Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 19

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

User 'missionary' and the Watchtower’s misquotes

To missionary. Your misquote from the Watchtower has nothing to do with the subject at hand, as it does not relate to JW policy or practice, but refers to the churches of Christendom, and does not quote anything about the subject of excommunication for questions or disbelieving the doctrines of men that have no scholarly backup at all. Linking to a long JW article that does not even touch the subject is just JW distracting propaganda. Not only that, the Watchtower has clearly misquoted the writer, plus the text has absolutely zero to do with the practises and double standards of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and so is irrelevant. I have posted the full paragraph quote that gives a quite different view to the Watchtower's misquote, a habit they love to do all the time. The bold text is the text they carefully missed out.

"Excommunication: II. It is the undoubted right of every society to exclude from its communion and benefits such among its members as reject or violate those regulations which have been established by general consent. In the exercise of this power the censures of the Christian church were chiefly directed against scandalous sinners, and particularly those who were guilty of murder, of fraud, or of incontinence; against the authors or the followers, of any heretical opinions which had been condemned by the judgment of the episcopal order; and against those unhappy persons who, whether from choice or from compulsion, had polluted themselves after their baptism by any act of idolatrous worship. The consequences of ex-communication were of temporal as well as a spiritual nature. The Christian against whom it was pronounced was deprived of any part in the oblations of the faithful. The ties both of religious and of private friendship were dissolved: he found himself a profane object of abhorrence to the persons whom he the most esteemed, or by whom he had been the most tenderly beloved; and as far as an expulsion from a respectable society could imprint on his character a mark of disgrace, he was shunned or suspected by the generality of mankind. The situation of these unfortunate exiles was in itself very painful and melancholy; but, as it usually happens, their apprehensions far exceeded their sufferings. The benefits of the Christian communion were those of eternal life; nor could they erase from their minds the awful opinion that to those ecclesiastical governors by whom they were condemned the Deity had committed the keys of Hell and of Paradise. The heretics, indeed, who might be supported by the consciousness of their intentions, and by the flattering hope that they alone had discovered the true path of salvation, endeavoured to regain in their separate assemblies those comforts, temporal as well as spiritual, which they no longer derived from the great society of Christians. But almost all those who had reluctantly yielded to the power of vice or idolatry were sensible of their fallen condition, and anxiously desirous of being restored to the benefits of the Christian communion."

Full text is here, scroll down 75% to the subheading, Excommunication: http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap15.htm

As you can see, the actual quote has a different message to the Watchtower's. Again we see bogus misquotes from the writers of the JW Watchtower magazine, and now brought here as a misleading propaganda to dilute the actions of an organization. Please also note, justification or not was not an issue in regard to the expulsions, shunning and breach of Human Rights for a JW's 'thought crimes'. The Wikipedia paragraph is about double standards, not justification or not for this hypocrisy. This has all been debated above. I removed your link, as one, it was not an accurate quote of Edward Gibbon, therefore, propaganda. Two, because it has nothing to do with the breach of Humans Rights which the Wikipedia paragraph was about. Three, it's a justification, which is not what the Wikipedia paragraph is about, and justifications are POV. And four, the Watchtower article starts by referring to "who no longer wants to live by God's standards, or who refuses to do so" thus falsely linking all their non-biblical doctrines to "rebelling against God" if they are not accepted, and this against is POV propaganda and is also off topic. Central 12:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue of shunning is a practice which Jehovah's Witnesses contend is based on Biblical precedent and this quotation is an independent source verifying the validity of this doctrine. It addresses human rights by speaking of "society as a whole" and the double standards the paragraph implies are subjective at best and the argument inserted shows the counter-point that this is not a violation of basic freedom of speech. The term "freedom of speech" itself of an exaggeration...does one have the freedom to cry "fire" in a movie theatre or state they are carrying a bomb onto a plane? A society determines what speech is freely expressed and any individual who of their free will joins a society that places certain restrictions on said speech must invariably be held accountable when they violate that implicit contract. Missionary 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Missionary. Did you read anything I posted, especially the four points I made? Do I need to go over them again? Why are you inserting off topic subject matter? You said: "shunning is a practice which Jehovah's Witnesses contend is based on Biblical precedent", you fail to see two major points of this: 1. Shunning for merely thinking a non-conforming thought has zero basis in scripture, especially when it's a thought that does not agree with a man-made non-scriptural teaching, and is clearly not biblical shunning. 2. The justification for excluding members is not the subject of this article, and is POV. Please stop sabotaging material by brining in off topic matters like shunning! It's irrelevant if the Governing Body thinks it's is ok or not, that facts are the Human Rights and freedoms of members are not given equal basis to the demanded same rights of the organization. Inserting long justifications (which are about other subjects, not merely thinking free thoughts) is off topic, and a less than covert attempt at subject diversion.
The Edward Gibbon quotes is talking about early Christianity, not the unique doctrines and practises of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and he also speaks of "major sins", he says nothing related to the thought control policies mentioned in the article, and that are practised by JWs. So, there again it's off topic. As for your last comment, it's a perfect example of hypocrisy in action. You state: "A society determines what speech is freely expressed and any individual who of their free will joins a society that places certain restrictions on said speech must invariably be held accountable when they violate that implicit contract." Hummm, so why don't Jehovah's witnesses accept government's decisions when they breach the rules of some governments? The Watch Tower Society does not accept any decision by governments that limit its power or freedoms, but it hypocritically demands the reverse of its members. When the Watch Tower has any restrictions placed on it, it screams "persecution", "breach of our basic Human rights", etc., and fights kicking and screaming all the way. When a member is crushed, slandered and has all their friends and family turned against them for just thinking a free thought, or not agreeing with a non-Biblical unique doctrine of JWs, and has their basic rights restricted, they are hypocritically told to just accept it, the very opposite of what the organization does as a group, and that is the gross and blatant hypocrisy that need to be pointed out, and that you are clearly trying to hide and bury under a heap of off topic ancient quotes that are not even about JWs, governments or the Governing Body. Central 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Greetings Central. Rest assured, I did read your argument and if I had not addressed it completely, my apologies. As to whether or not shunning is scripturally based, that is an issue best addressed in another section and there are two sides to that argument. Regarding the perceived double standard you seem focused on, you are comparing apples to oranges, and even if there is some correlation between the two, the sentences following the two quotations from Society publications in this paragraph assert an opinion without concrete facts. It goes without saying that some feel devastated after being shunned or having a shunned family member. It also goes without saying that some who were shunned appreciated this form of discpline, as illustrated by the number of individuals reinstated into the organization each year (which this paragraph fails to mention). It also goes without saying that family members and friends of those shunned are responsible adults capable of making their own decisions, and the vast majority of such individuals feel this provision is perfectly acceptable within their framework of worship.
Point one; the shunning issue is one you brought up, not me. I have removed all reference to it now. As for the rest about how people feel after they have been labelled, expelled, and family turned against them is not the point. The point is it happens, not is it good or bad. The good or bad is POV. You say: "vast majority of such individuals feel this provision is perfectly acceptable within their framework of worship", you fail to see the irony the vast majority of individual in a nation feel this provision is perfectly acceptable within their framework of their governments to restrict sects they feel are a danger, or for whatever reason, but do JWs and the organization accept the laws of the land they choose to live in? No. They immediately bemoan they are "persecuted". This is the point; apples are still apples, not oranges.
See the U.S. Supreme Court decision of February 1987, which confirmed the rights of religion and ruled there was not human rights violation at that time. Believe me, with the court's then liberal bias at that time, had there have been a violation they would have ruled against WT. Missionary 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Further, Central, I would like to point out that every disfellowshipped individual was first and foremost met by a series of elders who reviewed questions relating to the doctrines and principles of Jehovah's Witnesses which they feel are based on Biblical principles. And every single individual disfellowshipped takes the step to answer questions detailing these key issues prior to their being baptized. When they state they are identified as Jehovah's Witnesses on the occasion of their baptism, they make an implicit contract to follow those guidelines. At a later point, should they deviate from these guidelines, it is the perrogative of those administered with oversight to determine if the individual should be disfellowshipped.
They are the same rights and freedoms to not be slandered, labelled an antichrist, and have all their family and associate turned against them for not accepting non-biblical doctrines of a religion, and for having free thoughts, especially when a large section of JW dogma has zero scholarly back up. You make some highly inaccurate comments: "And every single individual disfellowshipped takes the step to answer questions detailing these key issues prior to their being baptized." Detailed? Far from it, they are not told of the massive and embarrassing background of the organization, its multitude of complex doctrine, many of which are nowhere to be found in the Bible, and no scholar backs up. They are not told they will be subject to slander, humiliation, hate and legal threats from the Watch Tower's legal department, for daring to not believe doctrines that have been found to have no biblical basis at all. This is the precise reason the organization are so terrified of literature like Raymond Franz's, as he puts all the information, good, bad and downright ugly on a plate, and lets the reader make an informed choice (note that 'informed choice'), that is a right also. That is not found with the organization and the Governing Body, as they proved in 1980 with their disfellowshipping long time members for merely having private conversions on 1914, two classes of Christians, and 144,000, doctrines that are unique to JWs, and have no scholarly back up at in scripture, but you have to accept them or else! Loyalty is everything, even when they know it's based on unscriptural man-made doctrines.Central 02:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Central, we're shifting away from the practice and delving into the semantics. Let's agree to disagree on scriptural basis relating to this practice, and simply agree that it is a practice some agree and are happy with, and others disagree and are angry with. Sound cool? Missionary 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Why this is not analogous, Central, with governments is in so much as there is no implicit document when an individual is born into a country such as the United States. They automatically attain those rights including freedom of speech, however those freedoms are subject to the dictates of the administration presently in power at any one time and as any constitutional scholar worth their weight in salt will tell you, the freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom nor is freedom of religion. Should Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions fight for their rights? Absolutely. Should an individual about to be disfellowshipped appeal their case? That is without question their right. Witnesses are bound by scriptures as they view them in context with the situation. Governments are bound by laws as they view them in context with the situation. However, governments highest authority is the law of the land, religions acknowledge their highest authority as their own deity. As such, the two are not analogous in their approach with interpreting their laws. Missionary 00:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
You sate: "freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom" who said it was? Why is it JWs cannot see anything that is not converted into all or nothing by them? Good or demonic? Black or white? It's not just about freedom of speech, its about Human Rights not to have hate and slander piled in you, or to have families broken up, and all in the name of loyalty to a publishing organization. You know well, the tiniest freedom restricted towards the Watch Tower organization is immediately deemed "persecution", they are even trying that line now in France due to them being prosecuted over their tax evasion status. You switch subject in your next sentence: "Should Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions fight for their rights? Absolutely. Should an individual about to be disfellowshipped appeal their case?" So, what happen to the individual's "rights"? Or was that a Freudian slip? They only get "appeals" to the unscriptural private kangaroo courts of a few imbecilic elders? Where is the court in the open as scriptures states? Nowhere! If a government tried to ban you from all your family and friends, tried to incite hate and contempt towards you on false charges, tried to justify it saying this is the law, you can leave the land, or shut up, would the Watch Tower organization just sit back, and say, fair cop, we will accept our lot and shut up? That is what they are asking of many members, especially those who disagree on subjects for conscience reasons due to the doctrines having no scriptural backup. You and other JWs appear so terribly blind to the hypocrisy of your organization. Rights are rights for all, not just the VIPs in the Governing Body of Jehovah's witnesses. The fact that those rights do not exist for the rank and file members is a serious and often devastating breach of basic rights that needs to be given some space without endless JWs surreptitiously sliding in false arguments to change the subject or just trash the entire paragraph as has been happening. Central 02:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Central, step back a moment...take a deep breathe. Now, as to the individual rights of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is over 6 million who would disagree with that assessment. But that said, everyone has their own opinion and are entitled to them. As to a Fruedian slip, there was none. Religions can appeal to governmental bodies, individuals can appeal to religious bodies. However, the guidelines each base their determinations are come from different sources. Again, apples to oranges, or bananas to kiwis if that makes things go down easier. :) Missionary 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The points are not about the Human rights of shunning, they are about the persecution, slander, and general abuse of Humans Rights and protocol, which directly contradict the same rights that the organization boldly demands from governments. (And please stop obsessing on the USA; it's not the only country in this world!) That Watchtower link (http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1988/4/15/article_01.htm) is off topic, and is about labelling some woman, who disassociated herself, left the area and was shunned when he retuned years later. It has nothing to do with members being booted out for merely thinking independent thoughts, and then getting all their rights treated with contempt, along with all their friends and family turned against them with slanderous unjustified labels. Labels like they use in the article linking them to this woman. Did you notice how they start the article about her, then insert totally unrelated linked examples of sinners, and then link it back to her as if they all applied to her, and as if they were only following "biblical examples"! What a crock of s***, that link has nothing to do with the paragraph, and is being used as yet more straw man propaganda and is off topic.
That link is terrible propaganda, and just shows what mind-bending influence that organization has. One woman leaves of her own accord moves away for years, and is them lumped in the category of every sinner you can imagine! What did she do? What she some crack whore? Chop babies up and eat them? A serial killer? Well she might have well been one as she got the same label. See how the organization gradually builds up its massive list of slanderous labels and links them all to her, so the gullible undiscerning reader will swallow the poison, and think she is just the same, as she is mentioned at the beginning and end of the list, it's truly terrible reading (my satirical comment are in brackets): "God's fatherly discipline (God = Watchtower), but she voluntarily disassociated herself by writing a letter withdrawing from the congregation (OK, that is fine, but. . .) Most true Christians loyally support God (Watch Tower is God now), unrepentantly violate God's laws (WT rules), then she is deluged with the list of negatives that put here in the lowest of the low for just leaving: "teaching false doctrine, was unrepentantly immoral, fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioners, promotes a sect, shunning would be appropriate, too, for anyone who rejects the congregation (she is implied again in the middle of all this hate), . .
. . . Hopefully, such a one will repent (repent of what?) Pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God, willful violators were executed (kill the bitch now?), to cut off wrongdoers was fundamentally a good and right thing (yes the bitch deserves to die, how dare she leave the Kingdom Hall!), expelled for unrepentant sin (pray tell us, what did she do?) By also avoiding persons who have deliberately disassociated themselves, Christians are protected from possible critical, unappreciative, or even apostate views. (Ah we have it, she might actually disagree with them that's why she should die! of course) As mentioned above, when an Israelite wrongdoer was executed, no more family association was possible (back to kill the bitch), his parents were to bring him before the judges, and if he was unrepentant, the parents were to share in the just executing of him (yes, she's totally demonic and should be killed!!!!! How dare she leave! EVIL!!) Yet, their putting loyalty to their righteous God before family affection could be lifesaving for them. (Yes parents, if your kids leave the org, you should kill them, and if the silly worldly law does not allow this, just do it in your mind!) Jehovah saw that Korah had to die (wow what did she do to be so hated?) Relatives who would not accept God's warning died with the rebels (that's it, stay away form this satanic devil woman or you will die too! Jeboba will burn you alive!) Cutting off from the Christian congregation does not involve immediate death (pity eh?, They seem awfully keen to do some killing) It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative (especially if they are dead!), Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man." (She is a gross sinner, how dare she walk away, now look what the bitch has incurred on herself, half a dozen death threats and sentences! Evil woman, she had it coming!) The Court Decision, You may want to know the outcome of the court case involving a woman (by this time you won't give a damn about that EVIL Devil woman, she deserves to die, does she not? Shunning her is a merciful let off is it not?) PS. Do you know if the Watch Tower Society does contract killings? Central 13:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Central, you are bordering on the absurd now. "Contract killings"? Your emotions are diluting your argument as any objective third party reading the above would have to conclude. And that's understandable, it is an emotional topic and maybe (probably?) one you've had personal experience with. However, the fact remains that we do not know what act she committed that resulted in her being disfellowshipped or shunned, the entire crux of that supreme court decision (by all means pull the full court document rather than that clippet, it is definitely your right) is that in the context of her fighting under the premise you stated...her freedom of speech and/or religion...the Supreme Court of the U.S.A (which, for all its fault, is the template by which courts around the world over this past century have modeled themselves after...well except the European High Court in the past 6 years but that's another story) ruled in FAVOUR of Jehovah's Witnesses relating to...key word here...FREEDOM! Pure and simple. Retcon 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Retcon/Missionary etc., Can you please just use one log on name as it's getting confusing trying to figure out who is saying what with your posts, next you will be arguing with yourself! As for your comment, the irony! I stated my comments were "satirical", go and look the word up. As for my emotion, I had a good laugh interjecting that Watchtower article; a little humour would do well on this board, especially when discussing such terrible and nasty material in the Watchtower's library. Here is my new brief reply format; any quotes will be in quotation marks:
  • "However, the fact remains that we do not know what act she committed" Rubbish, go and read it, she just left and disassociated. Apparently a crime worthy of being "stoned to death" as the article repeatedly classes her?
  • "is that in the context of her fighting under the premise you stated...her freedom of speech and/or religion" Again, incorrect. The premise has zero to do with freedom of speech, she left freely, moved away freely, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with internal pressure and persecution to conform, please stop bringing straw men arguments into this.
Well I can't speak for Retcon, but I can speak for myself...how about that? Your ascertain of "straw men" arguments has zero validity...the language in the suspect paragraph is very much argumentative and is causing this whole dialogue to persist further. It would be wise for you to check your agenda at the door at least until we can have a more level playing field. "Terrible and nasty material"...by whose critieria? See your whole premise is flawed and you miss the point on being objective in your appraisals. Certainly any of us could be accused of this...however its the degree to which we apply these arguments in an unreasoning manner. Certainly if the other camp screamed "apostates apostates run run" that would draw objection. However we should afford one another some dignity in addressing these issues. Missionary 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "ruled in FAVOUR of Jehovah's Witnesses relating to...key word here...FREEDOM!" Again, this case has nothing to do with members being persecuted for free thoughts. She left for years, came back and got the cold shoulder. This case has nothing at all to do with Human Rights, or any of the persecution and abuse of members and forcing them to conform against their conscience to unsubstantiated and unscholarly doctrines. She left, she was not expelled. She was not disagreeing with doctrine; she didn't even live there for years. It's a completely unrelated case, and you have only inserted it for a diversion and a straw man, it's got nothing all to do with the article, and you know this. Just as the sins in the article have nothing to do with that woman, they are just inserted to infer guilt by association, yet another logical fallacy in the arsenal of deceit the WT uses.Central 20:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Central, I am honestly concerned about you now. I would suggest taking some time to regain your composure so that you can work as a force for academic clarity. - CobaltBlueTony 18:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
CobaltBlueTony, I'm perfectly fine Tony; I suggest you get a sense of humour.:-) Why are you taking satirical comments on an article with such seriousness? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Some poor woman gets every sin known to man put on her for just walking out the door, plus apparently, "deserves to die" repeated over and over, and you say I have a problem for putting it in a humorous light? What about the sick people who write that material? And the even sicker ones who believe it? I forgot the loving council of the Watch Tower. Here are a few more gems so you can see I'm not making this stuff up, please note the term "apostate" and "opposers of God" is used for any member who disagrees with JW dogma, even if it has no scholarly foundation:
". . .exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. "Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, . . . Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates [those who disagree] only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God's law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However," Watchtower, 15 Nov, 1952, p.703 (but we can see the desire to kill is very clear! Now put the knife down, and someone call the cops! And you thought the Muslim fanatics were bad with JIHAD!)
"Jesus encouraged his followers to love their enemies, but God's Word also says to "hate what is bad." When a person persists in a way of badness [any disagreement] after knowing what is right [being a JW], when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of his make-up, then in order to hate what is bad a Christian must hate the person with whom the badness is inseparably linked" Watchtower 15 July 1961, p.420 (what ever happened to hate the sin, and love the person?)
And the crème de la crème of the Governing Body's luuve fest: "Haters of God and his people [anyone who merely disagree with the organization] are to be hated, but this does not mean that we will take any opportunity of bringing physical hurt to them in a spirit of malice or spite, for both malice and spite belong to the Devil, whereas pure hatred does not. We must hate in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme and active aversion, to consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest. Surely any haters of God [those who disagree with WT dogma] are not fit to live on his beautiful earth. The earth will be rid of the wicked [anyone who disagree with JWs] and we shall not need to lift a finger to cause physical harm to come to them, for God will attend to that, but we must have a proper perspective of these enemies" -Watchtower 1 October 1952, P.599: (Can ya feel the luuuve brother? You can see the intense lust for killing and blood, only the law of the land holds back that knife that lusts to kill and hack to pieces anyone who merely disagree with JW dogma and is lumped into the "haters of God section". Christian mercy? No way! says the WT. We all know how the organization would react if the above sections of text had been written and directed at JWs by some government: "Persecution", "abuse of ourHuman Rights", "incitement to violence and prejudice" etc. Central 20:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see the humor in any of this. And, scarecrow, you've brought an army of straw men with you, dancing gleefully at the chance to further twist, malign, and decontextualize old old OLD literature. I suppose in your world everyone goes to heaven because anything wrong they've done is all God's fault anyway.
Please, stick to relevant comments, because I can't tell if there's anything relevant to actually edting this article here at all. - CobaltBlueTony 20:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Tony. The quotes are there to demonstrate a mentality in the organization, one that is dangerous and fundamentalist, and is even worse now than it was then. The quotes demonstrate a total disregard for the rights of other human beings based on the premise that they might disagree with the organization on doctrines that many times have zero scholarly approval. The fact that such hate, slander and desire for death and destruction is demonstrated to any who disagrees with Watch Tower dogma is a perfect exempt of the double standards of the organization, and it's expendable views towards any human who does not toe the line and conform even in their own free thoughts. All of this hate, and judgments is cleverly cloaked in the guise that it's all scriptural; the fact that many of the Governing Body's teachings are nowhere to be found in the first century is not give the slightest consideration. Loyalty is the all, and to breach this, you become an expendable nobody, birdseed for the crows at Armageddon. These are all accurate examples of the mentality that permeates the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, and leads to terrible and callous abuses of member's Human Rights, and even constricts their private thoughts.Central 22:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It was a partial quote, not a misquote. The author of the quote is speaking of primitive Christianity -- Christianity as it appeared originally, not Christendom or Jehovah's Witnesses per se. The quote is relevant to part of the topic. Since Jehovah's Witnesses' pursuit of human rights with established governments and their conduct towards their own members within their organization has been so inexorably bound by your edits and maintained within the government subheading, the Witnesses' reference to the conduct of the early Christians by means of this reference material is also inexorably linked, even as the conduct of fist-century Christians directly affected their interactions with the Roman government, the main topic of the reference material quoted.
Jehovah's Witnesses "conduct towards their own members" is not as rosy as you might try to assert. Members are given very little latitude for their thoughts, constantly being told what is or isn't a matter for their own conscience. Many elderly Witnesses are largely ignored in many congregations, especially if confined to nursing homes. Members are made to feel guilty about not doing enough in the 'ministry', and though there is no plate passed around, there are often comments from the platform reminding of the need to provide funds. Homosexuals among Witnesses are made to feel immense guilt and shame with very little actual support or advice from their 'elders'. I personally know of a 'brother' being 'counselled' by the 'elders' with 'watchtowers' from the 1960s for going 'witnessing' alone with an elderly 'sister' as if they might be sneaking off for a lovers' tryst. That is not respect or good conduct towards members. I am not saying that most Witnesses are not trying to be good people, but much of the way JW members are often treated is indeed insulting and degrading.--Jeffro77 22:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Eh, can you say that again in plain English? The conduct of Early Christians has zilch to do with JWs and modern governments. Here again we see the gross arrogance of the organization that thinks it's God. If you can show me in the Bible where Christians are to slander, expel, and turn everyone against another Christian who merely disagrees in thought about issues that have not come from Jesus or God, but the minds of men, then I will happily let the link stand. And that quote, was a misquote, it was deliberately cut to omit the qualifier of serious sins, not some woman (as in the link) who decided to just leave! Talk about misapplied quotes!Central 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses repeatedly cite the conduct, writings, and actions of first-century Christians as the basis for their interpretations of Biblical instructions meant for Christians. This reference, being a reliable resource and one directly quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses, should stay. If this is accepted, then both points should be moved to the section dealing with excommunication, and not with the government section, since in every other aspect the topics of Jehovah's Witnesses and goverments, and Jehovah's Witnesses and excommunication, are unique enough to warrant remaining separate subtopics within this article.
I would ask Konrad to act as an arbitor as he seems to stand on a much more neutral platform than either of us. - CobaltBlueTony 19:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
You said: "Jehovah's Witnesses repeatedly cite the conduct, writings, and actions of first-century Christians as the basis for their interpretations of Biblical instructions meant for Christians", yes and the Japanese drink a lot of green tea, but what does that have to do with the internal hypocritical stance on basic rights? Did you really say this next quote? "This reference, being a reliable resource", how can it be reliable, when its been hacked up to read a different way to what Edward Gibbon's full paragraph says? The original material should stay in the government's section, as it's all about the double standards of how JWs disregard governments, and demands rights, but demand the reverse of their members. This hypocritical dichotomy should be clearly elucidated. As for Edward Gibbon's writings, and the Watchtower link, they are off topic, and should go, as they do not address the subject, and are just a bad justification, which is also off topic, and has zero to do with those expelled for thought crimes. Central 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
You said, "This hypocritical dichotomy should be clearly elucidated." This statement reflect 100% your opinion, and does not have any research to back this up. Please find a resource which equates practices of a religion within its own sphere on influence as being tantamount to human rights violations. First you say that Witnesses' own practice of shunning (which follows excommunication) violates human rights. Then you attempt to end the discussion on the matter by simply claiming that the two are unrelated. Since you've linked them so inexorably, I'd say you have a problem. Find academically sound references which equate shunning and human rights violations, and/or associates Jehovah's Witnesses' practice of shunning with human rights violations. - CobaltBlueTony 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
You make a comment: "This statement reflect 100% your opinion", how can it be just my opinion, when its backed up in all the organization's literature, with two blatant quotes that are on the page! The standards of the organization are grossly hypocritical, they are not reasonable. If hate is ok to incite against anyone who disagree with you, then that rule should be put on you [as a group] also. You and the organization say you follow Bible guidelines, so where is the practise of treating others like you would like to be treated? Where do the scriptures give the right to persecute individuals because they do not accept the doctrines of a New York publishing corporation and its many less than biblical teachings that have zero scholarly backup, like 1914, two groups of Christians, them being chosen by Jesus in 1919, etc. etc., etc? All this rubbish about it being Christian is bogus, and a smoke screen, as you know many of the Watch Tower's doctrines are grossly subjective and have no scholarly acceptance at all, persecuting those who do not accept them is not remotely like the first century Christians, and its verging on blasphemy to attribute the persecution and abuse of rights the Watch Tower organization and Governing Body merit out as the same as first century Christians, and you know it. Missionary inserted misquote was another example of the length the organization goes to in its deceit. The quote was cut in two, and all the qualifiers were removed, and subtly linked to Watch Tower dogma, that is not in the original quote or in the Bible for many of these practises. Central 02:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It is, in my opinion, a major concern that editors on both sides seem more concerned with presenting their views than writing a quality encyclopedic article.
  • This is not the place to discuss the validity of JWs doctrine. Please do not state that the Bible supports shunning or that it does not support shunning as a fact. These are opinions, nothing more.
  • The section is about JWs and their relations with governments. It should not be a discussion of the human rights issues of shunning. If that is to be included in the main article, create a section called Human rights or the like, and cover the issue there.
  • In addition, shunning cannot be stated as a violation of human rights. JWs view it as within human rights, and opponents view it as a violation.
  • When discussing a particular point, feel free to cite what JWs believe, but when stating what anyone else believes, make sure it is relevant. From my understanding Edward Gibbon was not discussing shunning of Jehovah's Witnesses, so if he is to be quoted at all, it needs to be clear that he is not discussing how JWs do it.
Please guys, let's try to assume a bit more faith in each other and work on improving the article, not ensuring that our view is included. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Konrad, just a quick reply to some of your comments: You said: "This is not the place to discuss the validity of JWs doctrine", I agree 100 percent, please let them know this. "It should not be a discussion of the human rights issues of shunning", agreed, this was a straw man brought in by JWs. The Human Rights are general, about free thought, and beliefs without being persecuted. "shunning cannot be stated as a violation of human rights", but freedom of thought is a basic Human Right, and that is removed from JWs with the thread of slander, expulsion, hate and destruction of family and friends with the mud slinging labels of "antichrist, rebelling against God", and even thinly veiled death threats if they do not conform and view the organization like God. As for Edward Gibbon, they didn't even quote him accurately, and as you said, it has nothing to do with JWs, who didn't even exist when that book was published. Regards Central 13:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Central, that paragraph is slanted heavily with implications that there is no freedom of thought within the organization, with the only claims references relating to procedures relating to disfellowshipping. You state that the article should avoid shunning, so then why are the articles relating to shunning there to begin with? Oh wait, it says disfellowshipping. Same difference. It's agreed by at least 3 JWs and Konrad and even by yourself that the shunning topic should be avoided...so those quotations and the commentary within which it is framed should also be removed. If it remains then you need to produce the full picture...pulling out of the air disfellowshipping in relationship to JWs and Govts to support a faulty proposition is pure and simple flawed logic. And if outside sources besides WT doctrine are quoted then certainly it should be presented from all aspects, not simply the narrow view presented thus far from the anti-df camp. Also, it is a GOVERNMENT AND JW section, and suddenly that SUPREME COURT OF THE _____ USA is not applicable...HUH??? How governments view this should definitely be considered especially in relationship to "freedoms". Retcon 18:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Funny, when Witnesses were coming out of the woodwork a few days ago trying to remove the much simpler version of the paragraph, one of the multitude of excuses they cited was that the paragraph had nothing to do with governments. Because courts and governmental organizations are part of, uh... you all should have a powwow in your little secret Yahoo group and get your stories straight.Tommstein 02:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Retcon/Missionary. You don't want to let go of your straw man do you? "that the article should avoid shunning" I removed any shunning reference as you, or whoever, obsessed on it as a way to sabotage the page, now it's gone you are still on about it! Excommunication is not the same as shunning. Shunning is one of many consequences that comes after; please get your facts straight. The only references are JW references, so you have no complaint with them; they set the reality not me. As for the court case, you need to read all the other posts, it's total off topic because that woman was in a completely different situation, so please don't come here pretending to be someone else trying to start it up again. Central 21:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL this is quite amusing...your definition of straw man is flawed at best. Simply re-read the article and reflect on its definite slant in its ascertion. One side of the argument is presented...that's it nothing more. Although Tony and Konrad seem to be addressing this far better than myself so I'll let them further attempt to reign in this discussion. Missionary 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Unwieldy

The section on the relationship to governments is getting completely unwieldy (as is the discussion above.) The long paragraph (which I won't quote) is turning into a point-counterpoint-counterpoint-counterpoint-ad-nauseum debate rather than anything informative. Isn't there some way to note that the practice of shunning is controversial, and leave it at that? CarbonCopy (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It still must be related to governments, and I don't see that as useful in a summary section, but rather, noted in the section about shunning or governemtns. However, I think the point trying to be made would be be served under the shunning section. - CobaltBlueTony 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I actually don't think the shunning/disfellowship discussion warrants more than a brief mention in the governments section (to the effect that some critics find the public stand of the religion on religious freedom and their practice of shunning to be inconsistent), and a wikilink to the more extensive discussion in Practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses. As it stands now, that whol section has terrible reading flow. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Why this obsession on shunning? It only mentioned it once in the whole article! Oh yeah, silly me, this is another straw man excuse to mess up the whole paragraph! If you read the paragraph as it was, it is clearly about "legal rights, Human Rights, and Freedoms of Speech", the shunning is one minor point, until Missionary deliberately brought in a straw man to mess it all up and change the subject. The contradiction in rights is the purpose of the main paragraph, not any specific emphasis on shunning, but a general abuse of the Human Rights and freedoms of individuals who do not accept fully the doctrines of men, even in their thoughts. Missionary's paragraph should be removed, and put in another section about just shunning. (But it would have to have a footnote about its misquote and inappropriate illustrations) Central 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The "obsession" stems from your insistence on mentioning it in the government section. Please detach your opinions from your method of editing. - CobaltBlueTony 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Central, I concur with Tony's assessment that this contentious point was initially inserted as an opinion that shunning was tantamount to a violation of human rights. My insertion of Gibbon's quotation was to show the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses relating to human rights within the sphere of rights within a religious organization. Removal of both the Franz and Gibbon points and simply stating this is viewed by some as a violation and others as a nonissue would suffice, although I have another concern relating to sources for the viewpoints in context with governments exclusively. (see above). Missionary 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, when I was fighting to keep the simple two-sentence or so version of the paragraph, the Witness contingent here whined. Now, they're whining that it's too long. I bet that two-line paragraph isn't looking so bad now, is it. That's the price of Witness groupthink, they end up with something that even they don't like but at least they thought they were getting their way.
P.S. Don't reply to this bitching at me, like I know you're going to do anyway. I was the one fighting for the simple paragraph. Your complaints about it are what have led to the current state of affairs. Bitch at yourselves. You've got your little offsite secret Yahoo society. You'd think you all would have your crap together better.Tommstein 08:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I think a dispute tag belongs on this paragraph until the debate resolves, and have so tagged it. CarbonCopy (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Is use of the term "Cult" appropriate and in keeping with the purpose of WP?

This whole "cult" issue has been addressed at length several times in connection with this article. I encourage anyone interested 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) Given that, why would anyone insist on including such perjorative material of questionable academic merit? Something to think about. --DannyMuse 06:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Take it up with the publisher. You don't get to pick and censor what criticism you receive, nor to declare that said criticism shall not appear in titles.Tommstein 06:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Tomm your zealous endeavors would better be spent in pursuit of something you positively endeavor and advocate, rather than a topic that you obviously have a adverse view for which obviously effects NPOV's in your contributions towards this topic. (UTC)
Yeah, it takes some powerful hardcore bias to remove your registration spam link, whatever it's supposed to be to, which I neither know nor especially care.Tommstein 08:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Riddle me this then (to coine your own terminology), according to Dictionary.com the definition of spam is: "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail". First off, this wasn't an e-mail so please get your terminology straight. Second, it is not of a commercial nature as the website hosts no revenue streams and is purely a discussion board. Third, it wasn't indiscriminately placed within multiple lists, it was discriminately placed on this site as a positive resource. And last of all, fourth, if you do not especially care, then why do you persist in removing it? I fail to grasp your perplexing logic. Retcon 15:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, surely you weren't seriously expecting me to sit here and dick around with you about the definition and usage of "spam", or even the reasons why people edit Wikipedia, were you?Tommstein 08:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Civility and NPOV

Please everyone, try to be a little more civil in your comments to each other. DO NOT WRITE PASSAGES IN CAPITALS. That is shouting, and unnecessary. This is not the place to make perjorative remarks about JWs, the WTS or any of their practices, or accuse JWs of being brainwashed, deceptive, or whatever. This is neither the place defend your religion. Please keep discussion on topic by discussing the article itself.

On another note, in response to some comments made by a few people, please remember that everyone is biased to some degree. Whether you are a happy JW, disgruntled JW, happy ex-JW, disgruntled ex-JW, or never been a JW you are welcome to make edits on the JW pages. No one should tell other editors to leave due to bias. What matters is whether our edits themselves reflect the bias we inherently have.

I hope this helps in cooling down the atmosphere around here, which unfortunately has become rather heated. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Peace to all. Konrad's words are absolutely correct. We are all biased, and need to subordinate that bias to the greater good of communicating and writing together. Tom Haws 05:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds very nice and rosy, but it's not ever likely to come to pass when we have editors who constantly drop belittling remarks towards JWs, their beliefs, and the capabilities and knowledge of other editors. Frankly I don't believe some of the people here are even capable of making a point without including some form of sarcasm or contempt or trying to engage other editors in a fight over an unrelated matter. I've largely adopted the opinion that this article will always be a strange-reading ugly duckling, and that it will always give rise to endless futile heated debates on the talk page. Personally I've had enough of it; I'm taking this page off my watch list and am not going to edit it any more. It's just not worth the substantial time and effort required to keep it out of the hands of those who wish it to be an expose on the evils of JWs' beliefs and organization. I'm much happier contributing to other areas of Wikipedia where it doesn't take an exhaustive fight to make the tiniest edits. I hope this won't be seen by any as my giving up on collaborative editing, but it is in fact my giving up on collaborative editing of a topic whose editors hold such extremely polar views and biases. I hope none of you will fault me for investing what little time I have to devote to Wikipedia in more productive endeavors on the site. For the rest of you: have fun, don't hurt yourselves (or each other), and even though I don't believe my saying this will make a difference, try to be nice. -- uberpenguin 07:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it will always be a hot topic, but I'm optimistic that we can work through it. Hope that you decide to come back uberpenguin, but if you think you'll accomplish more on other articles, then good on you. But come back some time; hopefully we'll surprise you with our harmonious consensus in the future. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Civility is a noble goal for a conversation, but polar argument is to be expected in any religious forum. It's hard to have any religious and philosophical argument without stirring up emotion because of what is at stake in the argument. Socrates pointed out that people have to be careful about where his soul is entrusted. Whenever the interlocuter has a significant existential investment in the debate, and has not learned the difficult method of vigorous self-restraint, the argument spirals out of control. For anyone who reads this and intends to add anything to the page, please move the argument forward towards consensus. We all realize the difficulty of argument, and how "deep" everyone's subjectivity actually goes. In fact, this is NOT about objectivity, it's about mutually creating a respectable and far-sighted interpretation of the witness phenomena. Something people can respect when they search for JW's on wikipedia. Add to the debate! Thank you. -- 70.254.86.31 --John
I'm not sure if I misunderstand or you've got your facts wrong. Wikipedia isn't meant to be respectful; it is meant to be objective. The articles are meant to explain the facts about JWs, positive and negative, without regard for whether a member would view that as disrespectful. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Didn't we just finish discussing your allegations that all non-Witnesses are disgruntled and out to get the poor old little Witnesses like what, 48 hours ago?Tommstein 08:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Uberpenguin, I sympathize with your sentiment and as has been mentioned, this will be a polarizing topic undoubtedly. I'd simply recommend showing courtesy even to the discourtious, and if you find belittling remarks from certain individuals, simply don't dignify them with a response. That is usually the best tactic towards silencing the beligerent. Hope we see your further contributions. Missionary 07:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Look at this, this is incredible, a Witness that just shows up here for the first time jumps in to comfort and support of a fellow Witness regarding discussions he knows nothing about. And the Witnesses actually complain when I imply that they just might be partisan. Yeah, I must have been crazy.Tommstein 09:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity? Scientific Realism and Wiki

Objective? Just the mere use of the term "objective" is scientistically biased. The use of the term presupposes that scientific realism is true, and that we all are in direct contact with mind-independant reality. Scientific realism itself is a problematical proposition. Going back to the objective test...well Good. If this is supposed to be objective, then we must take the "expose the truth about" approach to the subject matter...even if this contradicts the "fair and balanced" approach below. If this is really objective, then we will post anything as long as it is true and "defines and describes" the JW movement. You want to go down the "objective" route, then the criteria for posting should be "if it is true then it is posted" even if the analysis is one-sided. Good, now there we are where we should be in the dialectic....the objective analysis "won't fly" as I knew from the beginning, this isn't about being "objective" in the literal sense, maybe metaphorically. Therefore, my "respectful" criteria is much better suited to dealing with issues of NPOV. Unless you want to go back to the presuppositions of scientific realism...

Additionally, no single person's belief set is identical to the set of all true propositions. Since none of us can "step outside" our beliefs and compare them with reality--or the set of true beliefs--and therefore make our minds know reality, all we can do is present the way things appear to us in a respectful way. This cannot be about literal objectivity-if it were, then we would not be having this argument in the first place. --John

Your definition of objectivity sounds good to me, and probably a lot of others. It's the Witness contingent here that is obsessed with removing facts they find inconvenient; I personally don't recall ever removing any facts simply because they painted Witnesses in a good light. Maybe I should start, to throw balance on their fact-removal shenanigans, and to see how they like what they do. As to the rest of your stuff, yes, I'm sure we're all in the Matrix or something. Now take it to the Philosophy page or somewhere else that's not here.Tommstein 00:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
WTF? I had to laugh when I read your post John. "Scientistically based"? ;) Look up objective: "Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal." As in, we present the facts, regardless of any respect or disrespect. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
lol...good one! It blindsided me...lol. I said scientistically "biased" not "based." I dare you to prove the legitimancy of scientific realism. The empiricist program has failed. So i don't know why it's not a given that no statement is objectively valid; nothing is "objective." Empiricism has crashed and burned in the twentieth century. Anyway, it's nearly hopeless trying to convince non-believers. Dogmatic "objectivists" are just as dogmatic as true believers. So, i probably should take this argument somewhere else. ;) --John
Please do. If we can't objectively assume that we're reading what we're reading, then we're all screwed. I find it interesting that you talk about "non-believers" and "true believers" of your philosophy though, kind of like it's just another religion....Tommstein 01:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no difference between religion and science, that's the point--true humanism begins this way, anyway, i do accept everything you said--we must be objective on this forum--thanks for responding ;).

TOC box

Why was the TOC box reverted? It was cleaner on the right. - Tεxτurε 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it as it was on the left, and shunted the text up. Why would you say it looks "cleaner" on the right? Virtually no pages have it on the right. I admit the large gap that was next to it was a bit of a waste of space, but I have shunted the text up now, and left the introduction paragraph at the top, as it's looks better with a full width as an introduction, rather than squeezed down the side of the content box. Anyone else want to comment? Central 21:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It looks good as you have it now, Central. I say keep it like it is now. - CobaltBlueTony 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
WOW, this must be a world's first, something we agree on, pop that champagne! Central 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. I didn't see that you had moved the text up. - Tεxτurε 21:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


The above 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.