning appears to be very deceptive. Wesley 16:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I meant no deception, and I can assure you, we do NOT claim to affirm the beliefs of orthodoxy, we make absolutely NO attempt to hide the fact that we don't believe Jesus is God, denial of post apostalic doctrine is something we are quite proud of. When talking to people about my faith; when people find out that we aren't Trinitarian, almost universally they come to the mistaken impression that we deny the divine nature of Jesus. Sure we don't believe he is God, but we do believe he is divine in nature. The same happens when we tell people that we believe Jesus may be Michael the Archangel, they view this as a "low christology", even an insult to the Christ, even though historically many protestant, orthodox, Christians also believed that Jesus was Michael the Archangel yet still affirmed the Trinity. The belief that the Christ Jesus is Michael the Archangel doesn't necessarily negate the Trinitarian belief system. It doesn't necessarily negate the idea that Jesus is divine either. Duffer 00:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, when a trinitarian says that you do not believe that Jesus is divine in nature, they have the correct impression, based on their working definition of what "divine in nature" means. When they say JW's deny Jesus' divine nature, that's just another way of saying JW's deny that Jesus is God, which is something you agree with. If you want to say that their statement is mistaken, then we have to clarify further what is meant by the term. Wesley 16:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Wesley. It appears to be deceptive. And I grant that at times it is in fact evasive and deceptive. But that doesn't prevent us from being precise without accusing each other of games. Remember the NPOV principle of word ownership. When we accuse somebody of playing word games, we are implicitly saying we own the words in question. Obviously that is a no-no. The JWs own the word divine as much as you or anybody else. Yes, we can help them communicate better by pinning them down. Yes, we can suggest alternate words. But when it comes right down to it, we have to confess we don't own any given word. It sounds like maybe here we need to ask some more questions without fostering evasion and coyness by putting them on the defensive. Tom Haws 18:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • When they say Christ and angels are divine, that pretty much explains what divintiy means to them, doesn't it? Tom Haws
  • When they say Christ is not Jehovah God, that pretty much explains they aren't trinitarian, doesn't it? Tom Haws
I fail to see how I can currently validate your concern about "word games" and "redefinitions". Tom Haws 18:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Look at it this way. The text said that trinitarian Christians came away with the "mistaken impression that [JW's] deny the divine nature of Jesus." That is a false statement because when trinitarian Christians make that statement, their working definition should be allowed to be in effect. Under their definition, that is a perfectly valid impression, because it is equivalent to saying that JW's do not thing Jesus is God. And their definition should be the operational one if we're talking about their impressions. Wesley 16:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Their "working definition" isn't properly qualified in the light of what we actually teach: that Jesus is the "exact representation of the Father's glory", being, and essence. We literally interpret John 1:1 to mean: "and the Word was divine." Just because we do not believe that Jesus is God does not mean that we deny His divine nature. Therefore, a comment such as: "they deny the deity of the Christ", or some such, would be misleading regardless of who's point of view was being portrayed. Duffer 04:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It feels like you're dodging the issue again, trying to pretend the meaning is the same by using the same words. To a trinitarian, denying that Jesus is God is exactly the same thing as denying that Jesus has a divine nature, because to them there is only one divine nature, just as there is only one God, and it is impossible for anyone else to know much less possess the divine nature. Just look at the debates surrounding the Council of Chalcedon. We can of course become more "godly", and our human nature can become more similar to the divine nature than it is now in certain limited respects, but that is not at all the same thing. Wesley 28 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)
I'm not trying to pretend anything, I'm telling you specifically what we believe. If you say: "They deny the divine nature of Christ", regardless of who the speaker is, and what they mean by it, it's still not true in the sense of how JWs see things. To avoid this, just write something like: "They don't believe that Jesus is God." (Which is probably already up there in several places) Duffer 28 June 2005 18:13 (UTC)

I've just made a number of edits, at least two of which are bound to raise some questions, so I'll anticipate them here.

First, in the section about "Beliefs about Christ" or something similar, the text said that JW's affirmed the divine nature of Jesus Christ, and that therefore all the folks accusing them of denying Christ's divine nature were just mistaken. I amended it to point out that JW's do affirm the "divine nature" of Jesus, but what they mean by "divine nature" is very different than what theologians discussing "divine nature" have meant. These are just word games, similar to many of the "redefinitions" the Latter Day Saints on wikipedia have tried to use.

Secondly, I made a number of changes to the "Opposing views" section:

  • added subheadings to further organize the content; no reason for "Mob violence" to be the only subheading.
  • rearranged some paragraphs to group similar material together.
  • Since anti-JW scripture references were at some point deleted from this section, I removed the pro-JW references as well, for consistency and fairness.
  • Various other edits.

I have every intention of keeping the article fair and neutral. However, I find it difficult not to be incensed by what appear to be repeated attempts to censor anything that might be negative about the JW's. It's also troubling to have reached consensus on a neutral presentation in the past, only to see it overturned and POV'd a month or three later when no one seems to be looking. And of course, I continue to be puzzled by why JW's would even want to seem like other Christians when they fundamentally think that all other Christians are wrong, but that's rather beside the point. Wesley 03:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Usually on wikipedia, discussion comes first and then the wiki is changed. From what I 've read on this discussion page, this is n't happening here. Good luck anyway. Matia.gr 09:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that my edits were for the most part discussed many months ago in the archives. I could also show many many precedents where discussion either follows or accompanies changes. Wesley 16:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses" speaks mostly about persecution of JWs, not about really opposing views. IMHO it creates a picture that all opposition to JW is based on hate and prejudice, and that there are no valid concerns. (Witnesses are sometimes mentioned on lists of "cults" made by self-proclaimed "experts." - typical [reasons] are that their (JW's) religious beliefs are fundamentally different from those normally held by the majority - These critics make the controverial claim [...] The irony is that this is in fact in direct contradiction of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs - hate crimes have occurred against Jehovah's Witnesses because of their beliefs and practices. On the other hand, many people are cordial to the Witnesses) This is not a NPOV, neither "opposition"; this is only to show that all opposing people are evil.

I suggest splitting it into 2 parts: "Persecution of JW" and "Criticism of JW". The second part should contain valid criticism (rational and honest, as opposed to purely prejudice and hatred). Sorry for not doing it myself, but I am not too good at writing NPOV articles, and English is not my native language.

Not a bad idea. Thanks for the suggestion. Wesley 16:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


IMHO there are some valid points why JWs are sometimes labeled as a "cult" by cult experts. Let's check Lifton's 8 criteria of thought reform [4]:

  • MILIEU CONTROL - JW are told what to read, with whom to speak, how to dress. Check.
  • MYSTICAL MANIPULATION - there are different levels of "Truth" (i.e. it is OK to lie to non-members). Check.
  • THE DEMAND FOR PURITY - not having fun, not participating many social activities. Check.
  • CONFESSION - also JWs are responsible for each other's sins (that's why there is always 2 of them; they spy on each other), so if you do not confess, the other one will tell. Check.
  • SACRED SCIENCE - ...not sure...
  • LOADING THE LANGUAGE - "faithful and discreet slave" etc. Check.
  • DOCTRINE OVER PERSON - world did not end in 1914 nor 1975, yet the leadership is infallible. Check.
  • DISPENSING OF EXISTENCE - also called "disfellowshipping". Check.

Whether such behavior can or cannot be derived from Bible, is a theological question. Let's just say that such behavior exists, and that some people are concerned with it. One question is whether Bible supports "disfellowshipping". The other question is, whether "disfellowshipping" breaks apart families, whether it is used as a punishment for disobedient members, etc. -- Viliam Búr 195.46.70.44 11:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


What does this trash have to do with the article? We acknowledge that we are deemed to be a "cult" by self appointed experts. Read the section: "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses". Now to put the truth into your list that you left out:
  • MILIEU CONTROL - Jehovah's Witnesses are encouraged to excercise caution on what to read, with whom to speak, and how to dress. In some instances we are told to completely shun things like pornography, and apostates. If you want to read porno and talk to apostates, then you choose not to be a Jehovah's Witness.
  • MYSTICAL MANIPULATION - It's ok to lie in life or death situations only. This does not extend to perjury in court if a brother is on trial and his life is in the balance.
  • THE DEMAND FOR PURITY - You got us on that one. It's something we're quite proud of.
  • CONFESSION - That's just absurd... We don't spy on eachother. If someone has a problem we talk to them about it. If the problem persists beyond a couple talks (or is very serious in nature), then the Witness has a biblical obligation to inform the elders lest he share in that persons sins.
  • SACRED SCIENCE - I'll give you a couple: We believe the bible's chronology is at odds with secular chronology (times and dates kings ruled), blood is sacred and ingestion of it's whole form and primary components (either by eating or transfusion) is expressly forbidden by the bible.
  • LOADING THE LANGUAGE - "Trinity", "Bishop", "Pope", "Hell", "Transubstantiation", "Apostalic Succession", "Once Saved Always Saved", "Father" (in reference to church leaders), "Rapture"... Loaded indeed.
  • DOCTRINE OVER PERSON - The leadership, even the faithful and discreet slave, has never been refered to, or viewed by ANY Jehovah's Witness as infallible. We highlight the opposite in all of our publications.
  • DISPENSING OF EXISTENCE - You forgot shunning of a disfellowshipped member (except in cases of immediate family).
That's 3 of 8. I see such absurd parodies of the truth all over the net, I thought Wikipedia would be different. Duffer 01:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to offend you (or anyone else), and I apologize if I did. My intention was to provide additional information for section "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses" (that's where opposing views belong, don't they?) Instead of mentioning that JW are sometimes labeled as cult by self-proclaimed "experts" (this part was later removed from article), I wanted to explain the reasons behind such labeling (especially reasons given by people whom I consider cult experts... but we may disagree on this). Article mentions that the reasons sometimes include issues with their organizational structure, and I felt it deserved additional explanation, what kind of issues it is.
I agree that my text here is of low quality (you say: trash). That's why I did not write it to Wikipedia article directly, but to Talk page instead; with hope that someone else would write it better. I know I am not good at writing NPOV articles on topics like this; but I also feel that some information is seriously missing.
I do not fully appreciate the difference between "spying on each other" and "informing the elders", especially if the informing is not completely voluntary, but one has to inform "lest he share sins". I do not want to discuss whether such informing is a good thing or not; all I want to say is that (1) such informing happens, and that (2) some people see this as a problem (and it is one of their reasons to give a label "cult"). -- Viliam Búr 195.46.70.44 09:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to accurate criticism. But if it's going to be there, on top of the Criticism, and what Effect of the Criticism has and to whom it effects; you'll need the Jehovah's Witnesses view on WHY they do the things they're being criticised for. That's all I ask. Duffer 05:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My best try to write a NPOV; I hope someone will improve it and merge into article. (Thanks in advance!)

Some cult experts claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are cult because of some their recruitment and indoctrination techniques. For example:

  • Obligation to inform the Elders on each other's sins. (Not informing Elders is believed to be sharing the sin.) This removes from individual an opportunity to freely speak on topics not conforming to group belief; as deeper interest in such topics would probably be reported.
  • "Disfellowshiping" and shunning members. This creates a big pressure on individual to conform the demands of the group, under threat of losing contact with family members and friends. The threat is more serious due to fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from socializing with non-members, so being "disfellowshipped" means losing almost all personal contacts.
  • etc...

But Jehovah's Witnesses believe that ... (counter-arguments).

Yes, there is a separate part about "disfellowshipping", but IMHO the cult accusations should be logically in one place; and then there should be counter-arguments. Now many things in this article are mixed together - accusations of heresy, accusations of cult, targetting in Holocaust, mob violence, disfellowshipping,... the valid concerns about indoctrination techniques are mixed up with examples of obvious xenophobia (thus IMHO creating a feeling that all concerns are only based on xenophobia). We can agree that typical reasons against JW are based on prejudice... but this does not remove the importance of the serious reasons (despite only some experts say them). Just as e.g. typical opinions on theory of relativity do not remove the credibility of scientific opinions (despite only some experts say them), and also should not be mixed together. -- Viliam Búr 195.46.70.44 11:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe it is a sin to discuss doctrinal disagreements with other mature Christians, however, we take issue when a person goes beyond discussion and actually trys to teach others a viewpoint that is contrary to the "official" teaching, also known as "promoting division". For your comments on excommunication, you're right to a certain degree. Excommunication does involve shunning, however, shunning does not extend to immediate family, and the excommunicated member is more than welcome to come to the meetings (though no one will talk to him/her except an elder). Xenophobia doesn't quite cover it. It's not just foriegn "worldly" customs we avoid, but ALL customs that are extrabiblical are avoided foreign to our immediate culture or not. Duffer 05:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with Duffer's statement immediately above. JW's do not have any prohibition against "extrabiblical" customs per se (ie. customs that are not in the bible. We do however avoid customs which we believe are contrary to the Bible's commands, laws and/or principles for Christians today. --DannyMuse 00:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right, right, thank you for clarifying Danny :) Duffer 28 June 2005 05:53 (UTC)
Duffer - whilst acknowledging that my information is outdated I would have thought that whilst "Witnesses do not believe it is a sin to discuss doctrinal disagreements with other mature Christians" any such discussion would result in a visit from the Elders if reported to try and encourage the person in question to realign their thinking. If they continued to hold to a viewpoint on a doctrinal issue that was diametrically opposed to current thinking that they would stand the risk of being disfellowshipped for apostasy. You seem to be saying that someone can hold a belief opposite to that of the society, that this belief can be common knowledge and that that person can remain in the congregation. Is this the case?
Yes, "If reported" (so to speak). I was just speaking to the fact that we do not immediately hold it as "wrong" to discuss doctrinal disagreements with other mature Christians. I did not mean to convey the idea that more serious doctrinal disagreements aren't made known to the Elders of a congregation. That is not the case. To go to an Elder on a matter such as this is highly circumstantial and based largely on the nature of the disagreement. Duffer 17:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well again NPOV kicks in. From a NJW perspective one would assume that it was OK to hold an opposing view. If one can "discuss" it BUT end up with a problem if you don't ultimately come back to the core agreement then there is no point in having the discussion. Sorry. AndrewTranmere


To some extent, disagreements are allowed, even if the elders are aware of the disagreement. Depending on the nature of a disagreement that person may lose the privilages as they are "no longer united in mind and thought" (1 Cor. 1:10). If a persons' disagreement extends beyond just a mere opinion and starts to cause arguments, or even divisions that's when the elders must step in to talk to/admonish/ even expell that one (Titus 3:10,11). Regardless of how socially unacceptable such a practice seems to be in our day, that does not stop us from living as true Christians, as the first century congregation. The following is a quote from a WT article 1989 Feb. 15 pg 19, 20:
"However, when the Scriptural direction may seem to us to be open to different opinions, we need to demonstrate the humble responsiveness that was shown by the early Christians and accept decisions and directions from God’s congregation. Finally, even in areas in which a matter is Scripturally neither right nor wrong but is left to personal decision, we should highly esteem peace with others, thus being open to yielding frequently.
Are you willing to manifest that spirit? If so, you are showing a fine sense of balance, recognizing that peace and unity are more precious than your own personal opinion."
Is your personal opinion worth causing a sect, or division over? What if you're wrong? (Matthew 18:6 comes to mind). Yes, to a certain extent, a personal opinion or disagreement is allowed. The above article points to the issue of circumcision that arised in the first century congregation between those Christians who believed it was a requirement for salvation (technically Mosaic Law), and those who said it was not (Simon Peters' vision) (Acts 15). With biblical precedent (James 3:17, 18; 1 Peter 5:5, 6) the WTS wisely gave the advice (quoted above) as a conlusion to the article. To re-iterate: from anyones' perspective, disagreement, to a certain extent (with the exception of "central" tenets) is allowed without fear of expulsion. Our beliefs are highly nuanced in many areas, it is no wonder that many misunderstand us. Duffer 00:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well Duffer all I can say is that from an external perspective this seems to discourage independent thought in favour of conforming with the GB's current take on things. The problem is there is no list of "central tenets" as such so ANY disagreement with a stance taken in the society's publications could lead to problems. AndrewTranmere 21:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I never suggested otherwise. What I specifically said was: "To some extent, disagreements are allowed, even if the elders are aware of the disagreement." What the issue becomes is to what extent you take your disagreement, and the nature of the disagreement itself. Your phrase: "..ANY disagreement with a stance taken in the society's publications could lead to problems..." is just not true. Duffer 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the absence of a clearly defined set of "central tenets" my assertion stands. If a Witness is CONFIDENT that something is not a central tenet according to your logic they can happily disagree. From where do they get this confidence? AndrewTranmere 01:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your assertion: "there is no list of "central tenets" as such so ANY disagreement with a stance taken in the society's publications could lead to problems." Does not logically give you grounds for your conclusion: "In the absence of a clearly defined set of "central tenets" my assertion stands." Though I do see your points regarding conclusions people may draw from my assertions, your assertions do not support accuracy. Please do not misrepresent what I say, your misunderstanding is not mine: "If a Witness is CONFIDENT that something is not a central tenet according to your logic they can happily disagree." This is true up unto the point they make such a disagreement known to someone else in the congregation. Usually an expression of disagreement is nothing more than a person looking for a better argument to support the issue they disagree with, and thus the person they take it up with ministerial servants, elders, even Bethel would naturally try to persuade him/her. But that's besides the point: the cases are circumstantial, if a disagreement is known, then the elders will determine what action, if any, should be taken. They consider the nature of the disagreement, the persons attitude about the disagreement and how he feels it impacts his/her spirituality, does he/she try to teach it to others and/or debate it? If the issue is not considered serious, if the person is humble, and they don't mind keeping it to themselves, then there will likely be no removal of priviliges and/or excommunication. Please remember, this is for baptised members only. Duffer 28 June 2005 05:53 (UTC)
You further use a non NPOV in saying that "shunning does not extend to the immediate family" as the average non Witness would not read that as "shunning does not extend to the immediate family still resident at home". Shunning of non resident immediate family still takes place. Regards AndrewTranmere
True, but I was speaking to the claim that: "so being "disfellowshipped" means losing almost all personal contacts." I did not feel the need to be specific to prove this claim wrong. Duffer 17:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Being disfellowshipped DOES mean losing almost all personal contacts. I cannot see how you can contend otherwise. Unless you were spiritually immature at the point of DFing and had secular friends. AndrewTranmere
Not necessarily. I define social contact as not necessarily indicitave of social INTERACTION. It is not full contact (immediate family and regular congregational meetings) that a disfellowshipped member loses, it is interaction that one has predominately lost. Duffer 00:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regretfully this kind of semantic play does nobody any favours and might even be considered by some (myself included) to be a form of theocratic warfare. If I bump into somebody in the road and acknowledge their existence this is not "social contact" but "contact". By my reading of the definition of "social" interaction is implicit. No Witness I know of would willingly have social contact with a DFed person - in fact I would go one further and say that most witnesses treat DFed people with less compassion than they treat non witnesses. I do not wish to develop this into an ad hominem but ask yourself honestly - if you saw a person from your congregation who had been DFed sitting at the side of the road with a puncture would you be equally as likely to stop to help them as you would a non witness? Yet if they are to become to you "as people of the world" should they not be treated with equal respect? AndrewTranmere 21:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh nonsense. Loss of social contact, on this instance, is different than loss of social interaction. A DFd JW loses contact only to a certain extent, they are allowed at regular meetings and the immediate family does not fall under the umbrella of "shunning" as it would violate their obligation to eachother. Though quite honestly DFd members usually don't attend the meetings (their choice). Therefore, their social contact, though limited, is not entirely gone, congregationally speaking. What is gone, is the social interaction that they once enjoyed within the congregation. That's not "theocratic warfare" (which you apparently have profound misconceptions about), nor is it "semantic wordplay." I'm defining our policy as clear as possible to someone who does not properlly understand it. As for your question: "..would you be equally as likely to stop to help them as you would a non witness?" The answer is unequivocally: OF COURSE! To "shun" does not extend beyond social contact/interaction, if someone is in need, then someone is in need. Duffer 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that you will find (surprisingly?) that the majority of non Witnesses do not view attendance at (KH/Church) as a "social" interaction unless it is done with a conscious knowledge that this gathering is not in direct response to a biblical command "do not forsake the gathering of yourselves together as some have the custom". So a loss of contact at meetings is irrelevant. A Dfed ex-bro calls you up and suggests catching a ball game - one you regularly caught before he was DFed. The command is not to spiritually associate. Do you go to the game? And if you GENUINELY believe you'd stop for the DFed person then I salute you. I've known Witnesses cross the road to avoid making eye contact with a DFed person. Naturally this is not a behaviour condoned in the publications but when you don't know whether you're crossing boundaries or not "better safe than sorry". AndrewTranmere 01:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How the majority of Witnesses view social contact/interaction is irrelevant to the issue at hand. It was you who made the assertion: "Being disfellowshipped DOES mean losing almost all personal contacts." I have thoroughly proven that wrong. I'm not trying to deny that they do lose alot of social contact, what I contest is your inaccurate assertion that they lose ALL. I qualify my contest of your portrayal with legitimate examples of the contacts that ALL dissfellowshipped Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed: regular meeting attendance, and immediate family association. I further qualify with the nuancing of the definitions of "contact" and "interaction", and explain that it is "interaction" that a dissfellowshipped member loses completely (outside of immediate family of course). There-fore, I have proven your assertion wrong while providing you with legitimate criticism, you could truthfully say: "Being disfellowshipped DOES mean losing all social interaction with baptised members (outside of immediate family)." Also none of your reply speaks to your initial proposal: "..would you be equally as likely to stop to help them as you would a non witness?", where initially you had the stipulation of that one being in trouble and needing physical assistance, you have replaced that with "avoid making eye contact." These two issues are clearly from one extreme to the other, and go a long way in an individual witnesses mind on how to gauge interaction with a disfellowshipped member. Duffer 28 June 2005 05:53 (UTC)

I think this article is too long and that it should be far more tidily organized. I think that any long issues should be discussed in their own articles. Summer Song 15:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree but I am way to much of a newbie to contribute usefully sorry. AndrewTranmere

I have made changes so that the further details is to be discussed in the article Opposional views on JW, not in this one. Summer Song 28 June 2005 09:06 (UTC)

Beliefs about Christ

Seemed best to discuss this paragraph in its own section, continuing a discussion that started above in "Opposional views".

Here's the outline of what I propose as a compromise or NPOV way to express this.

  • Remove the "mistaken" referring to what "many conclude" about the JW's not believing in Jesus' divine nature; just state that that's their conclusion, without saying the conclusion is right or wrong. Saying who the "they" or "many" are would be helpful too.
  • Keep the text there now explaining what JW's and non-JW's mean by "divine nature", as this explains the disagreement over whether JW's affirm Jesus' "divine nature."
  • Leave out anything about the JW's deliberately trying to deceive people by redefining words, if that's really not their intent. (I'm still suspicious, but not unwilling to extend the benefit of the doubt.)

These things seem reasonable to me as I write this, but they're certainly negotiable. What do the rest of you think? Wesley 16:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think your current revisions succinctly reflect both the view of Jehovah's Witnesses, and orthodox Christians. No objections. Duffer 05:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, this doesn't need to go in the article at all, but I have to add that the NWT translation of Hebrews 1:3 seems remarkably different from the more common description of Jesus being "the brighness of [God's] glory, and the expression image of his person..." which mirrors Colossions 1:15-16a "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created..." Of course Christ could not have created Himself, and if He were created, He could not have have been involved in creating all things. The remainder of Hebrews 1 describes all the ways that Jesus is greater than all the angels, seriously undermining the idea that Jesus was an angel himself. Again, these are just observations, but I don't suppose they belong here. Wesley 16:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strong's 451 "apaugasma" literaly means: "reflected brightness." The NWT translators decided to focus on the "reflected" part, where as orthodox translations focus on the "brightness" part, one does to affirm a belief that Jesus is not God (a reflection of is not the same as (accuracy that supports JW dogma)), while the other seeks to blur the line between "God" and "Christ" (sacrificing accuracy to support dogma). Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses agree with your sentiment that Jesus didn't create himself (hence the insertion of the word [other]), though your second sentiment directly contradicts Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; and John 1:10. For your comments on Jesus possibly being Michael: Those scriptures do not contradict Jehovah's Witness theology, more like they affirm it. "Archangel" literally means "Pre-eminent Angel" "Foremost Angel". Historically, many Trinitarian commentators and translators have believed that Michael the Archangel is the Christ, Jesus (on Daniel 12:1):
  • Geneva Bible Translation Notes (on Daniel 12:1): (a)The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.
  • John Wesley's Explanatory Notes: "..when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation... The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last comming."
  • Keil & Delitzcsh Commentary on the OT: "The appearance of Michael for his people denotes the appearance of the Messiah"
  • John Gill's Expository: "The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; who is as God, as the name signifies, truly and really God, and equal in nature, power, and glory, to his divine Father..."
I'm not saying there aren't people who oppose this view, there are many, I'm just saying you don't have to compromise a belief that Jesus may be Michael the Archangel simply because you're Trinitarian. Neither doctrine necessitates the abandonment of the other, and Jehovah's Witnesses certainly don't base our belief that Jesus isn't God on our belief that he is probably Michael. Duffer 06:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that one should study the bible in the original, not just NWT. You can, if you want, read the original ancient Greek version of the Bible at http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/new_testament/index.html or in English (King James) and Latin at http://wikisource.org/wiki/Bible
I believe in Holy Trinity and the following passages are proof that Jesus is true God, like the Father: John 1:1; "he who sees Me, sees the Father, how do you ask show us the Father" John 14:8-9; "you are my Lord and my God" John 20:28; "... Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen." letter to Rom. 9:5; "... God in flesh ..." first letter to Timoth. 3:16; and "we know that the Son of God came and gave us wisdom to understand the true God. We are and we live in true God, and his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and the eternal life" first letter of John 5:20
The above are not official translations, but translated to English from the ancient Greek. MATIA

MATIA What version of the Bible did you get these quotes from? I checked my KJ and www.blueletterbible.org which has 7 different translation online and your quote of John 20:28 and Rom. 9:5 is different than any of these versions.--Saujad 22:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I m very sorry for the quick translations from ancient greek to english - I couldn't quote the English version at that time. I am apologising for that.
From the www.blueletterbible.org the passages
Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. Jhn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

I read "28 καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου."

Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

and in ancient greek "5 ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν."

There are many english sites about such passages like http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/mislead.htm http://www.forananswer.org/Romans/Rom9_5.htm http://www.hismin.com/page85.html

I encourage anyone interested, to ignore my quick translations on the previous post and check those passages in his favourite translation and then on the original text. I 've tried to do the translation based on the ancient greek text and apodosis [interpretation] by Kolitsaras, just to give you a quick idea in English. MATIA

Thanks for the links though I prefer: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm Duffer 00:40, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)