Talk:Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Jehovah's Witnesses This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Let's get it started

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Jehovah's Witnesses

george 03:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appointing

Under the section on Association, there's a part that says elders and regional overseers appoint elders to their position. This is entirely incorrect about Jehovah's Witness beliefs. Appointments come through Holy Spirit, although elders and regional overseers recommend who is to be considered for appointment. Appointments, are not from any humans. I'm unsure how to reword the section without possibly sounding crazy of biased. Any ideas, before I edit? --D 02:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can actually prove that holy spirit does in fact appoint these people, you cannot state here that it does. I can believe that the fairy godmother influences me to come to Wikipedia, but that would similarly be an unproven belief that can't be stated here.66.158.232.37 07:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disfellowshipping

A person might be disfellowshipped (excommunicated) from the congregation of Jehovah's Witness for serious violations of their Bible-based moral standards. These would include fornication, adultery, homosexual activity, abortion, theft, recreational use of drugs or tobacco, drunkenness, and teaching false doctrines and things like these. Jehovah's Witnesses have also been disfellowshipped for openly teaching opposing doctrines, some have also been disfellowshipped for openly or privately questioning the scriptural validity of various doctrines of the Watch Tower Society. Shunning would also be extended to those who have written letters disassociating themselves from the religion, thus Jehovah's Witnesses refer to these ones as 'disassociated'. Sometimes the Watch Tower Society will class some as disassociated by their actions, or open disagreement of Watch Tower doctrines, even when there is no formal letter of disassociation from the Witness.


  1. If you notice all the bold statements are saying the same thing, thus, they are redundant. I did not edit in a biased way.
  2. The Watchtower Society is a legal corporation used by Jehovah's Witnesses thus "doctrines of the Watchtower society" is incorrect it is more correct to say doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Witnesses do still speak of information coming from "the Society". Additionally it is rediculously ambiguous to state that Jehovah's Witnesses receive their doctrines from Jehovah's Witnesses. There has to be some kind of distinction, just as Catholics receive dotrine from the Catholic Church. In common usage, this distinction for the Witnesses is made by referring to the Watchtower Society.--Jeffro77 10:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The way it sounded was cumbersome, I wanted it to have a better flow.

george 01:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • To George m, Your point one is incorrect, as "teaching false doctrines" is highly different from "questioning the scriptural validity" of various doctrines of the Watch Tower Society. Just as "teaching opposing doctrines" is not the same as "questioning the scriptural validity of various doctrines". It is highly unbalanced to use the usual JW victim mentality in interpreting the world, i.e., anyone who questions or disagrees with a doctrine on scriptural grounds must automatically be "teachings false doctrines, an apostate, one opposing God, or anti-JWs". Please try and be a bit more objective, instead of seeing any peep of non-servile conformity as intense opposition when it clearly isn't.
You're right. They are two different tings. The Witnesses teach that you should ask whether or not something is scriptural, but you should not push your own interpretations. (Acts 17:11, 12; compare 2 Peter 1:20, 21) A friend of mine got disfellowshiped. Her comment was: "I am not leaving Jehovah, I'm just leaving the brothers". I wondered for a while why! Now I know, of course. It is the same almost all the time. You cannot stand having a different opinion on matters near to your heart. There is no patience. (Ecclesiastes 7:8, 9; James 1:19-21) Therefore you also feel you have to inform everyone else, so that they can make an 'informed decision'. The problem is that most of the time, the reasons brought forth in these 'campaigns' are either emotional or pure nonsense. A very few times, ideas are strongly pushed, bordering on rebellion against theocratic authority. This cannot go on in a congregation. Jude v. 10, 11: "These men are speaking abusively of all the things they really do not know; but all the things that they do understand naturally like the unreasoning animals, in these things they go on corrupting themselves. Too bad for them, because they have gone in the path of Cain, and have rushed into the erroneous course of Balaam for reward, and have perished in the rebellious talk of Korah!" (Compare Matthew 24:48, 49) --Porthos 01:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Your point two is invalid also, as the quote, clearly states the "Watch Tower" not "Watchtower", the Watch Tower formulate the doctrines as a body. It appears as if you are trying to sidetrack from the issues by making up straw men diversions. Just like the trite reply of many saying, "the watchtower is just a magazine". Jehovah's Witness do not formulate doctrines; those are specifically done by the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Society.
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are legal organisations with a religious objective to produce and publish spiritual material and support the work of Jehovah's Witnesses in various countries. Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious organization that will exist with or without these organizations. There is no such thing as "the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Society." At one time, they were synonymous with the board of directors of the Society, but such is not the case anymore. It is important to be accurate. It is a strategy of several former Jehovah's Witnesses and others inclined to oppose the religious organization, to claim that the doctrines are formulated by the Watchtower, the Watch Tower, or any other legal organization. This is not the case. The Governing Body consists of Jehovah's Witnesses with a very special work assignment. --Porthos 01:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Point three, many JWs have been disfellowshipped for questioning, yes just questions, the validity of the Societies interpretation of 1914, the 144,000, dates for Armageddon that the society produced, or the location of the great crowd/heavenly. They do not have to be "teaching opposing doctrines", or "opposing" etc. It is important the article shows that Jehovah's Witnesses are under a heavy burden to accept all that comes from the Watch Tower Society; many JWs have been disfellowshipped for merely having private conversations about their doubts of the scriptural validity of some of the Society's doctrines, especially 1914, and the 144,000. The Society demands that all its doctrines be accepted, this is strictly stipulated. Watchtower 1 April 1986 pp.30-31
Actually, it's not "The Society" that demands that all its doctrines be accepted, it is the Bible. As observed in the Watchtower of 1 April 1986 pp.30-31, "Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity, as Paul makes clear at 1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." (New International Version) --DannyMuse 16:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
DannyMuse, is this comment in the wrong place? As to whether the Bible or Society says something, I think we should avoid that line of discussion altogehter, since it's another can of worms. The wikipedia shouldn't get into interpreting scripture, since what is obvious to one religion, will not be obvious to another. A better way to word this is that the Society's interpretation of scripture is that dissent is not allowed. boche 03:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, you cannot be disfellowshiped for what you are describing. There has to be some other factor involved. This is hardly ever spoken of, though, but those who claim that jehovah's Witnesses disfellowship just because you question them. Utter nonsense! --Porthos 01:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) --Porthos 01:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Such wonderful language.


To reply to your claims, I have this to say:
Questioning the validity of a doctrine is not a disfellowshiping offense, causing a disturbance within the congregation is.
EX: To question something and try to get others to doubt it when you don't like the answer you get is a disfellowshiping matter.
Also, trying to stir up dissent by "Privately" expressing doubts is dishonest. A person who truly wants to know the whys and wherefores will talk to the elders in the congregation about a doctrinal point, not go around the congregation looking for people to join their side. This is how the matter is handled and because of that is makes all these statements boil down to the same thing:
teaching false doctrines
teaching opposing doctrines
questioning the scriptural validity of various doctrines
open disagreement of Watch Tower doctrines
Yes, these are the doctrines Jehovah's Witnesses teach. The members of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are all Jehovah's Witnesses. The Wikipedia article about this subject is not titled Doctrines of the WBTS, it is titled Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. You reasoning on this matter is circular.
IF people were disfellowshipped for "just questions' there wouldn't be any Jehovah's Witnesses.george 18:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)



COMMENT: What it boils down to, really, when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses and disfellowshipping, is attitude. You can indeed ask questions about anything, really, and you are allowed think freely. To be in disagreement with the legal association of Jehovah's Witnesses is not a reason for disfellowshipping. (Disagreements on matters concerning that organization might occur for a number of reasons.) Other things are, though. Such as rebellion. Even Korah was expelled from the congregation of God. (Numbers 16) To honestly question the validity of scriptural matters is something each Christian must do, according to the Witnesses. (Acts 17:10, 11) This is evident from several articles, for example Search for God With Your Heart and Mind (The Watchtower 4/1, 2002, 4-5), and Are You Open to New Ideas? (The Watchtower 1/15, 1989, 5-6). Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim to have all the answers, but admonish everyone who listen to them, to wait patiently for the time when all matters are understood. Insight on the Scriptures says, under the heading Love, that it "believes all God says, though it may not be able to grasp it thoroughly, and it is willing to wait patiently until the matter is more fully explained or until getting a clear understanding." (1 Corinthians 13:9-12; 1 Peter 1:10-13) --7846 02:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good points, unfortunately the person with the problem here (our anonymous editor) wants to enter statements that are 'subtly' negative. when attempts are made to tone out the negativity, it is construed a PR campaign for the WBTS. BTW Fi you are Porthos, please ID yourself so we can more easily differentiate the commentary.george 02:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts: First, I believe the following statement is incorrect, doctrinally: "A person might be disfellowshipped (excommunicated) from the congregation of Jehovah's Witness for serious violations of their Bible-based moral standards."

It is my understanding (although some culturally use the two words enterchangeably) that there is a difference between excommunication and disfelowshipping. For sure the connotations of each are quite different. (if you have further questions on this, let me know) I'd almost rather see some thing like this:

A person might be disfellowshipped (similar to excommunication in other Christian denominations) from the congregation of Jehovah's Witness for serious violations of their Bible-based moral standards.

Second, people are not disfellowshipped for doubting. It is human nature to doubt things. Every religion allows for it and in many cases encourages it to build faith (not to dwell on the doubt, but use it as an opportunity for study and prayer to come to a place of contentment within the faith and to build individual faith and belief). Where the problem comes in is when the doubt becomes vocal - in the form of "teaching false doctrines," "teaching opposing doctrines," openly "questioning the scriptural validity of various doctrines" and "open disagreement of" doctrines. I would also add, one more item - sharing personal beliefs that damage the faith of other believers. I think this is a positive thing, but I guess some see as censorship or limiting the voice of dissident. The section should explain more context behind why Jehovah's Witnesses are so strict to this belief (unlike other Christian denominations who let adultry, fornication, and open rebellion against doctrines occur in their congregations), rather than just simply give what offenses are justifiable for disfellowshipment. The latter is dry and factual, the first is contextual and factual, giving insight into the mind of the believer. This cultural context is needed in Wikipedia (regardless of the topic or affiliation of the religious article), as it allows others to somewhat understand the POV of a believer. This is something that Wikipedia can do, that no other encyclopedia can.

As for the Watch Tower doctrines versus Jehovah's Witness doctrines - this is an important point, regardless of the name of the article. Do all Jehovah's Witness congregations adhere to all Watch Tower doctrines. Who ratifies the doctrines - are they infallible? I need more understanding on this point. -Visorstuff 01:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, V for your input I will add the suggestion to expand this to the "todo" list for the JW project. Also, Porthos' comments below make valid points, as I mentioned earlier. There are no Watch Tower or Watchtower doctrines. This is more of a slang term which, BTW JW do not use. Notice Porthos has stated: Governing body of Jehovah's Witnsses not of the Watchtower Society.
JW's do indeed talk of receiving "direction", including in the form of 'doctrinal instruction', from "the Society".
Peace, Love and all that mushy stuff. george 14:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT:First of all, there are no "Watch Tower doctrines". The Watch Tower is a legal association, not a religious movement. The doctrines are formulated by people who diligently and under prayer study the Bible. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses will then make sure that the material is published and made accessible to all. Also, since the Governing Body has insight into global problem areas, they might request a study on a specific Bible topic to be produced. The material is made accessible using, for example, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society or the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses or any other suitable legal association. No understanding of the Bible is infallible. They will change if time shows they are wrong. --Porthos 07:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being a bit repetitive at times, but it seems necessary, as the same things are brought up over and over again. --Porthos 01:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oral sex, tatooing and piercing are not DF reasons. I've never heard about anyone DF for lying either. So please check out the accuracy about what is written here.

Summer Song 09:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

To K. and boche: Because your questions/comments on piercing, loose conduct and oral and anal sex are all related I am posting here. In fact, while these are all technically disfellowshipping offenses, that would only be the case if someone were to brazenly and openly advocate these practices. Even then, the person would be disfellowshipped for their attitude and disruptive influence on the congregation and not for the specific act itself. And so they really all come under the umbrella of Loose Conduct which K. defined below. The article already contains this statement regarding the importance of an individuals attitude and repentance during any judicial matters:

An individual is disfellowshipped because his or her actions and/or attitude demonstrate that he or she is unrepentant, not simply because the individual has been found by the congregation to have committed a serious sin. Their repentance (or the lack thereof) is the real issue. - See Reinstatement section.

That being said, I added a definition of Loose Conduct to the end of the disfellowhipping section as a footnote. It's a first draft and needs "fine-tuning", but it's a start. We could make a WP page for it, but it's pretty specific in application to JWs so I don't think that's the best way to handle it. --DannyMuse 00:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability and NOR

I agree DannyMuse with having an explanation of loose conduct in the article, since the offences it covers would not be apparent to a casual reader. However, I think we need to be clear about Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NOR.

The only things that can be listed are those the publications state are disfellowshipping offences, and what external sources (not Wikipedians) claim. For example, Bill Bowen [1] claimed to have been disfellowshipped for speaking against the organisation on television.

It's probably better to list the offences explicitly stated in the publications as official, and others as claimed by external sources. As such, "perverted sex relations" are disfellowshipping offences of themselves, as the publications do not indicate that this comes under loose conduct (even if it does in practice). --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Konrad, I agree. So from the WT article we can come to a few conclusions. 1) it is classified as an unclean act, since the artlce says: "And they will do well to cultivate a hatred for everything that is unclean before Jehovah, including what are clearly perverted sexual practices. Married couples should act in a way that will leave them with a clean conscience, as they give unimpeded attention to developing the fruitage of the spirit." 2) this isn't classified as "porneia" (the word translated to "fornication" in the NWT) since porneia "involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement," therefore it isn't a grounds for divorce (adultery being the the only grounds), 3) if people know about it, it can result in a loss of privs, since the person "would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer." 4) it is by advocacy that it becomes "loose conduct," and therefore DFable since the artlce says "A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct." So, a few questions remain, what happens if it is not being advocated, but practiced nonetheless? (i.e. the assumption here is that the person will agree it is immoral, and will repent, and therefore, there is no penalties; what happens if the person disagrees and continues?) I assume they would be accused of being "unrepentant." What then? Also, it may be important to point out that this article (and what we are discussing) is relating to acts within marriage. I would assume different principles would apply in the case of non-married persons based on the artlce saying: "porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement." Therefore, in those cases, it's the same as "fornication" and therefore a DFing offense. We could then include this in the definition of fornication, and not necessarily list this out separately. boche 05:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It's very important to separate personal experience from what's actually in print. I've never heard of anyone being disfellowshipped for having oral sex (either as loose conduct, uncleanness or as oral sex itself), but Wikipedia is not concerned with my (or any other Wikipedian's) experiences. We need verifiable info.
As such, even if an elder can say what happens in what situation, unless it is verifiable, it can't go in. Probably, there should be information about offences that result in loss of privileges but not disfellowshipping (such as practice but not advocating perverted sex).
I also think it's quite important to include a list of offences that 3rd parties claim are disfellowshipping offences, assuming they are credible and relevant. For example, Bill Bowen and http://www.silentlambs.org are quite a movement now with a fair amount of media attention. I think his and other's claims of disfellowshipping have to be included in another section. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Konrad, I appreciate your dialogue on these issues. Please allow me to address two points in your post above:
  1. In response to your comment that it is "very important to separate personal experience from what's actually in print". Overall I agree with this position. (Of course that is in relation to the article itself. For our discussions on the Talk page our experiences can be useful and enlightening.) That being said, you must keep in mind that anything that Bill Bowen (or others like him) has to say is his "personal experience" and therefore not encyclopedic. You say that he's getting "a fair amount of media attention". Whether that's true or not I do not know, nor do I know how you would gauge what is a "fair amount" of attention. Nevertheless, as I know you know, WP is not a news media outlet. What ever is included should not only be independently verifiable and NOR, but relevant and not mere "sensationalism". It is doubtful that any third party claims would be appropriate for an encylopedic reference work. In fact it is most likely that they are not.
Thanks DannyMuse. I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia:Verifiability is. It doesn't mean we should be able to verify whether a person's claim is true, it means that we can verify that the person has made such a claim. For Bill Bowen, it's simply a matter of visiting his website.
I only mention Bill Bowen because there have been a number of current affairs programs around the world featuring him, not because I'm advocating his particular case. If you search Google for Jehovah's Witnesses child abuse, Bill Bowen's site is number one, and a BBC program about Jehovah's Witnesses and child abuse is number three. The BBC program is about Bill Bowen and his efforts to change JW policy on child abuse.
[2]Doesn't the fact that the BBC program come up as third in the Google search actually show the the media attention is less than that generated by Bowen himself and his website? Also, did you notice that the date on the BBC article is 12 July, 2002? Hardly current. Some points to consider. --DannyMuse 12:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
More importantly, child abuse of any form is a crime. The fact is that abuse victims can and should report abuse to the authorities. In many (most?) jurisdictions of the U.S. elders are required by law to report any known or suspected cases of sexual abuse of minors to authorities. Here are some balancing points from the BBC articles that you may want to consider:
  • J R Brown, the Head of Public Relations for the WTB&TS, maintains: "We have a very aggressive policy to handle child molestation in the congregations and it is primarily designed to protect our children."
  • With regard to their (JWs) policy on reporting abuse to the authorities, he referred us to the 8 October 1993 issue of Awake!, page 9, which states: "Some legal experts advise reporting the abuse to the authorities as soon as possible. In some lands the legal system may require this." - [3]
  • ... even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit.
  • As well as making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. In this case, they are expected to comply.
  • Additionally, the Jehovah's Witnesses publicity information states that the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so. - Child abuse policy
Some things to thing about! --DannyMuse 12:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
My point is that it is encyclopedic to include claims by third parties, as long as others can verify that the third party made those claims. That's why we shouldn't have sentences like: "Some claim that...". Not verifiable.
As to the question of relevancy, well that is difficult, as it is POV whether any particular claim is relevant or not. But I would say that if Bill Bowen claims he was disfellowshipped for speaking out against the organisation, because of the media attention he has received (see Google Jehovah's Witnesses Bill Bowen; there are a news articles from CBS and the BBC on the first page), his claim would be relevant. But obviously that's my POV, so there would need to be a consensus among the editors. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
[4]Konrad, I re-read the Wikipedia:Verifiability page just to be clear. I actually did not misunderstand it, but perhaps I should have been more clear in making my point. While you're correct that Mr. Bowen's claims are verifiable, the facts in the matter are not. No official from the WTB&TS is going to counter his claims specifically. So including his claims is only going to result in a one-sided presentation of the issue. This is of particular concern as the claims of disaffected individuals of any group are notoriously unreliable, especially in the case of the more vocal opponents of that group as they seek to justify themselves.
On this point, consider the comments of Dr. Lonnie D. Kliever, Professor of Religious Studies of the Southern Methodist University, in his paper titled The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements. In it he wrote that the overwhelming majority of people who disengage from non-conforming religions harbor no lasting ill-will toward their past religious associations and activities, and that by contrast there is a much smaller number of apostates who are deeply invested and engaged in discrediting and peforming actions designed to destroying the religious communities that once claimed their loyalties. He asserts that these dedicated opponents present a distorted view of the new religions and cannot be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists. He claims that the reason for the lack of reliability of apostates is due to the traumatic nature of disaffiliation that he compares to a divorce and also due the influence of the anti-cult movement even on those apostates who were not deprogrammed or received exit counseling. (Emphasis added)
More importantly, what's the point? Is there a compelling, encyclopedic reason for including such claims? Or is it just mere sensationalism? The article already mentions apostasy and heresy as grounds for disfellowshipping. "Causing divisions" could be added as well. Bowen's claim of "speaking out against the organisation" as being the reason for his disfellowshipping is no doubt his version of any or all of the above published reasons for expulsion. So in reality there's nothing new here. So again my question: is it relevent? Above you said you thought it was precisely because of the media attention Bowen's received, adding "But obviously that's my POV." That seems to be insufficient reason for inclusion, particularly as the "media attention" given to Mr. Bowen is no longer current. In summary, to be encyclopedic it must be verifiable; but simply being verifiable does not in itself make a thing encyclopedic. --DannyMuse 13:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. Next I'd like to respond to your comment that "I've never heard of anyone being disfellowshipped for having oral sex ...". Why would you? When an individual is disfellowshipped the reason is NEVER announced. It is supposed to be strictly confidential and no one other than those directly involved in the matter would/should know the reason. I'm not sure why you included this bit of your own personal experience on the subject. Could you please explain?
I look forward to your reply. Thanks, --DannyMuse 17:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
As for the the never hearing of someone D'd for oral sex, I know lots of people who've been disfellowshipped and they've told me why. I don't know what it's like in your congregation, but though it's supposed to be confidential, I almost always get to find out what they got D'd for. And just in case you're thinking, it's not via a long grapevine. ;)
I only mentioned it because at times what happens in practice differs from what's in print. But unless you've got someone willing to go on the record (via a news service, website, etc), it's not verifiable. That's all I was trying to say! :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. --DannyMuse 13:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oral and anal sex

From my research in the WT Library, this is latest article (and therefore current policy) on oral and anal sex:

*** w83 3/15 p. 31 Honor Godly Marriage! ***
"As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation." (Italics mine)

If you do have a newer reference, please let me know! --K. 10:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

K., the paragraph you quoted does not specify either oral or anal sex, but only mentions "perverted sex relations". Why do you believe this refers to and/or includes oral and anal sex? --DannyMuse 07:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Danny, I think it is understood to mean that. However, I'm open to being wrong. Do you have a suggestion on what they are referring to when they say "perverted sex relations"? Are you saying that oral and anal sex are allowed among JW married couples and that they may continue to be in good standing if it is known they engage in that practice? Would an elder recommend it to a newlywed couple? I have a hard time imagining that to be true. boche 07:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
boche, I don't know how else to respond to your qestions & comments above so I'm trying this format:
  • BOCHE: Danny, I think it is understood to mean that. However, I'm open to being wrong. Do you have a suggestion on what they are referring to when they say "perverted sex relations"?
  • DANNYMUSE: The expression "perverted sex relations" can mean a number of things, including even oral and anal sex between married people. In fact, the paragragh immediately prior to the one that Konrad quoted says:
" ... a mate's enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage."
My point was threefold, first that he failed to adequately prove his point and secondly that he focused on the specifics of oral and anal sex and missed that those are examples of what is a broader category of "perverted sex relations". Finally, it is not the act(s) themselves which are disfellowshipping offenses, but the "openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond" that "could even lead to expulsion from the congregation." You might ask yourself this question:
  • Q: How would it become known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond?
  • A: That would be what constitutes the Loose Conduct for which the person could be disfellowshipped.
  • BOCHE: Are you saying that oral and anal sex are allowed among JW married couples and that they may continue to be in good standing if it is known they engage in that practice?
  • DANNYMUSE: I did not say that.
  • BOCHE: Would an elder recommend it to a newlywed couple? I have a hard time imagining that to be true.
  • DANNYMUSE: I also did not say that. I doubt it. Why would you ask? That seems like an odd question. --DannyMuse 01:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Danny, I guess I wasn't clear. The point is that the article clearly indicates that these practices are not for Christians, and that "practice and advocacy" having both been fulfilled would result in DFing. From what you mentioned prior, questioning Konrad, I interpreted you as saying that they were considered acceptable, which clearly they are not from the Society's point of view. I think that while it is good to include the definition of "loose conduct" those descriptive words such as "licentiousness; wantonness; shameless conduct; lewdness of conduct" is a matter for interpretation, since not everyone will be able to agree on what those mean for all types of acts. It is therefore, important to point out the JW interpretation which is that these sex acts fall under this catagory according to the Society. Do you agree that the JW view is that these acts fall under the catagory of loose conduct? Or else why would advocating conduct that is not "lewd" subject someone to being expelled? Obviously, the act itself is the sin. Also, I'm unsure if there is a reference to what happens if one only practices, but does not advocate. I understand that to mean that they may not be expelled, but they may not be considered "in good standing." boche 04:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Danny, I noticed you've remove the reference, with the comment that those things are only disfellowshippable if they become "loose conduct," however, I don't see a definition of what loose conduct is, nor how the sex practice can cross the line. Specification of this will be useful, otherwise, it's very confusing. Unless somone more knowledgeable can comment, I think it is sufficient to say that those practices will result in DFing if two conditions hold: 1) the action occured, 2) the people engaging are unrepentant. The third, I'm unsure about, which is whether or not it is known. That last aspect may be necessary for DFing action to occur, otherwise, it might be something just kept on record when making decisions on someone's standing in the congregation. Thoughts? boche 18:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


      • w78 2/15 pp. 30-31 Questions from Readers ***

Questions from Readers

• Does the Bible set forth any specific definitions as to what is moral or immoral as regards the sexual relationship between husband and wife? Is it the responsibility of congregational elders to endeavor to exercise control among congregation members in these intimate marital matters?

It must be acknowledged that the Bible does not give any specific rules or limitations as regards the manner in which husband and wife engage in sexual relations. There are brief descriptions of fitting love expressions, such as at Proverbs 5:15-20 and various verses in the Song of Solomon (1:13; 2:6; 7:6-8). These, and texts such as Job 31:9, 10, at least provide an indication of what was customary or normal as regards love play and sexual relations and coincide with what is generally viewed as customary and normal today.

The most forceful counsel in the Scriptures is that we should have complete love for God and love for our neighbor as ourselves; a husband is to love his wife as he does his own body and to cherish her and assign her honor. (Matt. 22:37-40; Eph. 5:25-31; 1 Pet. 3:7) As the apostle states, love “does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked.” (1 Cor. 13:4, 5) This would certainly preclude the forcing upon one’s marriage mate unusual practices that the mate considers distasteful or even repugnant and perverted.

Beyond these basic guidelines the Scriptures do not go and, hence, we cannot do more than counsel in harmony with what the Bible does say. In the past some comments have appeared in this magazine in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality. On this basis the conclusion was reached that those engaging in such sex practices were subject to disfellowshiping if unrepentant. The view was taken that it was within the authority of congregational elders to investigate and act in a judicial capacity regarding such practices in the conjugal relationship.

A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis. Of course, if any person chooses to approach an elder for counsel he or she may do so and the elder can consider Scriptural principles with such a one, acting as a shepherd but not attempting to, in effect, “police” the marital life of the one inquiring.

[edit] Lying

*** g00 2/8 p. 21 Lying—Is It Ever Justified? ***
"While all lying is reprehensible, some lies are more serious than others. For example, one person may lie out of embarrassment or fear. Another may wickedly make a practice of lying with the intent to harm or injure. Because of his malicious motivation, such a willful liar is a danger to others and would be disfellowshipped from the congregation if he does not repent. Since not all lies are inspired by maliciousness, care must be taken not to condemn unnecessarily but to be sure one knows all the factors involved when someone has told a lie. Motives and extenuating circumstances should be taken into consideration." (Italics mine)

--K. 10:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tattoos and body piercing

With regard to tattoos and body piercing, I agree that these aren't specific disfellowshipping offences, but they do come under the term loose conduct:

*** it-2 p. 264 Loose Conduct ***
"Acts that reflect a brazen attitude, an attitude betraying disrespect, even contempt for law and authority. The Hebrew word zim·mah´ is rendered “loose conduct” and “loose morals.” (Le 18:17; 19:29) The Greek term a·sel´gei·a (loose conduct) may also be rendered “licentiousness; wantonness; shameless conduct; lewdness of conduct.” (Ga 5:19, ftn; 2Pe 2:7, ftn) Neither term is restricted to sexual immorality."

Tattoos and body piercing, depending on type, size and prominence, are just a few of the things that can be seen as evidence of a "brazen attitude" and "contempt for law and authority". --K. 10:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Konrad has made his case. Those things should be added back, unless someone can show evidence to the contrary. My understanding is that at least anal and oral sex are prohibited. This is pretty well-known among JWs, though, perhaps for newer members it is less known due to the fact that the policy has not been repeated as of late. A question to anyone knowledgable, for things that can be classified as disfellowshipable offenses (i.e. loose conduct) how much discresion does an elder body have? I.e. based on the above piercing is loose conduct, and loose conduct is a disfellowshipable offense, but is it true that therefore piercing is a disfellowshipable offense? Seems logical, but it would be good if a JW elder can comment here if there is precedence of this in practice. boche 07:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and DannyMuse, with regard to the Disfellowshipping section, I think that it really needs expansion, with explanation for what JWs mean by the terms apostasy, loose conduct, fornication, etc, as these differ from "worldly" definitions. As the main article is already way too long, I think it too needs to be in a separate article. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
K. - I definitely agree that definitions are needed. I started that by adding a "Notes and references" section at the bottom of the page. This is similar to what is on the JW main page and in keeping with WP's formatting guidelines for articles. In regard to my question about my previous response to your commments I was referring to these in particular:
If you click on the above reference links they will take you to the comments. Thanks --DannyMuse 15:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues revisited

  • Note: I moved the following comments here from my User talk page as this seemed the more appropriate place for this discussion. --DannyMuse 17:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Danny, You keep changing and removing items from the list of reasons that a person can be disfellowshipped. In particular you remove that oral sex and anal sex within the marriage arrangement, and speaking to a disfellowshipped person can be reasons to be disfellowshipped. You may be ashamed that your religion includes such reasons that are not mentioned in the bible. However, this is an encyclopedia, not your personal propoganda machine. People have a right to know the truth about the organisation. -- 61.29.58.114 15 August 2005 (unsigned)

It is dubious in all aspects that such conduct is not currently mentioned among disfellowshippable offenses among members in good standing, but claimed by DF'ed and former members. However, do keep in mind that sodomy was so much part of the lives of Sodomites that the practice was named after them; their entire city was destroyed because of it. - CobaltBlueTony 14:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
To anonymous user(s) 220.237.18.12/61.29.58.114: First of all, it is proper Wikipedia:Wikiquette to sign and date your posts to talk pages. This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog. Failure to do so is confusing. For example, 61.29.58.114 added to the unsigned post by 220.237.18.12. Are you the same user at a different IP or are you both just showing bad form? I have no clue! It's confusing.
Now to the details of your post: You are correct that “People have a right to know the truth about the organisation.” That is the sole, entire purpose of all my edits, not just the ones you question. These issues have been discussed at great length here on the Talk:Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses page. I suggest you read it (please see above). Next, you are incorrect in stating, “… speaking to a disfellowshipped person can be [a] reason … to be disfellowshipped”. This is just wrong. The article currently clearly states the accurate position on this in the Shunning section:
“A Witness would not be disfellowshipped for simply talking to or associating with a disfellowshipped family members. However, as described in the guidebook given to elders, "Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock" p.103, an individual could be disfellowshipped for associating with a disfellowshipped person if there is a continuing of "spiritual association" with a disfellowshipped person or if there is "an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course" of the disfellowshipped one.”
Finally, you seem curiously preoccupied with the subjects of anal and oral sex. You observed correctly that I keep “changing and removing items”, but incorrectly concluded what you assumed to be my motives. Please learn to assume good faith on the part of other WP editors. This too is good Wikipedia:Wikiquette. My edits are to ensure the accuracy of this article. The truth is that both oral or anal sex fall under the broader category of “Perverted sex relations” (aka “perverted acts”). If you’ll check the edit history for this article you will see that I am the editor that added the reference and quotation for this topic. Accordingly, I have revised your recent edit to that quote to more accurately read, “perverted sex relations [such as oral or anal sex]”. --DannyMuse 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, "theocratic warfare" strikes again (in this case, fudging quotes, from the Society's own stuff at that). The above-mentioned quote from "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" states, and I quote it in its entirety, "Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped for associating with a disfellowshipped person unless there is spiritual association or an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course." Notice the two qualifications at the beginning, which were completely ignored, presumably since they were inconvenient: "normally" and "a close relative." Thus, the 'not being disfellowshipped' part is only applicable to close relatives, and only "normally" at that. If it was OK for everyone, those two qualifications would not be there.
But why stop there. The page you mentioned says to refer to the September 15, 1981 Watchtower, pages 20-31, to find out the proper view of disfellowshipped and disassociated people. What does that article say? Here are some choice quotes:
  • [Regarding disfellowshipped people] "Love for God and for the purity of his people requires that those in the 'fellowship,' the congregation, reject that man." (paragraph 5)
  • "Their refusal to fellowship with an expelled person on any spiritual or social level reflects loyalty to God's standards and obedience to his command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13." (paragraph 12)
  • "The expelled person has been 'rejected,' being 'self-condemned' because of 'sinning,' and those in the congregation both accept God's judgment and uphold it. Disfellowshiping, however, implies more than ceasing to have spiritual fellowship.—Titus 3:10, 11. Paul wrote: 'Quit mixing in company . . . , not even eating with such a man.' (1 Cor. 5:11) A meal is a time of relaxation and socializing. Hence, the Bible here rules out social fellowship, too, such as joining an expelled person in a picnic or party, ball game, trip to the beach or theater, or sitting down to a meal with him." (paragraphs 17-18)
  • "If you were contractually or financially obliged to continue the business relationship for the present, you certainly would now have a different attitude toward the disfellowshiped individual. Discussion of business matters with him or contact on the job might be necessary, but spiritual discussions and social fellowship would be things of the past. In that way you could demonstrate your obedience to God and have a protective barrier for yourself." (paragraph 20)
  • "All faithful Christians need to take to heart the serious truth that God inspired John to write: 'He that says a greeting to [an expelled sinner who is promoting an erroneous teaching or carrying on ungodly conduct] is a sharer in his wicked works.'—2 John 11." (paragraph 25)
  • "Many of Christendom's commentators take exception to 2 John 11. They claim that it is 'unchristian counsel, contrary to the spirit of our Lord,' or that it encourages intolerance. Yet such sentiments emanate from religious organizations that do not apply God's command to 'remove the wicked man from among yourselves,' that seldom if ever expel even notorious wrongdoers from their churches. (1 Cor. 5:13) Their 'tolerance' is unscriptural, unchristian." (paragraph 26)
  • "If, though, a Christian were to throw in his lot with a wrongdoer who has been rejected by God and disfellowshiped, or has disassociated himself, that would be as much as saying 'I do not want a place in God's holy mountain either.' If the elders saw him heading in that direction by regularly keeping company with a disfellowshiped person, they would lovingly and patiently try to help him to regain God's view. (Matt. 18:18; Gal. 6:1) They would admonish him and, if necessary, 'reprove him with severity.' They want to help him remain 'in God's holy mountain.' But if he will not cease to fellowship with the expelled person, he thus has made himself 'a sharer (supporting or participating) in the wicked works' and must be removed from the congregation, expelled." (paragraph 27)
For documentation purposes, this entire article can be found at http://quotes.watchtower.ca/DF_DA.htm (along with many other articles on the subject). These quotes are pretty self-explanatory. The last quote is especially explicit, even including the penalty.
Lastly, to avoid any dicking around with wanting to interpret the article differently, I'll observe that the article is from the September 15, 1981 Watchtower, meaning that it actually came out well before that date, and also meaning that it was written even before that. Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped on December 31, 1981. Thus, we have a very high-level precedent for how to interpret this. Personal opinions to the contrary, of what anyone thinks was meant or what anyone wants to pretend was meant or what anyone wishes was meant, are irrelevant.
In light of all of the above, I am reinserting my paragraph (yes, that was my paragraph; this is my shiny new account).Tommstein 05:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the well-researched answer. It's great to have something verifiable to use as the basis for the article. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for finally including oral and anal sex. I do not have a preoccupation with that, rather i have a preoccupation with having a complete list - jwfacts (220.237.18.12)

You're welcome! --DannyMuse 17:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blood

"Such 'either-or' reasoning ignores other possibilities, such as the use of blood substitutes, meticulous surgical techniques, as well as the many dangers of blood transfusion, including mismatch of blood types, blood-borne diseases such as AIDS and Hepatitis, and the more frequent recurrence of cancer in patients who have been transfused during operations. "

I see there an agreement to the Jehovah Witnesses' thesis, although the blood transmissions are very safe nowadays. I understand their religious reasons, but I don't think that this article should accept their thoughts against the actual statistics. So I think that the paragraph before should say something like:

"According to Jehovah Witnesses point of view, such 'either or'" and then the rest of the paragraph.

Also, another possibility could be:

"Such 'either-or' reasoning ignores other possibilities, such as the use of blood substitutes, meticulous surgical techniques, as well as the many dangers of blood transfusion, including mismatch of blood types, blood-borne diseases such as AIDS and Hepatitis, and the more frequent recurrence of cancer in patients who have been transfused during operations, although these risks have been dramatically reduced by the modern medicine."

Actually WHO believes that blood transfusion CURRENTLY causes approximately 10% of HIV infections. While this is largely confined to 3rd world countries Witnesses are an international organization with many members IN 3rd world countries. Medical studies in all parts of the world (cited by WHO) tend to find that blood is transfused far more frequently than medically indicated. There are known medical risks to blood transfusion which is why improving transfusion practice has become a focal goal of WHO.

Actually, I don't see this information as relevant. This article is about the practices of JWs, not an analysis of the pros and cons of the practice. boche 06:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that pros and cons are not the point of the article. I was combatting the attempt above to render POV ANY comment in the article as to medical reasons for no-blood treatment. There is an arrogant tendency among opposers of JW blood doctrine to ridicule the refusal of blood as uniformly, ludicrously unmedical and to object to any mention of the 'risks of blood transfusion.' I was pointing out that there are still 'risks to blood transfusion' despite the advances of modern medicine (which may or may not be outweighed in each case on a solely medical basis by positives) and that mere mention of these is not POV. This doesn't, of course, mean that I am claiming that blood transfusion is always medically counter-indicated. --BEN Sep 17th

[edit] Scriptural references

I mostly agree with the above and have changed the text accordingly. On another question, I wonder whether it is really appropriate to have scripture references included throughout the article. I am a Witness myself and I certainly agree with the intent of the editor who introduced them, but I'm not at all sure that it is the sort of thing that would be included in a quality encyclopedia article, such as we want in the Wikipedia. After all, if someone wants to know more about the actual Biblical texts used by the Witnesses to support their views, such information is available on the Watchtower web site, which is linked to from the page. I am leaving the scripture references in for a while to give others the chance to comment.

Not sure who posted this, but I will take a pass at this page later like I did for the main article of JW's and remove as many scripture references as its permissible to do. These will be replaced by Watchtower references. joshbuddy 16:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted info

For reasons of space, I have deleted much of the information on the talk page, because it was not longer current or relevant to the page as it stands now. (Most of it was more than a year old, all of it was at least nine months old.)Of course, it is still there in the archives if anyone wants to refer to it.

Jpb1968 16:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

There has been a lot of activity on this page of late. In particular I appreciate the Porthos has been taking time to make the edits one subject at a time. This not only makes it easier to review the changes, but if there are things which other contributors disagree with they are more easily isolated and discussed. Keep up the good work! --DannyMuse 07:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Memorial of Christ's Death

What determines the date of each year's Memorial of Christ's Death? Is there a calendar rule to it, or is it determined by central authority annually? --Gareth Hughes 23:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The date is set historically by the Jewish calendar date of Nisan 14, the date of Passover; however, some variations exist based on differences in calculation between Jewish authority and the Governing Body's research. This past calendar year, for example, the Jewish celebration was a full month off, I believe. Usually they are one day off. I also recall that, by the lunar calendar calculations, it always occurs on the night of the first full moon after the vernal equinox. But on this I could be remembering poorly. I do know it's always a full moon... - CobaltBlueTony 19:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was looking for information for this for Wikicities:c:religion:religion calendar. I saw some sources state that 14 Nisan was the date, but I saw that this was occaisionally different from 14 Nisan in the modern Hebrew calendar. Thanks for clearing it up. --Gareth Hughes 14:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unease with disfellowshipping qualification

I note the addition of the paragraph to the "non automatic reinstatement" and am concerned that it gives the impression that disagreeing with the current state of thinking of the GB is in and of itself a disfellowshipping offence - as in, if you in clear conscience believe that you have not done something you should have to repent for - and it subsequently transpires that you were correct - your offence is then to have disagreed (non Witnesses would probably think "stood up to" with the BG. I am not explaining this well but I actually feel that the addition paints JWs in a less favourable light than its ommission. I would welcome discourse. Regards Andrew

Andrew, I think I understand your concerns as stated in the comments above, but certain aspects are not quite clear. Is is true that Apostasy is considered a disfellowshipping offense. But this would--strictly speaking--be speaking contrary to Bible teachings, not speaking against the Governing Body. You may think that in the case of JW's that's the same thing, and I understand that the point is arguable. But bear with me a moment.
First of all, the Governing Body is not involved in judicial cases that arise in the local congregation. Qualified elders in the local congregation handle the matter. They decide is an individual is to be disfellowshipped or not.
Secondly, when one becomes one of JWs they understand what the "rules and standards" are so to speak and agree to abide by them. If an individual later decides they no longer agree with them they are free to do so, but must accept the consequences of their decisions.
That being said, a person might feel that they agree with all the beliefs of JWs and want to remain one, but disagree with a particular teaching, say for example on the propriety of oral sex between married people (to go along with the example which you brought up in your initial post). Should someone leave the organization just because of a single disagreement? That doesn't seem reasonable. But why would it become an issue? How would others know of the individuals dissent?
We can infer from the fact that the Society has made changes over the years that someone, somewhere disagreed and was able to express their dissent in a way that eventually led to a change in belief and/or policy. A lot of it comes down to how a person disagrees and expresses themselves. Do they do it in a respectful, theocratic manner? Or do they cause divisions in the congregation? Are they interested in Truth or personal vindication? Even the disciples disagreed with each other on serious matters, for example the circumcision issue took many years to be resolved. Yet the way it was handled serves an example of how dissent is properly dealt with in Jesus' congregation. - Acts chapter 15.
The responsibility of judgement is a weighty one in which congregation elders serving on a judicial committee must carefully weigh many factors. It calls for balance, discernment, understanding and a reliance on Bible principles and Jehovah's spirit. Finally, it is not the seriousness of the wrong that determines whether an individual should be disfellowshipped, but rather it is their sincere repentance or the lack of it. --DannyMuse 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


OK at any stage please feel free to call a halt as this is not something I feel sufficiently strongly about to make it a moral stance but I enjoy a constructive discussion so...
The problems with your assertions as I perceive them to be are primarily that the Judicial Committee make their decisions based upon literature (which is obviously now available in the public domain although intended solely for elders) provided by the Society who in turn are led by the GB. Thus the idea that the elders have local autonomy is, I believe, not true. If a local body of elders felt that they did not actually back the Society's stance on say, communication with DFed members of kin (tho' it would take some going for this to become in and of itself a DFable offence) and so decided not to DF, the CO would soon get to hear of this and report back to Bethel and action would be taken. They are allowed to be SEEN to be autonomous, for what I assume are legal reasons. (Community standards arguments I'd guess).
Further things may change AFTER you join by which time you may have cut off all of your external ties and "bought into" the Witness lifestyle. As the Society "tack into the wind" and the "light becomes brighter" you may find yourself at the wrong end of a belief. A trivial example would be the way in which the society came down hard on Disco music after the success of Saturday Night Fever. I will leave it to yourself to furnish more realistic examples. You may then be put into a position where you are knowingly in breach and your conscience leaves you no choice but to "fess up".
I have no wish to focus on the example I orginally gave as I have no wish to encourage prurience but in that case one part of the couple might use a personal distaste to "out" the other resulting in their DFing. Further hiding something you believe to be right but which you are told from the platform is not, would, I am sure, create an intolerable pressure/guilt that could only be assuaged by speaking to the elders.
At the end of the day if I cannot in clear conscience be repentant as in my heart I believe I have not sinned, then to profess repentance would be a sin. But regardless of how polite I was in my protestations the local Judicial Committee would have no choice but to DF me. If I were to use violent language and protestations I would just be DFed sooner.
Regards - Andrew
Andrew, nothing I wrote is my own "assertion". You did argue the one point that I acknowledged as arguable. However, I don't see that you addressed my comments regarding how changes come about in the beliefs and practices of JWs.
I have never heard of anyone being disfellowshipped for having a private opinion which differs from "official WTB&TS Doctrine".
I'm leaving on vacation tonight for 10 days and so will not be participating in WP editing for the next week and a half. BTW, you should consider becoming a registered user on WP. It "takes only a few seconds, and has many benefits." Cheers. --DannyMuse 19:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Danny - are you still around to answer a riposte? Unsure as to your time zone and I don't want to score cheap points by putting anything on record knowing you won't be able to respond.
BTW AndrewTranmere 21:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :)
Misc comments. The local congregation elders are not to make decisions independent of the rules set forth by the Governing Body. They are in fact representatives fo the Society. At least that is my understanding. A decision by a body of elders to disfellowship is binding to all members worldwide, and not confined to the local congregation. (I believe there is an appeal process as well, but I'm unfamiliar with the details) Further, Danny makes a good point with the word 'private'. A person can hold a different belief, but it cannot be publically known, especially if it is contradicting a central doctrine. If someone were to advocate a different point of view, then that would be grounds for disfellowshipping due to "causing divisions" and lack of submisssion to God's visible organization. Instead, if a person is to find themselves of a different belief than the Society, they are to "wait upon Jehovah" which means, to let the Society change in it's due time (assuming the belief is correct). A key aspect of JW faith is submission to the Society, and a pledge to uphold all the doctrines unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. That is in fact part of the obligation the comes with baptism. boche 01:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
...which equates to "Wait on the Governing Body" which, in practical effects on the publisher, equates the Governing Body to Jehovah. Another example of this simple equation is "leaving the Organization = leaving Jehovah." Cancel your like terms and you have the truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses: "the Organization = Jehovah." That was intended mostly in jest, but it points up a critical factor relative to these articles about Jehovah's Witnesses.
  • First, since “oneness” is to be observed, a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Watchtower August 1, 2001 p. 14 paragraph 8)
The average JW believes the Faithful and Discreet Slave is the source of the directions in the publications. That is not the case, but they believe it. Organized to Do Jehovah's Will plainly states that the Governing Body is entirely in charge over everything relative to the earthly organization (and it says it without qualifying that it comes from Jesus first) and that they do not have to check with others before making decisions, but the JW believes that any idea that varies from what the GB teaches is a move away from Christian maturity. There is no way to rationally align the thought expressed in that 2001 article with an assertion that "private ideas" are okay. They may not get you disfellowshipped, but simply tabling them is unacceptable according to that article (and others).
I don't understand why an elder would not know this. Perhaps he just doesn't want to believe this, or maybe he doesn't want others to know this. Respectfully, Evident 18:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

First, please make a direct referrence to the specific pages in the "Organized to do Jehovah's Will" book where you say it "plainly states that the Governing Body is entirely in charge over everything relative to the earthly organization (and it says it without qualifying that it comes from Jesus first) and that they do not have to check with others before making decisions." It's important to note that the Governing Body is part of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. And on many occasions members of the Governing Body fully give credit to Jehovah and Christ Jesus. Note the follow comments;

Discussing the ever-growing activities of the faithful slave, F. W. Franz, then president of the Watch Tower Society, said just before his death in December 1992:

12 “Jesus Christ has used the organization more and more wonderfully all the time, according to my 99 years of life’s experience. It is not a mere man that is directing the organization, but it must be the Lord Jesus Christ. For it has worked out far more grandly and wonderfully than we ever thought. Today we have an organization that has expanded worldwide. It is working in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Southern Hemisphere, in the East and in the West. Only one person could be responsible for this noteworthy expansion—the Son of God, who is in charge of the faithful and discreet slave class. He has been measuring up to his responsibilities, and that is what accounts for this grand expansion that we have witnessed

13 “The matter does not rest with one man. We have an organization that is theocratic, and it operates in a theocratic manner, in a God-directed style. No man, not even the founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, can claim or be attributed with responsibility for what has been accomplished in a globe-embracing way. It is simply marvelous.” (1993 WatchTower 5/1)

In his life story, Albert Schroeder, a longtime member of the Governing Body who recently finished his earthly course, wrote: “The Governing Body meets every Wednesday, opening the meeting with prayer and asking for the direction of Jehovah’s spirit. A real effort is made to see that every matter that is handled and every decision that is made is in harmony with God’s Word the Bible.”(2007 WatchTower 4/1)

Second, in the first century, not every anointed Christian (aka Faithful and Discreet Slave) were part of the Governing Body that revealed important truths and made certain decisions. The bible clearly states that there was other work that Jesus had for the Faithful Slave to carry out besides printing literature and making organizational decisions. The primary work of all Christians, including the Faithful Slave, is to preach the Good News of the Kingdom. (Matt. 24:14) So while some members of the Faithful Slave are part of the Governing Body, others take the lead in many congregations thruout the earth in the teaching and preaching work done by Jehovah's Witnesses. All of it involves "feeding Jesus sheep" and directing the organization. The bible states that not all memebers of the Faithful Slave would have the same "gift" or assignment, yet every member of the Faithful and Discreet Slave is in complete agreement with the decisions and information privided by the Governing Body in the publications you are referring too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.171.27 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health Section

I'd like to undelete the section on Yoga in the health section, since it was deleted due to it being thought that it was covered in another section. I have looked at the other JW pages, and see no information on Yoga. It's best put under this section, since it is important to note that one of the key practices of JWs is that they commonly avoid practices that have religious origins, even if those practices are in a secular context, and in this case, in the health and exercise context. boche 19:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Boche, I suppose I should have been more explicit. I did not think that Yoga was talked about in another section, but that JW's avoid any practices that have connection with non-christian religions. There are so many things like that, why focus on just Yoga? You might as well include crystals and faith healing. A more general heading would probably be better for dealing with things like this. Perhaps "Alternative Medicine" would be a better section title. As it is it seems rather unbalanced. Does that make sense? --DannyMuse 00:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Crystals and Faith Healing are much different than Yoga. Yoga has secular forms, where you can take classes at most fitness centers that have nothing to do with hinduism. Many people simply do Yoga as a form of stretching and relaxation, and do not view it as religious. Whereas, Crystals and Faith Healing have no secular equivalent forms. The reason why this is of interest is that 1) it is a health subject (since Yoga is a common fitness practice nowadays, or some would say "fad," like the Atkins diet), and 2) It is a distinctive characteristic of the JW religion to prohibit practices that have religious origins but in the present form is non-religious. I'm unsure why this is unbalanced. I've attempted to be as neutral as possible in not commenting whether it is a bad or good policy, only that it exists, and to explain the JW view of the matter. However, if we have other topics along the same lines (at the moment I can't think of any, but perhaps there are more), we could justify an independent section. As it stands, Yoga is a popular health practice, and so, with the existing sections, it seems the most appropriate place to put this. Let me know if you think there is a better place. Thanks. boche 00:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
boche, it's most certainly true that from a secular perspective crystals and Faith Healing are much different than Yoga. However, that only exemplifies the difficulty of your inclusion of yoga in a section like this. We need to keep in mind that WP has a worldwide audience. There is a long list of things like yoga that from a secular/Western viewpoint seem to have no religious connotations, but in fact do. The point is that to those that are familiar with the practices in their native culture the religious aspects are intrinsically woven in to the very fabric of everything that comprises the practice. For example, everything you said above about yoga could be said about karate. The fact that they have been "secularized" to fit Western society in no way invalidates their religious origin or basis. The same could be said about Christmas or Easter. For many people they are totally secularized, yet their religious origin is indisuputable.
Also, it must be acknowledged that yoga is more than just "a form of stretching and relaxation". If it were only that then it would no longer be yoga. While there are certainly differences between the other items I've included and yoga, they all have the common thread of being common alternative health practices with religious origins and/or undertones. BTW, if you re-read my additions carefully you'll see that the wording in no way implies that the things listed all have "New Age" associations, but that "many" do. If you can think of a way to re-word it that is more clear I'm all for it. But deleting it is not the best way to handle that.
Also, you are incorrect about Shamanism. While it does include other things, there is a large part of it associated with "medicine". Consider this quote from The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., 2004:
  • "Different forms of shamanism are found around the world; they are also known as medicine men and witch doctors."
I did a quick on-line search of titles on Shamanism. Here are the top three titles:
  1. Shamanism: Traditional and Contemporary Approaches to the Mastery of Spirits and Healing - by Merete Demant Jakobsen. 274 pgs.
  2. Shamanism: The Neural Ecology of Consciousness and Healing - by Michael Winkelman. 309 pgs.
  3. Healing Powers and Modernity: Traditional Medicine, Shamanism, and Science in Asian Societies - by Linda H. Connor, Geoffrey Samuel. 283 pgs.
While these might not fit into your or my definition of a medical practitioner, we must not forget that we are writing to and for a global audience. The bottom line is that we must try to explain that JW's avoid all types of activities--in this case alternative medical/health practices--that have origins in religious beliefs that are contrary to their understanding of the Bible, even if those practices seem to have been "secularized". Cheers! --DannyMuse 06:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I guess I would choose better examples, such as acupuncture, or chiropractors, or reflexology, or herbal remedies, before I'd choose faith healing, cystals, and shamanism. But since for the moment, I don't have content to add concerning those areas, I won't bother to dispute the inclusion in this section. I would suggest however, a different section on practices that have not been secularizes, as the ones you mentioned. Things like what you mention happen to be spiritual practices that have medical claims, rather than alternative medical practices that happen to have spiritual roots. It may sound like hairspitting, but the distinction is key, since there is certainly an intersection here we need to tease apart. Does that sound reasonable? boche 07:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

boche, that is totally reasonable, and I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is exactly the issue that I believe needs to be separated more clearly. Indeed there is a broad spectrum of things ranging from "spiritual practices that have medical claims, [to] alternative medical practices that happen to have spiritual roots". That being said, I'm unaware of chiropractic, reflexology or acupuncture having any spiritistic basis per se. From my experience JW's would not necessarily object to those forms of treatment on religious grounds. No doubt some practitioners might include such elements in their application of these techniques, but what makes you think they have "spiritual roots"? --DannyMuse 07:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your encouraging words. I am not that familiar with those practices in detail. However, here is a quote from the Chiropractic section of wikipedia about Palmer the founder of the technique:

Palmer imbued the term "subluxation" with a metaphysical and philosophical meaning. He held that certain dislocations of bones interfered with the "innate intelligence", a kind of spiritual energy or life force dependent upon God that connects the brain to the rest of the body. Palmer claimed that subluxations interfered with the proper communication of this innate intelligence with the rest of the body, and that by fixing them 95% of diseases could be treated.

However, I couldn't find the JW position on the WT website. (can someone provide a reference?) It is true that nowadays there is a split between the traditional practitioners who hold to the religiously based theories, and people that approach it from a more clinical level. So, it could be that the non-traditional forms are acceptable to JWs, but not the traditional.
I was however able to find an article on Chinese medicine, which of course has roots in Chinese philosophy and traditional beliefs, where the Society refrains from a specific position [[5]]:

Awake! does not endorse any particular treatment for health problems. Christians should be certain that any treatment they pursue does not conflict with Bible principles.

So, my assumption is that things such as herbs based on the "yin-yang" understanding of the body, and acupuncture is up to the individual's conscience to decide, whereas, with Yoga, the Society feels the ties to Hinduism are so strong (even in "secularized" versions), that it is something that no Christian should engage in. boche 18:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
boche, that was interesting to read about Palmer's ideas about "subluxation". I never heard about that before! It raises some good questions. There was an Awake of October 22, 2000, pages 9-10, entitled, "A Look at Alternative Therapies". It discussed:
  • Herbal Remedies
  • Dietary Supplements
  • Homeopathy
  • Chiropractic
  • Massage
  • Acupuncture
If you cannot obtain the text I can provide you a copy. Let me know. --DannyMuse 00:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
DannyMuse, Thanks for the article. From it, I don't see any real stance on acceptability to Jehovah's Witnesses, nor is there a discussion of origins of the different practices. One could assume that because it was mentioned without comment, that it is up to the individual to choose, but I'm not entirely sure that is a correct assumption. I would also expect that if there was an official stance on a particular practice, that it would be described in the Watchtower magazine, rather than the Awake! Would people agree? boche 22:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The Watchtower has always been where policy is communicated, and while Awake! comments on things such as yoga, etc, new understanding is never released first in the Awake. Unless some reference in the Watchtower or a book can be provided, I don't think you can say it is official policy. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Boche, while doing some research on a different subject I came across the following quote that I thought you might find interesting:

Christians refrain from any celebrations or customs that continue to involve false religious beliefs or activities that violate Bible principles. For example, the Bible definitely puts birthday celebrations in a bad light. (Genesis 40:20; Matthew 14:6-10) However, if it is very obvious that a custom has no current false religious significance and involves no violation of Bible principles, each Christian must make a personal decision as to whether he will follow such a custom. (g04 7/8, p. 30)(Emphasis added)

It was actually in reference to a Question from a Reader regarding piñatas, but the principle applies to what we're discussing. --DannyMuse 16:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a good reference for the discussion. I have a few comments. One is that I think that we need to distinguish from doctrine and practice. So, I think that this article helps address a doctrine in that it defines a criteria, such as the fact that the origins can be religious in nature, but the practice if it is no longer religious, is acceptable (or up to conscience). However, this is obviously subject to interpretation, since for instance, in many non-western lands which Christianity is thought of as very foreign, celebrations such as Christmas is entirely secular to the extent that santa clause is associated with it more than Jesus. Yes, you could say that santa claus is a religious symbol in of itself, but to those people, he simply is "some foreign guy" no more a symbol of religion than Britney Spears. This isn't to criticize the Society at all however. This is to merely make the point that there are grey areas that require some decisions or conventions to follow. And that is where doctrine and practice are different subjects. One is what the principles are, and the other is how those principles play out in real life. The wikipedia article should then objectively simply report what is done, without making judgement on those practices. boche 03:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Well said boche. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodless surgery

I think that the bloodless surgery section can be cut in half, since most of it appears to be justification of the procedure and in fact promotional. Sentences like "Thousands of physicians around the world are now successfully treating patients without using blood transfusions" sounds like the start of some glossy brochure. Any objections to trimming? boche 07:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Most of the material you cut was added and edited after MUCH discussion. It was originally in another article, the JW main one I believe. Please let me track down the archived Talk page and let's discuss. Or if you'd like to search for it yourself that'd be fine too! I agree that avoiding a "promotional" tone is important but why would you take issue with justifying bloodless surgery? Thank for asking! --DannyMuse 17:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Boche, please refer to these archived discussions regarding the evolution of the text in question. I warn you, they are long!!!
Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 12:
After you've read them let's discuss! --DannyMuse 20:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to read through the archived discussions, but at first glance at the material Boche removed, I definitely concur. If you really think it should stay, move it to the talk page and work on it there, but at the moment, it is quite promotional and doesn't belong. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Konrad, thanks for "weighing in" on this issue. Actually, Boche already made some cuts. Please read the archives before you comment, they'll give you some perspective. Then let's discuss. BTW, did you ever respond to my 27 July 2005 previous comments what to include or not under the Disfellowshipping section? --DannyMuse 04:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
"Weighing in"? Is that a fat joke? ;) Anyway, I read through the archives and I don't think they have a great deal of relevance to the issue of promotion of bloodless surgery. I maintain that the material should be at least moved to the talk page to be worked on. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Konrad and Boche, I'm not sure what it is that you see as "promotional" about this section. No one is trying to "promote" any particular doctor or hospital, but merely to show that many reputable physicians and medical institutions are endorsing bloodless surgery as a sound health care decision. The point is to balance the comments of many that have the outdated view that refusing blood transfusions is a death sentence. Clearly that is not the case due to advances in modern medicine. Research shows that, at least here in the United States and in most of the major European cities, blood transfusions are for the most part a non-issue. --DannyMuse 14:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
It's the "balancing" that's the problem. Wikipedia:NPOV specifically mentions that NPOV doesn't mean balancing out negatives with positives or vice versa. For that reason the material doesn't belong. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course, I agree with your summary of WP's NPOV, but not your conclusion that "For that reason the material doesn't belong." It's a non sequiter, it doesn't necessarily follow. But that being said, rather than quibbling about this, perhaps it'd be better if you suggested some actual revisions to the article and we work together from their to create a factual, NPOV, fair and balanced presentation of JW practices, in particular regarding the blood issue. Thanks, --DannyMuse 19:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
"Quibbling"? :p Anyway, my "actual revision" was to uphold Boche's edit to remove that material. At a minimum, it should be moved to the talk page to be worked on. BTW, my statement wasn't a non sequitur. "Balancing" is not neutral, as highlighted in the NPOV policy. Since the material in question is designed to balance the article, to maintain NPOV it clearly should be removed. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
PS to Konrad: I wasn't making a joke about "weighing in". It's a common expression, I do hope you didn't take offense! BTW, I moved your comment re DFing to the appropriate section. ): --DannyMuse 14:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
No offence taken. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To Konrad, earlier you wrote, "Wikipedia:NPOV specifically mentions that NPOV doesn't mean balancing out negatives with positives or vice versa." I could not find that in the NPOV article. Could you please quote the specific statement you were referencing? In the meantime, please consider these relevant points from the NPOV article:

  • What is the neutral point of view? - "The notion of 'unbiased writing' that informs Wikipedia's policy is 'presenting conflicting views without asserting them.'" Also, "Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all [relevant] points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its 'best shot' at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange." [Interpolation added]
  • Qualification - "If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral."
  • The vital component: good research - "... adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source." (Emphasis added)
  • Fairness and sympathetic tone - "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views ..."
  • Religion - "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view."

Please review and let's discuss! --DannyMuse 21:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for new article on blood

As the issue is a complicated one, and the Practices article is already too long, I think that the material should be moved to Jehovah's Witnesses and blood, with just a short summary remaining here and at Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, the proliferation of articles is a tricky subject. We already have a big problem with redundancy of material because of so many separate, but related JW pages. Perhaps you should run this by a a WP Administrator. BTW, there is already a stub article called Bloodless surgery that you should go check out. --DannyMuse 14:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Yep, absolutely. I'm no fan of needless articles, but this page is *way* too long. In that case, having separate articles is standard Wikipedia practice. I don't see a need to ask an admin.
PS. The Bloodless surgery article needs a lot of work, but certainly an important topic. Thanks for pointing it out. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

Tommstein and DannyMuse, please don't continue to revert each other. It clogs up the edit history and isn't productive. Please discuss the issue here and come to an agreement on what to do before further edits. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, reverting back and forth is just stupid. I've posted my points above, which I could copy and paste here, although that would be kind of useless since people can just scroll up, but it's useless talking to myself. DannyMuse doesn't seem interested in any of them hooty-tooty snooty facts, since he never replied a word to them. It's one thing when having a factual discussion, but dealing with religious zealotry is a whole different ballgame (and by ballgame I mean headache). But who knows, maybe now he'll actually grace us here with his explanations as to why he's right and all that research, including a lot from his own citations, is wrong.Tommstein 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The discussion part was more meant for DannyMuse, since you have made your point quite clearly, so it is up to him to explain why the paragraph should not be included. Perhaps he objects to the wording of it, plus he seems to especially object to the use of Ray Franz as an example.
DannyMuse, it would be great if you could explain exactly what is wrong with the paragraph. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

DannyMuse, your latest edits look decent to me (you even eliminated all mention of Raymond Franz, hurray for you). There's just one relatively minor concern, that the paragraph states that it would take "spiritual association" or "an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course" in order to disfellowship someone for associating with a disfellowshipped person, when, as I mentioned above, the first words of that actual sentence make it clear that it's only talking about "close relatives," and only "normally" at that. The paragraph makes it seem that such is necessary for anyone to get disfellowshipped (over this issue), but that's not the case, per some of my quotes above. The ending of the paragraph is better, but you kinda have to read between the lines and pretend there's no context provided by the whole rest of the paragraph, presumably since half the paragraph was composed at one time, and the rest at another time. It would probably only take a few words or so to clarify the issue, but I'll leave it as it is for now in the interests of peace and cooperation and give you the first shot at the paragraph.Tommstein 21:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty busy the next few days, but I'll try to get to it. --DannyMuse 05:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
If you're too busy, I could try to make the changes and see if they're agreeable to you, if you want. Or I can wait; there's no big rush.Tommstein 05:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Either way. I appreciate your spirit of cooperation. --DannyMuse 13:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, we should both be thanking Konrad West, since we weren't getting anywhere fast until he intervened. I just saved a 'proposed' version of this stuff. Basically, I made the last couple sentences or so their own paragraph, moved it down a paragraph so that the section flows more logically, and changed a few words here and there to actually effect the changes we've been talking about. But feel free to rephrase things, of course, or even revert my changes in their entirety and do it however you want.Tommstein 05:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a couple of things I wish to bring up. First, the changing of the "close relatives" thing doesn't seem right. From the quotes I posted above, that rule about it 'being OK unless there's spiritual association or excuse-making' only applies to "close relatives," and only "normally" at that. That's not something that is opened up to just everyone, it very specifically states in the very same sentence who that applies to. You might think I had that mention of Raymond Franz in my previous version just to piss you off or something, but this was the reason it was there, because it is an actual example of someone getting disfellowshipped for this, and it showed that I wasn't just making this up (not that the quotes don't stand on their own, but adding an example of them being applied is even better). So there's no more mention of Raymond Franz's example, but that doesn't mean that the argument it was supporting is suddenly invalid just because the example was erased. You have to understand, Wikipedia can, and should, only contain independently verifiable facts. It may very well be the case that your congregation is looser with the rules than they are supposed to be. It may also be the case that another congregation is tighter with them than they are supposed to be. Heck, given 100,000 congregations, there are probably close to 100,000 individual little 'congregational cultures.' But all we can say here is what the Watchtower Society actually says, not what anyone's particular congregation does or how any individual thinks things should be. Also note that, currently, the article even contradicts itself on this issue anyway. Note that your changes to allow anyone to talk and associate with disfellowshipped people actually contradicts the last paragraph in the section (which you wrote too), that not ceasing fellowship will in fact result in getting disfellowshipped. Unless you have an interesting difference in mind between 'association' and 'fellowship' (which you should let the rest of us in on if you do), that's a blatant contradiction.

The second point is simply that the next to last paragraph of the section is unclear enough as to be meaningless. First it says that more distant relatives can have a cordial relationship and such, but then the next sentence says that the situation is different if the disfellowshipped one is a relative living outside the home. Isn't that kind of the definition of a more distant relative? It has already been said that relationships with more distant relatives are fine, but then it says that it's different for relatives not living at home. The sentence "It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative" is also meaningless. Sure, it might be possible, but what does that have to do with Jehovah's Witness teaching? That whole paragraph seems funky and confused. The last sentence is the only one that is clear, but is there any backup for it, or are we expected to go on faith in whoever inserted that sentence (which isn't allowed in Wikipedia)?

So, to summarize, there's the problem with the attempt to expand a sentence that is explicitly for "close relatives," "normally," to anyone and everyone, and then there's the whole funky next-to-last paragraph. I haven't changed anything, I'm just saying this here at this point to allow you to change stuff or say whatever you want about it or whatever first.Tommstein 09:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Tommstein, you raise a number of good points regarding the coherency of this section of the article. This is always a problem on WP as a result of the way articles are written. The entire section is somewhat redundant and contains some confusing points. Plus there is always the problem of being concise: including enough material to explain a matter accurately without raising unanswered questions. The whole section should be reworked for accuracy and logical coherency.
That being said, you specifically asked, "What does the sentence 'It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative' have to do with Jehovah's Witness teaching?" Here is the complete quote and reference:
"The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum ..." - Watchtower, April 15, 1988, page 28, para. 14.
I know I haven't responded to everything in your post--my time is short this morning--but I wanted to reply to what seemed most important. Thanks! --DannyMuse 15:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Take your time, we're not in too much of a rush here (it took me like what, two or three days to respond to your changes?). About that quote you just cited, I see that the Watchtower has said that, but still, what is its real meaning? Obviously, one can have almost no contact with relatives if one wants to, but what is someone reading the Wikipedia article supposed to gather from the sentence other than 'wow, it might be possible to have almost no contact with relatives? No crap, who woulda thought it. What does that have to do with anything?' It's probably along the lines of saying something like 'it might be possible to drink more juice than water.' Well, yes, that's nice and all, but what's the meaning of saying so? Are you trying to say I have to drink more juice than water? Are you just saying that I can if I want but it doesn't matter what I drink?Tommstein 22:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Tommstein I don't know you well enough to tell if your question,"What is its real meaning?" is serious or if you're just being flip. --DannyMuse 02:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm being serious. A statement of what someone can do isn't saying anything other than that they can do that.Tommstein 05:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the point is that the sentence is rather ambiguous. The problem is that many JW doctrines are ambigious like that, and it is only through our own experience of their implementation in the congregations we've been in that we understand how they are interpreted. However, these experiences aren't verifiable, and thus, can't be the basis for explanation here. So we are stuck with how to explain what it means, without having any clear direction.
Essentially, JW doctrine requires interpretation, as it is often not literal enough to be clearly explained in the articles. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd request to stop

Please DannyMuse and Tommstein. If you cannot come to an agreement on the Talk page, please do not simply continue to revert each other. Perhaps the solution is to leave the section alone for awhile and let other editors work on it. Regardless, please do not continue to revert. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can you be disfellowshipped for your thoughts?

In response to Tommstein's request for me to explain why I think this excerpt is "ridiculous":

Far more extreme, however, is that, according to a letter dated 1 September 1980 from the Watchtower Society to all Circuit and District overseers, anyone who "merely disagrees in thought with any of the Watch Tower Society's teachings is committing apostasy and is liable for disfellowshipping." (See Raymond Franz)

First, let me begin by saying the reference (link) in this excerpt to Raymond Franz is superfluous. There is absolutely no reason for mentioning him. It is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a person can be disfellowshipped for their thoughts. Therefore, it does not belong.

Just how is a letter from the Society stating that a person's thoughts not being in agreement with the Society makes a person liable for disfellowshipping irrelevant to the point of whether or not a person can be disfellowshipped for their thoughts?? --Jeffro77 10:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Jeffro77, I did not say the letter was irrelevant, I said the "reference ... to Raymond Franz is". Please re-read my statement. --User:DannyMuse 15:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The quoted letter also appears on the article for Raymond Franz, and as an encyclopedic reference is completely relevant as Raymond Franz' case is directly related to the issue of Jehovah's Witnesses' practice of disfellowshipping.--Jeffro77 08:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Next, to the subject: I suppose it would be interesting to read the actual text of this alleged letter including the entire context to see if that sheds any light on the intent. But it simply is not necessary to refer to this letter to refute the assertion that it is a Practice of Jehovah's Witnesses to disfellowship individuals for their thoughts. Indeed the idea is absurd on its face.

Has any legal action been taken against Raymond Franz for quoting this letter in his book? If not, there is little reason to assume that it is not factual. Even if it is not current practice, it would be dishonest to hide something simply because it is unfavourable, though if the statement was recanted by the Society (of which there is no specific evidence) the statement could be worded slightly differently, but there is no reason to remove it. The intent of the quote agrees with what is stated by the 1 April 1986 Watchtower: "Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses." Though the Society allows for some who have 'doubts', it does not allow for anyone rejecting its doctrines.--Jeffro77 10:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
That rewording would be much better. Frankly, if some one rejects the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses then by definition they are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses. So why would they object to being disfellowshipped? --User:DannyMuse 15:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
"Why would they object to being disfellowshipped?" That is a plainly obvious question. Why would a person want to be shunned simply because they do not agree with someone's religious beliefs? The real question is why should someone be shunned by their own family simply because their family is guilted into not associating with them for their difference in religious beliefs. Often the family members want to talk to their disfellowshipped relatives, but don't because they "aren't allowed to".--Jeffro77 08:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It must be acknowledged that JWs believe that apostasy is indeed a serious matter for which an individual can and generally should be expelled from the congregation. However, as is currently explained in the article, judicial committees are only formed upon the basis of evidence of wrongdoing. This can be in the form of two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing or by a voluntarily confession. Obviously, there cannot be witnesses to an individual's private thoughts. That only leaves a voluntary confession as a possible cause for the formation of a judicial committee which might lead to disfellowshipping.

Disagreeing with the Society's interpretations is not "wrongdoing", and there is no reason why a person should be shunned for refusing to act against their conscience, especially where, as in many cases, detailed reasons have been provided for such disagreement.--Jeffro77 10:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It's true that "Disagreeing with the Society's interpretations is not 'wrongdoing'", but you're getting ahead of my argument. However, your conclusion does not follow from your premise in the above statement. The key is how a person acts, which is again getting ahead of the argument. --User:DannyMuse 15:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
You said that "judicial committees are only formed upon the basis of evidence of wrongdoing. This can be in the form of two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing or by a voluntarily confession." Providing the elders with specific references for not agreeing with Watchtower Society doctrines is neither "wrongdoing", nor "confession", yet such does result in a "judicial committee meeting".--Jeffro77 08:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It is hypothetically possible that an individual might approach the elders and make a voluntary confession that he/she "disagrees in thought with any of the Watch Tower Society's teachings". So what then in this case? Of course, as a practical matter, it must be acknowledged that by the very act of telling another person of his/her thoughts they are no longer "merely" thoughts. The action of telling another significantly transforms the dynamic of the whole situation. Of course, if an individual were to outspokenly reject the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses in a definite and willful manner, whether to other members of the congregation or the public, that would clearly constitute apostasy and would likely lead to their disfellowshipping. But then that would be for their actions, not for "merely" their thoughts.

But what if this was just a private conversation with an individual and one or more of the elders? Even in this instance, disfellowshipping is not automatic. We could go on and on about how the judicial committee may or may not handle the matter. Does the person just have questions about something or do they actually seriously disagree with a particular doctrinal matter, etc. Still, that is not relevant to the question.

This argumentation is simply reworking the difference between doubting the Society's teachings and disagreeing with them.--Jeffro77 10:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
No, in fact it is the opposite of that, the real key point is actually making that distinction. Merely doubting is NOT apostasy. --User:DannyMuse 15:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It has not at all been contended that doubting is not considered 'apostacy'. However disagreeing is not the same as doubting. The Watchtower article quoted above indicates that one must accept the Society's doctrines. One can accept while having some doubts, but not if they disagree with them. If someone disagrees in thought with the Society, then according to the Society, they can be disfellowshipped.--Jeffro77 08:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The real issue is whether the individual persists in their activity and whether or not they have "repented". If that is not the case, the person is likely to be disfellowshipped. However, they would not have been disfellowshipped for their thoughts, but for their actions. --DannyMuse 07:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, there is absolutely no reason to 'repent' for valid argument against Watchtower Society doctrine. --Jeffro77 10:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
While I understand your point, Jeffro, you seem to miss that JWs have the legal and moral right to expel members that begin expounding what JWs believe to be heretical teachings. Whether you or anyone else thinks they are heretical or not is unimportant. --User:DannyMuse 15:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course they have the right, legally and morally, to exclude people from its membership, but it is only an assumed moral right that the Watchtower Society can tell members to shun former members. There is no scriptural basis for shunning a person for reasons other than what is stated in the Bible, which does not include disagreeing with Watchtower Society's doctrines.
DannyMuse, please don't edit what you've said after people have responded to it.
Don't you think clarification is a good thing? --DannyMuse 06:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Clarification is good. Changing history to make it look like someone was responding to something you didn't say isn't. It's kinda like the "theocratic warfare" the Watchtower Society engages in by changing their publications without telling anyone.Tommstein 07:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The link to Raymond Franz is not superfluous. There is a very good reason for mentioning him, called documentation. Thus, it belongs. In fact, Wikipedia demands it.
Ray Franz is not the source. He may quote the letter in his book, but his book is not the source. The source was cited and that is sufficient, the link to the Ray Franz WP page is not relevant. --DannyMuse 06:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The book isn't the source of the letter? Point me to another source of it. In the wider world where we have to document our sources and can't just coerce people into doing whatever we tell them under pain of disfellowshipping, an author's name is a pretty important part of documentation and verifiability. In fact, I think I shall make the reference more complete.Tommstein 07:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
As to the actual text of the letter, I could type it, but you wouldn't care what it said (not that it's not in an openly-available book if you really did care and wanted to look it up). Suffice it to say that it says what is claimed. And as was pointed out to you, if there were one single letter in it that Raymond Franz had made up, he would have had his lights sued out of him by now, especially given that the Watchtower corporations are sue-happy and all, and that the book came out in 1983, 22 years ago. So there's no room to legitimately doubt the veracity of the letter either. The idea might be stupid (in fact, it is), but I didn't say it, the Watchtower Society did. Take it up with them if you don't like it, but it was still said, stupid or not.
Whatever, this article is dealing with the Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, not obscure confidential letters from decades ago that have no current bearing on judicial hearings involving apostasy. --DannyMuse 06:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I would think the practice of disfellowshipping those committing wrongthink qualifies as a practice, but that's just me. If you would like to claim that the letter in question has been recanted, show me the recantation.Tommstein 07:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The rest of what you said is mainly dicking around with 'thinking' versus 'the action of thinking.' When the letter said that you could be disfellowshipped for this, it was kind of implicit that it would have to be revealed somehow that the person thought that (unless you think they were telling overseers to use their super-mind-reading powers); it could be as simple as just casually telling a friend 'I don't personally agree with this one thing' and doing nothing more. Going down that mind-reading trail is just a red herring. The moral of the story is, once it became known that you didn't agree with something, however it may have happened, you were in line for disfellowshipping. It explicitly says that you didn't have to go around teaching contrary things. So this isn't just another regular old denunciation of apostasy (in which case there wouldn't have been anything special to write about, or, at most, it would have said something remarkably similar to 'oh yeah, and apostasy is still bad, mmmkay?'). Whether you want to classify this as another form of apostasy or a whole separate 'crime' (wrongthink?) doesn't matter, although, seeing as Wikipedia readers probably don't consider 'wrongthink' to be apostasy, this would have to be specifically highlighted regardless of where it fits in your personal classification scheme.
Now it sounds like you're the one attempting mind reading. I don't know how to say this without sounding sarcastic, but in the reality no one can know what another person thinks unless they act on it. Regardless of what "the letter" may or may not have said or what was or wasn't "implicit" in it, no one can be disfellowshipped for their thoughts. It is as simple and straightforward as that. --DannyMuse 06:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
If a Witness talks to only the 'Elders' about their valid and well-researched concerns about JW doctrines, the 'Elders' are then aware of their disagreement even though such were their thoughts rather than specific actions involving other congregation members, and the person can then be faced by a judicial committee. This line of thought is obvious, and your alleged 'mind reading' suggestion is just avoiding the issue.--Jeffro77 08:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Since you apparently want to play 'I have a third-grade reading level' now, then what's the big concern about the article saying that you can be disfellowshipped for something that's supposedly impossible to do anyway?Tommstein 07:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, how are the revisions to the shunning stuff coming along? I saw that you incorporated the stuff from this article into the main Jehovah's Witness article, but I couldn't understand what you meant with your edit summary, and we have people making changes to that version separately, which isn't really good.Tommstein 23:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I inserted that out of frustration. Let's be candid. People in your camp get on the case of people in my camp for having "pro" JW info in more than one place, yet the folks in your camp are just as guilty if not more so of the same thing. Disfellowshipping and shunning are dealt with in great detail in this article and it is redundant (and I believe betrays a not-so-hidden-agenda) to reduplicate the same info in the JW main article. A brief blurb and a link would be sufficient. --DannyMuse 06:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Huh? You're frustrated with people with 'agendas' doing stuff like inserting the disfellowshipping stuff in the main article, so you inserted it yourself? Alrighty then.... In any case, since you didn't respond about the changes to the shunning section here, and I'm tired of waiting when you have clearly had the time to make such a trivial change, I'm changing it myself.Tommstein 07:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to speak up here. I have had a little experience with this topic, and I have to offer the following clarification: attitude and approach by a person with questions, baptized Witness or not, has a LOT to do with how elders respond.

For example, when Witnesses go to a person's door, if the individual inundates them with serious and sincere questions, they make arrangements to come back and talk to them. If, however, the person is unswervingly antagonistic or confrontational, or is 'simply looking to pick a fight,' Witnesses generally [are supposed to] politely excuse themselves, as their mission is not to debate endlessly, but to reach out to people's hearts.

Similarly, if a baptized Witness has researched questions, these can be understood as doubts and not outright rejection of "central doctrine". Witnesses admit that there is much in the Bible that they do not understand. However, they rely on God's holy spirit (as they believe guides the Governing Body) to shed new light on prophecies and other passages "at the right time for it", that is, Jehovah God helps new understanding to come about when it is most beneficial to the most people for it to become understood. There is a difference for a person to say, "I'm not sure about that because of this," versus "I don't believe that at all because I think this passage means this and there's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise." Perhaps those who have questioned in the latter manner do not see their expression as having that tone or import, and certainly human elders can misinterpret, misunderstand, or misapply the guiding principles in these matters (and yes, it is possible for an individual who is an elder to overreact), but the attitude all SHOULD have, especially in these situations, is that of humility, because, as one Bible verse says, "do not interpretations belong to God?"

Since the apostle Paul says that true Christians sould be 'fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought,' Jehovah's Witnesses seek to remain united in central and critical issues of prophecy, morality, authority, loyalty, mercy, and so forth. Any idea which appears to threaten the stability of the congregation, confuse interested ones, or otherwise project an exaggerated appearance of fragmentation is held under the highest scrutiny. Elders are charged with the spiritual wefare of the congregation, and if they allow something to permeate the congregation and it causes damage, even irreparable, not only is there organizational scrutiny by their fellow human believers, they know (because they believe it) that Jehovah Himself will hold them accountable for those who were stumbled, and for the dysfunction that has occured.

Now addressing former Witnesses and others who have had different experiences than what I described: generally, these are exceptions. I say this because if the discord, abuse, and total miscommunication were to occur on a wider scale, the organization would not be able to hold up. Especially with all of the outright attacks they face, both organizationally and as individuals, what could hold them together if such rampant disregard for the tenets of their faith existed? Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their understanding of the Bible comes as a result of two things: God's holy spirit, and a willingness to accept what the Bible says. Central to this idea is the statement at Hebrews 4:12, 13 - "For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting." Therefore, those who put their own ideas above what God [potentially] has to say (and it's possible for any human to do so, willingly or without realizing it) is a threat to the 'spiritual Paradise' they experience within the earthly organization.

The two things are not very good indicators for defending their beliefs. "God's holy spirit" is not at all provable, though this is an issue of faith affecting almost all religions. The second point, "willingness to accept what the Bible says" is not actually the central requirement, but rather, it is willingness to accept the Society's interpretations that is required of members. For example, if one accepts what the Bible says at Jeremiah 25:12, one would acknowledge that the King of Babylon would not be judged until 70 years ended. One is then immediately at odds with Witness doctrine which requires that the King was judged two years before the end of the 70 years.--Jeffro77 07:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It is one thing to THINK something; it is quite another to ACT by vocalizing it, in a way that either reflects a rejection of some basic element of faith or causes division in some form or another. There is a right and a wrong way to address one's concerns, research, doubts, and so forth. It is beleived that the fruitages of holy spirit, such as long-suffering, mildness, self-control, and peace, will help all those involved to come to an acceptable juncture in issues of faith.

This suggests that the Society would prefer that a Witness be hypocritical by pretending to believe its doctrines without actually stating their true feelings based on what they read in the Scriptures. If a Witness were to THINK that the Society's doctrines are incorrect, and for them to do nothing about it, would be dishonest to both themselves, and to their fellow members. It is often largely fear of being shunned that prevents them from speaking up, and as such, shunning is used as a control mechanism.--Jeffro77 07:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

- CobaltBlueTony 17:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that sounded like a lot of preaching, like we were at a meeting or something. I didn't see a verifiable source retracting the letter though, just a lot of opinion on when someone should and shouldn't be disfellowshipped.Tommstein 05:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

As a result of recent controversy over edits, primarily between myself and user Tommstein, I have submitted a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion

For new editors to this page I am providing a brief summary of key edits. Please review the Page History for details. On October 26, 2005, I revised the Disfellowshipping (excommunication) section in an attempt at breaking a revert "logjam" between myself and user Tommstein. He reverted with the following comment in part:

"... no one gives a crap about, your personal paranoid conspiracy theories"

That clearly did not address the content of my changes so I reverted it with the following explanation:

06:39, October 27, 2005 "(rv Tommstein: please review WP's policy of No personal attacks. If you're going to delete new material added please address your reasons on the Talk page.)

On 12:58, October 27, 2005 Tommstein reverted this calling it "demonstrable lies" in spite of the fact that he never addressed the content of my changes. Because of this I am quoting my revisions of October 26, 2005 and requesting comment from the WP community. For convenience I am bulleting each sentence which appeared as free prose in the article. Thanks in advance.

  1. Before someone becomes one of Jehovah’s Witnesses they voluntarily accept the entire range of the teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  2. Although an individual may at some point have 'doubts', being one of Jehovah's Witnesses does not allow for a rejection of its doctrines.
  3. However, if a baptised Witness begins to teach doctrines contrary to the organisation's interpretation of the Bible it is grounds for disfellowshipping for apostasy.
  4. Some assert that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTB&TS) engage in far more draconian measures, including "thought control" and disfellowhipping for "wrongthink".
  5. According to one notably outspoken ex-Jehovah's Witness Raymond Franz, in a letter dated 1 September, 1980 from the Watchtower Society to all Circuit and District overseers, anyone who "merely disagrees in thought with any of the Watch Tower Society's teachings is committing apostasy and is liable for disfellowshipping." [6]
  6. The accuracy of this assertion by Franz cannot be independently verified and neither this quote or any other statement remotely resembling it in form or content appears in any of the official publications of the WTB&TS.
  • ^  Crisis of Conscience. 4th ed. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004. pp. 341-2. ISBN 0-914675-24-9)

It is my contention that all of the above points are indeed accurate and true and provide a balance to the assertions of Tommstein] as well as other editors with similar sentiments. That being the case they should be included in the article.

PS. user Jeffro77 later made some revision which seemed to incorporate some of the ideas that I had in mind. I am going to hold any revisions in abeyance pending the outcome of this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion --DannyMuse 02:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to the RFC

First, let me say that I have no dog in this fight; I am not a JW, nor have I ever been, nor am I contemplating becoming one. I know next to nothing about the JW's, so I am unable to comment on the substance of the edits that have been made.

That said, it seems to me after a fairly lengthy review that two things are going on.

  1. Tommstein has been actively involved in editing this page and other JW pages for a while. See his user contributions for evidence of this. On the substance of the edits, as I said, I have no comment, but fairly frequently there is charged language in the edit summaries. When you visit his comments on the talk pages for various JW articles, they are also often fairly heated. Finally, visiting his own user talk page, you find that he carries considerable hostility towards JW's. (Note that being hostile to JW's does not in and of itself disqualify him from working on this or other JW articles.) My recommendation to Tommstein is that he try to moderate his language in edit summaries and on talk pages, and that he try to distance himself from his own hostility to the subject matter when working on articles about JWs.
  2. DannyMuse is not entirely blameless, although his general conduct has been much better than Tommstein -- he has been almost unfailingly courteous and measured in response to considerable provocation. However, in reading over the issues raised on the talk page, and reviewing the edits that he has participated in, it appears to me that he is allowing his membership in the JW to influence his editing of JW articles -- i.e., he seems to have a tendency to shape JW articles in such a way that they reflect well on JWs, and resist those who wish to add material that is critical of the JWs. The back-and-forth over a letter allegedly written in 1980 is a case in point: DannyMuse appears to me to be splitting hairs in his efforts to exclude references to this letter and its author. My recommendation to DannyMuse is that he strive for greater objectivity, and recognize that an article about the practices of a religious body ought not to be under the sole control of members of that religious body. However, in making this suggestion, I am bearing in mind that Danny seems to be under considerable provocation, and I reiterate that I do not know where the truth lies concerning the provenance and relevance of this letter.

Finally, I am not sure that an RFC is the best way to address this problem. It appears primarily to be a personality conflict between two editors. I would like to recommend to both participants that they consider applying for mediation, in hopes that the matter can be resolved amicably. Brandon39 07:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's good to know that you don't find that someone dicking around constantly putting their religious zealotry into encyclopedia articles, refusing to justify their reverts while repeatedly reverting your well-documented edits, and engaging in ad hominem attacks against you isn't provocation. I wish you were my boss; I could probably show up to work six hours late and sue you for provoking me when you get in my face about it. You've got some messed up standards of what constitutes provocation to a human.
In any case, you're confusing the loss of patience with DannyMuse with the inability to deal cordially with Jehovah's Witnesses. I can do that just fine, as you should know if you've looked at more than just recent shortness with DannyMuse. DannyMuse and I even used to be cordial, until I got fed up with his games recently.
If you have no idea about the subject, though, what was your goal here? To give your opinion on who you thought was being nicer and who's acting like they're fed up with someone else's BS, kind of like they're actually having to constantly deal with someone else's BS?
I also find it interesting that you find that being provoked would somehow serve as some sort of a justification for screwing around with Wikipedia articles, even if it were true. I'm not sure what exactly he would have been provoked about if his screwing around was a response to provocation, like the chicken and the egg problem, but I'll stop now....Tommstein 12:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Tommstein, respectfully, it's that sort of response that has at least contributed to this problem from your side. I did note some potential issues with DannyMuse, but if you look at the RFC that was posted, it said, "Repeated violations of WP's No personal attacks policy. Progess stalled. Community review requested." Since it was the alleged personal attacks that was brought given as the reason, that was what I focused on, and -- again, respectfully -- it doesn't seem to me that it requires knowledge of the subject matter to evaluate some of your edit comments as being abusive.
Again, I urge both of you to seek mediation, because the degree of personal hostility that is evident in this situation is not condusive to writing good articles. Brandon39 12:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, then I see. I thought your response was rather funky, because I was thinking more of the facts of the issue, but now I understand that it was what was requested. If all he wants is for everyone to stop 'being mean' to him, heck, that's easy, we can just stop talking to him and justifying what we do. But I apologize for my sarcasm or whatever you want to call it towards you, because I didn't know that the stuff you commented on was what he actually wanted comments on (since I don't see what exactly this is supposed to accomplish with regard to the facts of the article).
Actually, you know what? Something just occurred to me, as to why, at least in part, I subconsciously thought we were dealing with the facts of the case and not whether people were just 'being mean' to DannyMuse. Look at the last couple of paragraphs of his edit here regarding the request for comments. He said "That being the case they should be included in the article," but, more importantly, "I am going to hold any revisions in abeyance pending the outcome of this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion." He seems to think that this has something to do with the actual factual issues of the case and not just whether he's being personally attacked. What's his game, to get declarations that everyone else is mean and then jump straight to 'see, they agreed with me, I win, you lose, I can make whatever edits I want now?' You should probably let him in on the fact that that's not what this is about, since even he doesn't seem to know it yet (and he made the stinking request for comments).Tommstein 13:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acknowledgement to Brandon39

Brandon39, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do try to be objective, but obviously it's not always easy to overcome your own bias. I'll take your well intentioned comments under advisement and "strive for greater objectivity" in the future! I'd like to address one of your comments regarding the letter at issue. I admit I have my reservations about both the content and intent of the letter. Why? For two reasons. First, at the risk of invoking accusations of an ad hominem attack, the only source of it seems to be Ray Franz, a man that was expelled from the organization and has written at least two books in an effort to discredit the WTB&TS in response. But more importantly are these two facts which I explained at length above under the thread Can you be disfellowshipped for your thoughts?:
  1. It asserts an impossible claim that people can be punished by disfellowshipping for wrong thoughts. Nowhere do any of JWs claim to be mind readers. This is patently absurd on its face.
  2. It is contrary to everything that is published by the WTB&TS which states that individuals can be disfellowshipped for wrongdoing.
I believe this article should be dealing with the current Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, not obscure, unverifiable letters from decades ago that have no current bearing on judicial hearings involving apostasy. However, if the consensus of the WP community is that--since Franz claims to have a copy of this letter in his book--it should be included for reasons that have yet to be clearly articulated, then I would contend that since the accuracy of this assertion by Franz cannot be independently verified and neither this quote or any other statement remotely resembling it in form or content appears in any of the official publications of the WTB&TS. Therefore, for balance and in keeping with WP's non-negotiable policy of NPOV a qualifying statement to that affect should be included. --DannyMuse 02:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another response

As one who has observed this situation from the beginning, I have two comments:

  • DannyMuse himself is clearly also at fault along with Tommstein for engaging in the revert war. I have posted three distinct requests on his talk page to stop reverting, which he has ignored. Both DannyMuse users have not assumed good faith, have engaged in personal attacks and have reverted in a dispute, all contrary to Wikipedia policies. This is an issue that doesn't require a RfC.
  • More important, however, is that DannyMuse's reverts have been against the consensus of editors on page, and have halted progress. There has been much discussion about these issues, and it was left to DannyMuse to provide evidence that the consensus was wrong. He has not done so, and the discussion has deteriorated into a revert war.

Both DannyMuse and Tommstein need to adhere to policy by not reverting, and allowing other editors to work on the pages. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, First of all, I have NOT ignored your requests to stop reverting. In fact I responded to you on your TALK page at least five times:
  1. 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. 02:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. 02:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. 02:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. 03:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Check your Talk page history. Next, I take great exception to your assertion that I have "engaged in personal attacks". Since you have made this claim, I respectfully demand that you produce proof of its validity. Please provide a complete quote of the alleged personal attack including the timestamp of the "attack" and whatever other information you deem relevant.
I maintain that I have acted within WP's guidelines on the use of Reverts used with caution and restraint. If you carefully research the matter you'll find that the majority of my so-called "reverts" were in fact undoing reverts done by Tommstein either without comment or accompanied by personal attacks. Either way, he rarely, if ever, addressed the actual content of my changes.
Several editors have repeatedly asked me to cite sources for edits which I have not made and for material which I did not contribute. The fact that I may personally agree with certain existing material and object to its deletion does not obligate me to provide the source. Rather the burden of proof lies on the editor that wishes to remove the disputed information why he/she believes it to be invalid.
Finally, you mentioned a "consensus of editors" regarding the content of this page. Could you please point me to the references that show this consensus? I would appreciate that. --DannyMuse 06:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I was going to reply to that, but then I realized that you just made up pretty much everything and there are better ways to spend time.Tommstein 06:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
DannyMuse:
  • You have ignored my repeated requests to stop reverting in a dispute as per policy by continuing to revert unabated. Explaining why you think the edits should be reverted is not sufficient. You were clearly in violation of policy.
  • Read WP:CITE. Disputed information "should be placed on the article's talk page — this gives other users the opportunity to find sources to support it." Policy is clear that disputed material should be removed from the article unless a source can be found. Therefore, if you want it to stay, you must provide a source.
  • Examples of personal attacks and inappropriate behaviour:
  • In this comment you say you will treat ex-JWs differently.
  • This edit given summary "Duh, this page is about the Practices of JW's which follow from THEIR beliefs. Keep commentary on Talk pages."
  • Reverting Tommstein's edit, calling it "ridiculous" in the summary.
  • Reverting Tommstein's edit with summary "rv. I read all about on the Talk page. Tommstein is a disciple of Ray Franz with an axe to grind. Nothing in the talk page is any different than what the article already says."
  • Immediate removal of all requests to stop reverting from his Talk page. Yes, it's your page, but this is bad form.
I could go on, but I detest evidence gathering. My point is not to vilify you, simply to point out that both of you have not handled this dispute well, and that you need to provide sources for material that is disputed. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The other side of this story

Now that DannyMuse has found the two or three most out-of-context fragments that he could out of much larger sentences from the 3,000 edit summaries and 42,000 Talk page edits, I should try to summarize my side of the story, i.e. the truth, although it's basically impossible to summarize this much concisely very well. I'll briefly mention that all interested parties should first look at http://quotes.watchtower.ca/lie.htm, the gist of which is that Jehovah's Witnesses have religious orders to lie and deceive pretty much whenever convenient (it is quaintly called "theocratic warfare"). Per his own religion, you probably shouldn't take anything that comes out of this guy's mouth as being truthful, unless he's got printed, verifiable material to back it up. Hey, I didn't make the policies on lying, I'm just informing people of them here. Don't kill the messenger. I'll also mention that you should take a look at the Jehovah's Witnesses Talk page too, lest you think that this is somehow just me against him and there aren't a bunch of people getting pissed at his lying all over Wikipedia's various Jehovah's Witness-related articles and practical refusal to discuss his reverts or anything else meaningfully on Talk pages.

Since it's apparently cute to list your sentences in a numbered list, I shall do so too. My paragraph is as follows:

1. "If a baptised Witness begins to teach doctrines contrary to the organisation's interpretation of the Bible it is grounds for disfellowshipping for apostasy."

2. "Far more extreme, however, is that, according to a letter dated 1 September 1980 from the Watchtower Society to all Circuit and District overseers, anyone who "merely disagrees in thought with any of the Watch Tower Society's teachings is committing apostasy and is liable for disfellowshipping." (See Franz, Raymond. Crisis of Conscience. 4th ed. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004. pp. 341-2. ISBN 0-914675-24-9)"

It is also my contention that both of the above sentences are factually correct and true. I would similarly like to know what is factually wrong with either of those sentences, although neither sentence is really mine anyway. The first sentence has been there since before I even started editing this article, and the second sentence was added by Jeffro77 on October 23, and I simply changed how the sentence started the next day to improve its logical flow within the paragraph (after DannyMuse had already reverted it) and expanded the reference. Perhaps DannyMuse should pick his fights with the two other editors who actually inserted that, and not the person that is simply trying to keep him from turning Wikipedia into his own little Jehovah's Witness preaching brochure, his current target apparently being this paragraph.

Regarding the history of what has been going on here, DannyMuse would have you believe that this all started on October 26, but the most casual glance at the history page will tell you that that's bull. We've been having problems with him thinking that he doesn't have to follow Wikipedia's Cite your sources policy for quite a while now, and patience is (hopefully) understandably starting to run short with him and his shenanigans. The complete edit summary that he quoted wildly out of context was (after noting that it was a reversion): "22 years + 0 lawsuits from lawsuit-happy corporation = 1 genuine letter; wikipedia isn't the place for, and no one gives a crap about, your personal paranoid conspiracy theories." Note that his little ellipsis skipped at least half of the sentence, and as such his quote is wildly out of context (isn't the ellipsis widely known as the fudger's favorite tool?). Note that first I provided a short reason why it is basically guaranteed that the letter in question is genuine, which another editor also told him on the Talk page, and which DannyMuse found convenient to ignore in both cases. The second part of the summary, besides saying that no one cares about his "personal paranoid conspiracy theories," (which is true, unless you find yourself amused by them), also mentioned that Wikipedia wasn't the place for such, which he also omitted. His next edit summary, saying to discuss my reasons on the Talk page, is just ridiculous, as the most cursory glance at the Talk page will tell you. It is relatively clear that his edit summary was just a precursor to being able to cry "Persecution!" and looking like the poor little victim (that hasn't heard of a citation in his life) now, since he clearly knows of the existence of Talk pages and how to read them (whether he wants to is another story). He is the one that has been told repeatedly to prove his points on the Talk page, well before he started acting like a drama queen in that one edit summary in an attempt to make it look like he's the one that has been trying to get others to talk on the Talk page. He's acting like the little kid that kicks the other little kid and runs to mommy crying that the other kids want to hit him.

Basically, the dude has been told a million times that he has to prove his statements, that he can't just put whatever he wants in the various articles without proving its veracity through verifiable sources. This seems to be crazytalk to him (don't take my word for it, scroll up and look). He has apparently never heard of the Wikipedia policy Cite your sources, and doesn't want to hear of it, although he has been told repeatedly, over and over and over and over and..., that he has to follow it.

Again, please also take a look at the Jehovah's Witnesses Talk page. I'm not the only one telling him this stuff. It is just easier to pretend that there's just this one dude that has a problem with your edits than acknowledging that there are plenty of others getting on your case for the exact same thing.Tommstein 12:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DannyMuse Continues to Refuse to Source His Edits

Evident 14:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

DannyMuse, I am new to this page. I have one concern regarding the outcome, that the article reflects the actual practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The main issue that I have with your resistance to Tommstein's edits is that you provide no source material. To clear this up, I invite you into reasoned discourse on this issue with me. I believe Tommstein is well meaning, but is truly your ardent opponent at cause in this issue. I am not.

I was investigated by two brothers for eating a meal with a friend who had been disfellowshipped. My cousin had the same experience. I was intimidated by the approach of the elders and was told that it could be "pursued" (which you know what that means) unless they were convinced of repentance. Now, you personally might not do that sort of thing. But when there is authority to do it and it is factually often done, that is called "practice."

This isn't an article about how you think things should be done, this is an article about how things are done.

On page 154, under the subheading Announcement of Disfellowshipping, Organized to Do Jehovah's Will (2005) states:

  • "When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made, simply stating: '[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses.' There is no need to elaborate. This will alert faithful members of the congregation to stop associating with that person. (1 Cor. 5:11)"

Is this reference current or has something come out since that I am unaware of?

If you recognize this as current teaching, what part of "stop associating with that person" is ambiguous to you?

If it your considered opinion that unfaithful members are not at risk of disfellowshipping, please demonstrate why you hold that view with sources. My understanding is that unsourced statements can be edited and rvt by any editor at any time. The most recent sourced exception on associating with family members who are disfellowshipped, stated specifically that it would only appropriate when caring for "necessary family matters," You can type that phrase inside quotation marks into the search on the CD and find it quickly. But out of consideration for your time, I will post the text here.

  • w81 9/15 pp. 22-23 Disfellowshiping—How to View It
    12 Yes, the Bible commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation. Thus “disfellowshiping” is what Jehovah’s Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer. Their refusal to fellowship with an expelled person on any spiritual or social level reflects loyalty to God’s standards and obedience to his command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13. This is consistent with Jesus’ advice that such a person be considered in the same way as “a man of the nations” was viewed by the Jews of that time. For some time after the apostles died, those professing Christianity evidently followed the Biblical procedure. But how many churches today comply with God’s clear directions in this regard? (—emphasis added)
  • w81 9/15 p. 29 If a Relative Is Disfellowshiped . . .
    DISFELLOWSHIPED RELATIVES NOT LIVING AT HOME
    18 The second situation that we need to consider is that involving a disfellowshiped or disassociated relative who is not in the immediate family circle or living at one’s home. Such a person is still related by blood or marriage, and so there may be some limited need to care for necessary family matters. Nonetheless, it is not as if he were living in the same home where contact and conversation could not be avoided. We should keep clearly in mind the Bible’s inspired direction: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person . . . , not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
    19 Consequently, Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum. The reasonableness of this course becomes apparent from reports of what has occurred where relatives have taken the mistaken view, ‘Though he is disfellowshiped, we are related and so can treat him the same as before.’(—emphasis added)

Unless you can source something that shows that someone will not be disfellowshipped for being disloyal to God’s standards and disobedienct to his commands, I think you should let this one die. Respectfully, Evident 19:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Evident, Thanks for your thoughtful post. I have several specific points to address.

First, I cannot imagine how you got the idea that I ever said or even implied, "someone will not be disfellowshipped for being disloyal to God’s standards and disobedienct to his commands". In fact I have repeatedly tried to make just the opposite clear. For example, I wrote on this very page under the subheading Can you be disfellowshipped for your thoughts? (see above):

  • "It must be acknowledged that JWs believe that apostasy is indeed a serious matter for which an individual can and generally should be expelled from the congregation." 07:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Of course, if an individual were to outspokenly reject the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses in a definite and willful manner, whether to other members of the congregation or the public, that would clearly constitute apostasy and would likely lead to their disfellowshipping." 07:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "... JWs have the legal and moral right to expel members that begin expounding what JWs believe to be heretical teachings." 15:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In the main article, one of the many revisions to the text which I edited read this way:

  • "Normally, a Witness would not be disfellowshipped for simply talking to or associating with disfellowshipped individuals, including close relatives. However, as described in the guidebook given to elders, "Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock" p.103, close relatives of a disfellowshipped person can themselves be disfellowshipped if there is a continuing of "spiritual association" with the disfellowshipped person or if there is "an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course" of the disfellowshipped one."
Note: I'm currently of the opinion that this paragraph may be more clear if the phrase "or associating with" is omitted from the first sentence. But regardless, these edits clearly show that I do believe that can indeed be "disfellowshipped for being disloyal to God’s standards and disobedienct to his commands" as JWs understand them.

Secondly, what edits and/or additions to this page do you believe I have made which were not properly sourced? If you could be specific, then I will do my best to provide sources.

Finally, I also responded to you on what is essentially the same thread on the Talk page for the JW main article. See Associating With Disfellowshipped Individuals. For your convenience I'll quote the key points of that reply here:

Evident ... You asked, "Why do you say individuals can associate with disfellowshipped ones without fear of expulsion?" The answer is that I never said that. You are misquoting me. I've tried various edits at various times. Here is the text of my last edit:
  • "Normally, a Witness would not be disfellowshipped for simply talking to or associating with disfellowshipped individuals, including close relatives. However, as described in the guidebook given to elders, "Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock" p.103, close relatives of a disfellowshipped person can themselves be disfellowshipped if there is a continuing of "spiritual association" with the disfellowshipped person or if there is "an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course" of the disfellowshipped one." - Revision as of 12:25, October 27, 2005
These two sentences clearly indicate that a person CAN be disfellowshipped for associating with a disfellowshipped person. The key distinction is attitude and frequency. "[S]imply talking to" is very different than "a continuing of spiritual association'" and "'an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course' of the disfellowshipped one." If you can think of a way to make this distinction any more clear I'm all for it! Maybe the phrase "or associating with" should be removed from the first sentence. --DannyMuse 04:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope that settles that issue for you! Thanks, --DannyMuse 02:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am rather surprised that you couldn't figure out what I wanted source for. Source this, please: "Normally, a Witness would not be disfellowshipped for simply talking to or associating with disfellowshipped individuals." The reason this needs a source is that I have a 2005 source that says "This will alert faithful members of the congregation to stop associating with that person," whereas you seem to continue to assert that simply talking to or associating would not be wrong. I notice you did not respond to the articles in 1981 that show exactly how DF/DA are to be treated (no talking to them, not even "simply talking").
You have submitted no source to contradict that. You have submitted a source that almost supports that. But you are stating as normalcy something that I have no familiarity with being "normal" in 20 years as a baptized Witness and 28 years (total) as a publisher. I wasn't baptized yet but was not allowed to talk to my grandfather when he was disfellowshipped for smoking.
As your sentence reads currently, it fails utterly to convey the concept of the average JW or average elder (practice) concerning DF/DA. Your statement would be correct if it read: "Normally, a Witness would be counseled for associating with or simply talking to disfellowshipped individuals. If they did it accidentally or recognize that it was wrong no further action would be taken. If they are unrepentant they may also be disfellowshipped. Family members may communicate with one who is disfellowshipped to care for necessary family matters, but even this contact is to be kept to a minimum."
I provided sources to support that statement, you have provided no source to contradict this. You might not like the reality of your organization, but you have no power to change that reality. If you exercise lenience in in judgment in this respect, you have my gratitude. But you are not in the majority. All you have shown source for is that even relatives can be disfellowshipped for associating with disfellowshipped/disassociated individuals. Your view is completely contrary to my own experience (personally) and my knowledge of the experiences of many other witnesses.
Being unable to call you or talk to those you know who haven't been disfellowshipped (or threatened with Judicial action) for this in order to verify your version of normalcy and stated policy backing up my version of normalcy, I have every reason in the world to expect you to support your statement. Please proceed. Respectfully, Evident 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Evident: Great, now we can finally get somewhere! First of all, I am emphatically NOT the user that originally contributed the text in question:
A Witness can be disfellowshipped for talking to family members, as described in the guidebook given to elders, "Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock" p.103, "Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped for associating with a disfellowshipped person unless there is spiritual association or an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course.”
That was apparently added by anon user 211.30.154.150 in his one and only edit on "Revision as of 15:06, July 12, 2005". Please check the page history. As far as I can tell that was the first occurrence of this entry.
Secondly, you can see that this user did in fact cite his source: "'Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock' p.103". This reference continues to be in the article. Perhaps it would be more clear if the complete quote had not be cut up and parsed with interpolations.
Next, I have never, ever asserted "that simply talking to or associating [with a disfellowshipped person] would not be wrong". It is most definitely against published directives as you have clearly shown. I agree, yet I also maintain that "Disfellowshipping is not automatic" should one do so, but it can indeed be a consequence. This is the point which the text in question addresses. I believe the entire section of the article does explain this, however in a clumsy way. But that's what you get when something is written by a committee, particularly one that doesn't have the same goals. --DannyMuse 05:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, that unregistered user did cite his source. The part of the sentence that is no longer there, the "Normally, close relatives" part, which is the part that we have been trying to tell you, was deleted by you yourself on the very next edit, 10 minutes after the unregistered person put it there.
The 'disfellowshipping is automatic' thing is a straw man that you just made up. Tommstein 06:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Evident, it's true I did make those changes in what I thought at the time was an effort to explain more clearly the current view and practices of JWs on this matter. But lest Tommstein's comments should derail our conversation, please recall as stated above that the text of my last edit to this paragraph read:
"Normally, a Witness would not be disfellowshipped for simply talking to or associating with disfellowshipped individuals, including close relatives. However, as described in the guidebook given to elders, "Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock" p.103, close relatives of a disfellowshipped person can themselves be disfellowshipped if there is a continuing of "spiritual association" with the disfellowshipped person or if there is "an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course" of the disfellowshipped one." - Revision as of 12:25, October 27, 2005
Hopefully it is clear to you that my objection has never been to the use of the word "normally". I have included it in MANY of my revisions to this text. My issue with the "close relatives" phrase is that, while this applies in particular to them, it does not exclusively.
Finally, it's "Disfellowshipping is NOT automatic" and I did not make that up. This was added by user Jpb1968 on 01:55, July 9, 2003. I did not start editing here until October 9, 2004. Enough said! --DannyMuse 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
No one is objecting to your use of the word "normally," the objection is to you applying it to whoever you feel like.
If your claim is that we're saying "Disfellowshipping is NOT automatic," where exactly lies your problem?Tommstein 07:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: Since DannyMuse continues changing his statements after they have been replied to, the version I replied to immediately above this was the following:
"Evident, it's true I did make those changes in what I thought at the time was an effort to explain more clearly the current view and practices of JWs on this matter. But lest Tommstein's comments should derail our conversation, please recall as stated above that the text of my last edit to this paragraph read:
'Normally, a Witness would not be disfellowshipped for simply talking to or associating with disfellowshipped individuals, including close relatives. However, as described in the guidebook given to elders, "Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock" p.103, close relatives of a disfellowshipped person can themselves be disfellowshipped if there is a continuing of "spiritual association" with the disfellowshipped person or if there is "an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course" of the disfellowshipped one.' - Revision as of 12:25, October 27, 2005
Hopefully it is clear to you that my objection has never been to the use of the word 'normally' as I have included it in MANY of my revisions to this text and my issue witht the close relatives part was that this may apply in particular to them but not exclusively. Finally, it's 'Disfellowshipping is NOT automatic' and I did not make that up. --DannyMuse 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)"Tommstein 07:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
DannyMuse, it is disappointing to realize you aren't even reading my comments in this discussion. I specifically asked for source of this: "Normally, a Witness would not be disfellowshipped for simply talking to or associating with disfellowshipped individuals..."
As soon as you changed "close relative" to "a Witness" the statement was no longer sourced. I hope you can see the problem. The Pay Attention reference (and yes, I checked) says NOTHING about anyone but relatives. You're trying to glom onto the "bare minimum" association of relatives and pretend that it applies to everyone, which would present an outright deceit as reality. That is the only reason I care, one way or the other, I want these JW pages to present an accurate idea of how things really are. If you mean that normally Witnesses aren't disfellowshipped because normally they respond favorably when two servants frighten ["counsel"] them into submission with threats of Judicial action or by actually initiating Judicial action, it is not conveyed.
In my case, that initial visit was enough for me to pretend repentance. In the case of my cousin, he had already explained it was a farewell dinner but was not at all repentant for it. A judicial committee was formed. At that point, he too pretended repentance. But that isn't what your change indicates, is it?
I have no problem at all with the wording of the original contribution, it is sourced. I have a problem with your edit, which is not sourced. Hopefully, you have a source. Otherwise, why continue this charade? Just to needle and annoy Tommstein, while Wikipedia helps you present a devious and error-filled view of JWs to the world? It seems low of you. I do hope you can stop deflecting and address this issue of your unsourced edit directly. Respectfully, Evident 12:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Evident, unbelievable! You accuse me of a charade yet openly acknowledge that you "pretend repentance" to avoid the consequences of your decisions or out of fear; either way it doesn't matter. I have no further comment. --DannyMuse 13:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... you're gonna want to get used to that stuff. Scroll up and up and up and up and up for proof.Tommstein 13:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I also notice you do not actually refute the "accusation" of charade. Here, I have no authority to limit your association with your dearly loved family. In the case I referenced, I WAS THREATENED WITH JUDICIAL ACTION. What fear do you admit to that causes your charade? You know the "practice" of disfellowshipping is not portrayed accurately here, yet you continue to support the error.
In point of fact, I did not accuse you of charade. I stated that this is a charade IF, and only if, you do not HAVE a source supporting your edit. Since you viewed that as an accusation of charade, I have to assume you have no source. Until you provide source I am reverting to the original contribution, it is sourced. This discussion stands as testament to my effort to get a source from you and your failure to comply with Wikipedia standards regarding sources.
Also from p. 103 of Pay Attention
  • Scriptural and historical guidelines on how to view disfellowshipped and disassociated persons are found in The Watchtower, September 15, 1981, pages 20-31. (these are references to the article I quoted in the first post to this subtopic)
DannyMuse, you can't reasonably hope to win an argument when you are arguing against the primary sources of your side. If my posts of stark reality makes you wish to shun me, so be it. It isn't the first time that has happened to me (and I have never even been disfellowshipped or disassociated). Thank you for the real-life demonstration of how this works for those unaccustomed to the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Evident 13:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Anybody else find it ironic that he's now apparently shunning both of us (a good ol' online shunning) while trying to argue that he doesn't have to do that?Tommstein 14:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Violence

The article states that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not serve in the military but are not pacifists. What, if any, is the doctrine on violence in self defense? I am both genuinely curious and see it as a place the article coule be made better. Kit 09:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Is Loose Conduct?

I am new to this page, but I know the answer to the question that several seem to have been struggling over: Loose Conduct is the catch all that can, in practice, be used at any time to disfellowship any one Jehovah's Witnesses who unrepentantly does not follow any repeated counsel of the body of elders, or who routinely resists such counsel with an attitude that is perceived to be insolent or disrespectful (per my father who is the Presiding Overseer of my congregation and who served on his first JC at age 17, some 43 years ago).

This is based on a 1973 Watchtower article listed as one of the references in Pay Attention on page 96.

Here is the key point:

  • w73 9/15 p. 574 Questions from Readers

    • What does the expression “loose conduct” as found at Galatians 5:19 mean?—U.S.A.

    One might assume that this term (from the Greek word a·sel´gei·a) refers to conduct that is immoral but in a minor or not so serious way. This, however, is not the case according to the available evidence in Scripture and also in the ancient secular Greek writings in which this word appears. It is not limited to acts of sexual immorality. And, rather than relating to bad conduct of a somewhat petty or minor nature, it apparently describes acts that reflect a brazen attitude, one that betrays disrespect, disregard or even contempt for standards, laws and authority. The ‘looseness’ of the conduct, therefore, is not due principally to weakness but results from an attitude of disrespect, insolence or shamelessness.

That should tie a pretty bow on top of that point, but I somehow doubt it will. Respectfully, Evident 20:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Evident, not sure what brought this up, but have you noticed the definition of Loose Conduct in the Notes and references of the main article? --DannyMuse 02:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I read this article and the discussions for the first time today, DannyMuse. Yes, I noticed the notes and references. In the discussions there is quite a lot of talk about what exactly constitutes loose conduct to a JW (in practice). Well (in practice) anything done with "a brazen attitude" that "betrays disrespect, disregard or even contempt for standards, laws and authority" is loose conduct. Surely the definition in the notes goes along with that. I found this reference in the Pay Attention book. That means elders on JCs still consider this definition, in practice. My dad calls "loose conduct" the "catch-all sin." In practice, elders don't go by the definition in "it-2", they go by the references in Pay Attention. Respectfully, Evident 02:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, elders who don't go by the definition in "it-2 - sounds like you've got "loose cannons" on your hands! --DannyMuse 05:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, elders who don't go by the elders' guidebook - sounds like you've got "loose cannons" on your hands!Tommstein 05:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
DannyMuse is it your belief that the references in the Pay Attention book in Unit 5(a) are not to be used, or that an elder would be considered a "loose cannon" for doing so? My dad is not a loose cannon! Emphatically otherwise. But, he uses those references he is provided in the Pay Attention book, even the things written on the back page, as instructed at the KM School (of which I am sure you are aware).
However, your statement from it-2 is incomplete, and when the remainder of the article is seen in light of the 1973 Questions From Readers I posted it is clear that my father's view does not directly disagree with it-2. It-2 just fails to accurately represent how the matter may be acted on judcially. Which makes sense, Insight is an encyclopedia, not a book of instructions. Watchtower is a source of instructions. Pay Attention is a source of instructions. I already quoted the Watchtower view. Here is where I got the reference:
  • Loose conduct is a shocking, flagrant disregard for Jehovah's moral standards. (Gal. 5:19; w83 3/15 p. 31; w73 9/15 pp. 574-6) (Pay Attention Unit 5(a) p.93)
The 1983 Watchtower has a footnote that directs you to...1973 Watchtower Questions From Readers.
Later in Unit 5(a), in the supplemental references, you can read this:
  • Loose conduct. Term not restricted to sexual immorality. (Gal. 5:19, Ref.. Bi., ftn.; 2 Pet. 2:7, Ref.. Bi., ftn.; w83 3/15 p. 31; w73 9/15 pp. 574-6; it-2 p. 264) (Pay Attention Unit 5(a) p. 96)
You'll note, 1) the reference to it-2 is ONLY found in the supplemental list, 2) the it-2 reference is the last one listed. Please explain to all those "loose cannons" out here the significance of a newer publication being listed LAST and of only being listed among the SUPPLEMENTAL references. We both know already, either you can tell them or I will. But, I imagine they're smart enough to pick up on the significance simply from my stresses. The 1983 article refers you to the 1973 Questions From Readers. it-2 does not modify or qualify what is said in 1973 in any respect.
I'll thank you to refrain from referring to my father as a "loose cannon" when he correctly (even ploddingly) applies direct instruction he has received from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Evident 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls

I have edited this section as follows:

The Conventions are not referred to as "Assemblies," in practice. I have never heard of a District Convention being held in an Assembly Hall, but that doesn't mean it has never happened. There has never been an International Convention held in an Assembly Hall. I edited to show that is not the norm and to segregate the larger Conventions from those events that would normally be held in an Assembly Hall.

I think that either the title of the section should be modified to include "Other Facilities," or the Conventions should be left out of the discussion unless someone can source when an International Convention/District Convention was held in an Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.

If we are actually talking about the practice of assembling, the title needs to reflect that instead of referncing the buildings such gathering are held in.

I also removed the word "exclusively" from the following sentence as unsourced (and patently untrue): The needed finances come from voluntary contributions made exclusively by Jehovah's Witness members according to each one's means and inclination.

I trust no one has objection to these edits. Can we discuss how to change the title to more accurately reflect the nature of the subheading? Respectfully, Evident 13:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if this fits the definition of Assembly Hall or not, but the Witnesses in Ft. Lauderdale or so bought some stadium or something like that from the government, and supposedly use it for district conventions. I've never been there, and I don't know if a source for this could be found, but I have been told the story of how the purchase went down in pretty good detail, by an elder in the same state.Tommstein 13:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Having just perused the section in question, the title depends on what we want to talk about there. If the goal is the physical buildings, then the current title works, but we will have to remove at least the mention of international conventions, unless someone shows that they are sometimes used for that. If the goal is to talk about the actual gatherings, then the body isn't so bad, but we'd need to change the title instead. Ideally, I think we should have a section talking about the physical buildings, and a different section talking about the actual gatherings (perhaps under the meetings section, or maybe in its own new section). That way we get to talk about both things, more easily and in whatever depth we want.Tommstein 13:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The statements made above are partially semantic, and partially false. I think the use of the term "assembly" is dependant upon geography and local uses. At least in Western Canada, the term "Assembly" is commonly used by many Jehovah's Witnesses to refer to both the smaller "Circuit Conventions" as well as the larger "District Conventions". In Calgary, Alberta where a Jehovah's Witness Assembly Hall is located, Circuit Conventions are regularly held at this facility, whereas District Conventions are more frequently held in the Calgary Saddledome (home of the Calgary Flames hockey club). It should be also noted that the term "Assembly" was used official to refer to these conventions in the past (as recently *at least* as the 1980s). It certainly does appear that "Convention" is now the current official name of these gatherings.--Nicodemus75 11:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

So noted, and thank you for the clarification. However, that does not address the concern that the topic header is "Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls" and the fact is that larger events cannot use these facilities. If the larger events are to be discussed under this topic, it seems the topic header needs to change for accuracy. I have no problem with changing the header, I just raised the point so discussion could occur on whether it should be changed and what it should be changed to. Evident 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

FUNDING

I totally agree with you evident and I think it would be better if we add THROUGH and even better is we add this to the initial section about funding and rephrase it slightly.

"the needed finances come from voluntary contributions made THROUGH JW..."

I have lived for several months with a JW family in Germany, the mother and her 5 grown up children were JW, but not the father. One day a couple of members of the congregation came to the house and met with the husband. Afterwards he told me they had come to request/discuss a donation, understandable as he was the money earner.

I also question "There is no tithing or collection, but all are encouraged to donate to the organization". The WP definition of tithing read "is a one-tenth part of something, paid as a voluntary contribution or as a tax or levy, usually to support a Jewish or Christian religious organization". If all are encouraged to donate to the organisation, isn't that equivalent to tithing or collection? Maybe tithing is referred to the Catholic practice of giving money during mass and that is definitely not the case during the JW reunions as I have witnessed. In which case I think it should be phrased differently as tithing and collection can have various meanings.

Finally, how about rephrasing the whole initial paragraph as follows:

Jehovah's Witnesses fund their activities, such as publishing, constructing and operating facilities, evangelism, and disaster relief via donations through its members. There is no tithing or collection during reunions, but all are encouraged to donate to the organization according to each one's means and inclination...

What do u think?

P.S. Having quickly read through this talk section I find that dannymuse has failed to reason efectively and looks to me like he has shut up when other JW have critized his lack on enciclopedic etiquete. It is extremely rude to edit someones work without submitting appropriate reference. I have high regard for JW and the way they search for the truth with reasoning rather than dogma. This talk page is far more civilized than the one on the Catholic Church. Keep up the good work. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses

The article has a section that needs to be merged and redirected here. Rename first so a merge makes sense based on the article title. :) - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delineation of Practices and Doctrine Articles

There appears to be a fair bit of overlap between

The opening paragraph states: "This article discusses how the doctrines as well as non-doctrinal organizational and cultural arrangements manifest themselves in the practices and stances of Jehovah's Witnesses."

However, there is no reference to Saturday morning field service groups, the section of blood completely explains the doctrine itself. There are numerous other sections with rationale for a doctrine.

So, is it possible to get a clear idea of what should go in the one, and what should go in the other? Is it possible to do without too much overlap? Is it desireable to merge this in with doctrines? joshbuddy 22:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging, in my opinion, would likely be the best option to avoid overlap as our practices are inherently a product of our doctrines. Duffer 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think a useful approach is to structure it this way.
  • doctrine
  • implications of doctrine in everyday life (if exists)
  • critical viewpoint (if exists)
does this seems like a reasonable approach?
then we need a categorization scheme. any ideas? joshbuddy 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The merging of doctrines and practices was the general idea of the new structure that was voted on a while ago. As the practices are generally derived from the doctrines, it makes sense to present them together. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to begin work to merge them. Thank you. joshbuddy 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I am indifferent as to whether or not they should be merged, but regardless, this article needs to be MUCH shorter and more succinct. It contains a lot of unnecessary details at the moment, and needs to provide a more "Helicopter view". I will trim it down to make it more manageable, as noone will read the article at its current size (sorry). BenC7 11:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
(After editing) I have extensively trimmed and synthesized, but the article is probably still too long. But if it will be merged, I suppose it isn't going to matter. Remember, whoever is doing the merge, the objective is to give the facts succinctly, not to dazzle the reader with copious amounts of fine detail. These may be interesting to you, but people do not need to know things like, for example, the specific order of events in a particular meeting. Also try to avoid using numerous long quotes from Watchtower or Awake! - paraphrase and reference. BenC7 12:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question about converts from the Catholic Church

What do you think as JW about the Catholic Church dogma regarding its members, that once they are baptized they remain so even if they convert, i.e. to JW? (even if excommunicated)

I am still very surprised to find that, as a baptized catholic, there is nothing I can do for the Catholic Church to declare that I am no longer part of it. Even if I turn out to be the new messiah and manage to destroy it completely, they will still consider me as its member.

This idea about membership is used by the Catholic Church to claim, for example, that there are 87% chatholics in Spain, where official unbiased polls say that only 13% claim to attend mass regularly on sundays.

It follows that the Catholic Church considers all those JW that have been baptized by it, to still be their members...

I find this totally crazy, is there any official position by JW? I suppose the best thing is to ignore it. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JWs and birth control

I wonder if someone knowledgable on this subject could write a section on it here. I realize the official statement is "This is a amatter of personal choice", but can anyone expound and expand? CyberAnth 23:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. BenC7 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)