Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Pay of Governing Body members

Doesn't everyone at Bethel get some amount of pay (whether it's called "pay," "living allowance," "slave's wages," "salary," "free money," "bling bling," or whatever doesn't matter, it's still receiving money in return for whatever it is that they do up there)? I ask because an edit was just made to the article stating that Governing Body members are unpaid, which wouldn't be true if they do in fact receive money (small pay is not the same as no pay, if what they get could even be classified as small). Pay is pay. No matter what you call it. I know everyone there is a volunteer, but there's still a difference between paid volunteers and unpaid volunteers. I haven't reverted the change back or anything, I'm just asking at this point, since it's possible that I could just be completely wrong and they don't in fact get anything (which would be kind of hard to believe), but, if it turns out that they do in fact get some money, then the article can't say that they're unpaid.66.158.232.37 11:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There is an allowance for the Governing Body (aside from gifts they receive). But the one correction that was made was removing the "12" men part. Though it currently is 12, i believe the number has dropped as low as 8 and gone as high as 17. There is no rule about how big the governing body can be.

The last edit (as of this moment) inserted the words "unpaid, ecclesiastical" in reference to Governing Body members; that's what I was talking about, the word "unpaid" more specifically. Since their receiving money apparently isn't a figment of my imagination after all, I'll go ahead and take that word out.66.158.232.37 15:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

GB like all members receive a monthly allowance, yearly allowance and car allowance, free food, accomodation and cleaning service. Depending on the rules of the country in which they live they also receive the pension.

The Escatology section

I think that this section should be made shorter and put as an subsection of Beliefs and doctrines. The more critical parts of the text belonge to the article Opposition to JW. I think that the factual accuracy of some of these statements is poor and should be further discussed. Summer Song 18:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a wholly independent article should be written about the eschatology beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses. The section about this matter makes the article too long. The aritcle nededs too be kept shorter.Summer Song 13:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral sources of information and quotes.watchtower.ca

I believe this source of information to be neutral. (There is no editorialization) Would it not be better to create a neutral category and put this link under it? - [unsigned]

That site is hardly neutral. Though is does not contain explicit editorial comments, the selection of quotes is evidence of a clear anti-WTB&TS agenda on the part of the anonymous author(s) of this site. Any dispute of that is either uninformed or dishonest. At one point there was a "neutral" category. Several contributors objected and kept changing it. --DannyMuse 13:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the site isn't exactly neutral, even if all it does is provide quotes from the Society itself. The author isn't anonymous though; look at the lawsuit papers he has posted, which contain his name. Not that anonymity would have anything to do with anything.66.158.232.37 22:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To 66.158.232.37: I stand corrected. I haven't been to that site in a while and the author previously did NOT disclose his identity. Thanks for the update! --DannyMuse 03:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing.66.158.232.37 13:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the site is hardly unbiased. I still can't understand people that choose to leave (as disfellowshipped & disassociated individuals are always in that position because of their decision and choice)and how they spend so much time and effort to 'prove the organization wrong'. Does it serve to 'prove them right'? Perhaps, but only to that person. If they believe they are 'right' in the first place, then why do they have to prove it to others?

There is a difference between trying to 'prove' that the organization is wrong, and 'demonstrating' such. Many of them feel that they are doing people a service by informing of what they otherwise would not be told by members who are intrinsically biased.

Also, regarding that site, if it wasn't the individual's intention to present a biased anti-Jehovah's Witness website, he/she wouldn't have to put that 'disclaimer' on everything, because people would be smart enough to realize that themselves.

There have been many things in my life I have been dismissed from. Jobs, Friendships, Relationships, etc. I never once went out spending so much of my hard earned time trying to prove them wrong. I was a Wal-Mart employee for 4 years, when I lost my job (this time not due to my decisions), I wasn't so bitter that I spent years putting up websites and spending time trying to muddy their name. Heck, I even still shop there.

Being a Wal-Mart employee is not quite as controlling or pervasive into a person's way of life, and Wal-Mart employees are not obligated to make other people also become Wal-Mart employees. Nor are Wal-Mart employees 'encouraged' not to associate with employees of other stores. Wal-Mart employees do not live under the misconception that their non-Wal-Mart-employed relatives are going to be slaughtered by their CEO.

Pretty sad that people can't move on with their lives, actually. Why you'd want to 'disprove' or 'expose' an organization of people who do not engage in negative things, obey laws, are quite plesant to talk to, and are very happy and seem to love one another is beyond me. Are those individuals so miserable that they want everyone else to be as well? Misery does love company.

It is not at all surprising that some people would feel ticked off that they had been convinced of something that they later know to be false. It is both natural, and according to the consciences of many, expected, that they would do something to try to set the record straight.

Maybe it has something to do with feeling the need to at least try to warn people about the mess they're getting into or are already in and unaware of when faced with people being misled into flushing their entire lives down the drain following a lying, corrupt, mind-controlling corporate religious organization in the hopes of just maybe attaining an elusive dream that they won't be getting. Maybe you don't care whether people are misled, but apparently some people do. It could also be asked, why do Jehovah's Witnesses spend all that time and effort carrying on trying to prove "Babylon the Great" wrong?66.158.232.37 04:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Warn people about associating themselves with witnesses? Funny. I'd love to hear about a religion that is so much better. Isn't it true that all people have free will to associate with them or not? Misled how? And about trying to prove "Babylon the Great" wrong?" I'd love to see someone prove them right. As far as I can see, Witnesses present what they believe as the Truth about other religions. I've yet to see one of those religions prove what Witnesses say as wrong, or prove witnesses wrong. Again, an organization may have a goal, which is not wrong. But individuals who can't get over their own downfalls make me laugh. If you're out, you're out. Get over it, move on, and find a 'better religion' that suits you more. Don't all other 'Christians' believe in loving their neighbors? What ever happened to taking the high ground and being the better person? Oh, thats right, some people would rather be miserable, and try to influence other people and make them realize that they should be miserable as well.

It is flawed reasoning to say that Witnesses are right on the basis that other religions are not. People have free will in becoming involved in various cults or other scams, but they become convinced by various forms of inducement, in this case, emotive promises for the future. "I've yet to see one of those religions prove what Witnesses say as wrong"... This is also subjectively flawed. You won't find it in a Watchtower article... Various religious groups have indeed published such information, but Witnesses aren't 'allowed' to read it.

If you don't consider quotes to be neutral, then you can hardly consider http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness.htm to be positive. This website contains references to the vaccination ban, failed escatology and sexual abuse.

Additionally, the books section doesn't contain Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses a very useful general history of JWs that is pretty even.

Joshbuddy 00:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add that book then. Coincidentally, I'm actually getting my copy delivered tomorrow.Tommstein 02:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Date links that are not related to articles

Hello, Jdavidb. The reason I removed the dates that were put there in random fashion, was because they have no relationship at all with the pages they link to. If they were relevant dates that had some significance and a link that contained additional information directly relating to Jehovah's Witnesses or their beliefs then that would be commendable, but the ones removed have no relevance in their linked pages to anything said in the main Jehovah's Witness page. I'm sure I am not alone in my thoughts that putting links in an article just for the sake of it, is not only pointless, but it clutters up the entire page with totally irrelevant page associations. For an example here: "A 'new light' interpretation of generation was then published in The Watchtower magazine of November 1 1995. At the same time, the Watch Tower Society. . ." If you look up the link to 1 November there is nothing even remotely related to that Watchtower magazine publication, date or subject matter, and the same goes for 1995. If the date/year is a relevant one with some direct connection, like 1914, and the first World War starting and JWs believing that this was an Armageddon date, then that would make some sense, but to have minor publication dates that then have no connected material in the link seems time wasting and a large distraction, especially for new readers, who will inevitably click on the link, and then wonder why on earth they are on a page that contains no relevant material at all to the Jehovah's Witness page they just came from. One could put thousands of links, one to every single word on the page, but would that add, or just distract the whole page's flow and meaning? I'm sure you can see the purpose of a link is for additional or relevant contextual material, too many off topic date links just mess up the whole page, and don't add anything in the way of relevant subject matter. Kind Regards. Central 16:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Another Point of Interest

may want to look at http://www.cesnur.org/2005/pa_brown.htm for some new editorial information. george 10/12/05

Defining Characteristic Missing?

After reading the article Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust I wonder whether being the only religious group that was targeted in this way is not a significant enough point to be included in the main article on Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses were NOT the only religious group targeted. Bible Students (the group that split away from the early Witnesses), as well as Mormons and other groups were also assigned purple triangles. See the article Nazi concentration camp badges.--Jeffro77 03:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Since good definitions show in what ways things are similar and in what ways they are different, I would strongly argue for inclusion of the following information taken from the above mentioned article in some modified way:

Because Jehovah's Witnesses would not give allegiance to the Nazi party, refused to serve in the military, they were detained, put in concentration camps, or imprisoned during the Holocaust. Unlike Jews and Gypsies who were persecuted for racial reasons, the Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted on political and ideological grounds. The Nazi government gave detained Jehovah's Witnesses the option if they were to renounce their religion they would be free to go. Approximately 10,000 Jehovah's Witnessess were sent to concentration camps where they were forced to wear a purple triangle that specifically identified them as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course, I think the current article is quite long already, but I also question whether some parts of the section Jehovah's Witnesses#Early_eschatology are really relevant enough, as many of the details could be easily covered by a link to Charles Taze Russell where this information would seem more appropriate.

Some might claim that I am suggesting these changes because I am a Jehovah's Witness myself (which I am) but I am honestly trying to identify those facts that are clearly and objectively very relevant in defining Jehovah's Witnesses. I am less sure about which facts should be left out completely, but certainly some of the parts in the article could be at least made more succint. But since I would not like to be accused of bias, this might better be decided by a "non-Witness".

Pavel Soukenik

Well, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, and if the article doesn't mention the Holocaust stuff, I think that it should definitely be added. It is my understanding that Rutherford originally tried to suck up to Hitler and was basically told to talk to the hand (no, not something I would expect you to have learned at the latest Watchtower study), but in any case, the Holocaust was definitely an important thing as it relates to Jehovah's Witnesses.Tommstein 19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hardly anyone would characterize Rutherford's congenial approach to Hitler as "sucking up." The standard practice for the organization is to continually seek to defer needless persecution and to attempt a dialogue with any government that initially opposes the Witnesses' presence within their claimed borders. The politically neutral position of the Witnesses is highlighted, as is the moral character of faithful adherents in obeying all laws (no matter how inconvenient) as long as they do not conflict with a Christian's conscience. Hitler was obviously not interested in any group that would not give him complete allegiance, fight in his wars, discriminate according to Nazi philosophy or defend the fatherland. Other governments before and since have given the Witnesses a little more leeway or at least listened to Watchtower representatives on separate occasions. - CobaltBlueTony 19:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that agreeing with Hitler in laying the blame for a bunch of the world's problems on Jews goes a little beyond being congenial, especially for the face and representative of a religious organization. I don't know nearly enough about this to say much more here though, let alone on an actual article page. As to the obeying all laws business, I'm not sure how bribing Mexicans into lying for them and saying that they performed military service is either legal or conscionable, but whatever.Tommstein 20:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tommstein, since, as you said, you "don't know nearly enough about this to say much more" it would probably be best if you stuck to that. Making assertions without backing them up with facts is more characteristic of an internet chat room than an encyclopedia. --DannyMuse 06:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The stuff I actually said was factual (or at least my interpretation of known facts). The stuff I didn't say because I didn't know was, uh, not said. But in any case, would you like me to become completely informed on the issue and start inserting it in all its glory into appropriate articles or something?Tommstein 07:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I started this discussion was to prove that if Jehovah's Witnesses were the only religious group that was such targeted, it is an important enough distinction to be in the main article in the scope of say a paragraph. If anyone is willing to elaborate more about how and why that happened, what were the consequences etc., I think that the article Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust would be a more suitable place to do that. Also, I would still be interested in what others think about my second point, that is, reducing some of the details (and which these are) that are not as relevant to the main article on Jehovah's Witnesses. Pavel Soukenik, October 14, 2005

Awake To Be Monthly starting 2006

The Awake Magazine will be going monthly, and will no longer focus on general issues as of Jan 2006.

These facts are already covered under Awake!. -- Soukie 08:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

1914 Major Belief, Source Important

It is my opinion that since so many beliefs derive from the belief that Christ began to rule invisibly in 1914 there should be information posted that explains the source of this foundational belief. I tried to add the belief that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC to those beliefs distinctive to Jehovah's Witnesses (as this is certainly the case). This is the primary foundations on which the belief in Christ's invisible return in 1914, the belief we are living in the Time of the End, the belief that the preaching work should be expected now, and so forth is based. Why is there no source for this belief listed?

I also added these: Belief that Jesus is mediator for only the portion of the 144,000 still living (Revelation 7:4; 1 Timothy 2:5) Belief that teaching authority is only possessed by the portion of the 144,000 still living (remnant), as a group. Belief that the "remnant" is represented in teaching authority by a Governing Body of very few men who have the equivalent of magisterium regarding interpretation of Bible prophecies.

If there is need for source on any of these, I can provide it.

There aren't any sources to post regarding 607 BC, because Jehovah's Witnesses are the only people (that I know of) that throw out history and make up their own dates for easily one of the best-attested periods of the ancient world. You could probably find a Watchtower publication stating their 'reasoning' for declaring that the entire universe (literally, since simple astronomy is one of the many things against them) is off by 20 years and they're right, but I don't know if that's what you were looking for. If you were looking for a historical source indicating 607 BC, though, you ain't gonna find it, because it just didn't happen that year. It happened in 587 BC (or maybe 586, but I'm pretty sure it was 587). Heck, you can even derive that year from their own publications (look at http://quotes.watchtower.ca/607bce.htm and http://quotes.watchtower.ca/607bce-table.htm if you don't believe me), and they haven't provided even a bullshit explanation as to how in the hell that year would be wrong, they just declare that it is and they're right, and we don't question these infallible old geezers that are tight with God, do we? The discovery of this has even led to Governing Body members resigning, not to mention that it convinced me that they were just another false religion.

If you happen to have any interest in all the historical evidence for 587 BC and against anything else, I can provide you links to read for hours and hours and hours. There's even books you can buy (heck, I think "Gentile Times Reconsidered" is even listed in this article).Tommstein 21:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The question was regarding sources for why JWs claim the dates they do, which there are plenty of, not an invitation for you to get up on a soapbox to express why you disagree with JWs' dates. The question of sources for JWs' interpretation is a valid one, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. -- uberpenguin 21:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, and as I stated, you could find Watchtower publications where they pretty much declare that that's how it is and that's that, if that was what was being looked for, but there are no sources to be found elsewhere, should that be what was being looked for, and I went into detail as to why that was so. I don't think it was specified where it was desired that these sources come from, whether from Watchtower BS or from actual historical sources. If you don't like hearing facts, go back to the Kingdom Hall and off Wikipedia (an encyclopedia, oh no!).Tommstein 21:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It was merely a friendly reminder to stay on topic since that is a major issue with discussing this article. The sarcasm is neither warranted nor appreciated; you can make your point without it. -- uberpenguin 22:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Then I apologize. Your post didn't exactly read like a friendly reminder to me, but if that's all it was, I'm sorry.Tommstein 22:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

And many apologies on my part for deleting your apology. :) I replying below at the same time you did, which brought up the edit conflict page, and I didn't notice your earlier apology. WP's system for edit conflicts is kinda ugly. (Ohh... I just noticed what happened; I hit "Save" twice) -- uberpenguin 23:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, cool. I agree, Wikipedia's edit conflict resolution is what we can just call "lacking" and leave it at that. There's no reason so much manual work should be done. I cringe in expectation of that page every time I make a long edit.Tommstein 23:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who posted this topic. I figured out how to create an account. I do not believe that 607 BC was the year of destruction of Solomon's Temple. I simply stated it is a major teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses. It practically defines the religion, as almost all of their statements of modern day fulfillment of Bible prophecy hinges on 607 BC being the year of the Temple's destruction. The section on beliefs should include this pivotal teaching. The fact that the teaching is directly at odds with all secular historians in no way changes the fact that this teaching is a pivotal teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses. Is WP wanting to pick and choose only those key beliefs that do not contradict mainstream Christianity? From a NPOV standpoint, the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses is that Solomon's Temple was destroyed in 607 BC instead of 587/586 BC --Evident 22:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything to the contrary? Their belief is certainly that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, and the article should definitely say so. Although I'm not sure what NPOV has to do with this either way, it's just a statement of what they believe, pure and simple. Now, if we were in the article about Jerusalem or something and someone tried to whip out that it was destroyed in 607 and cried about it when it got rightfully yanked 13 seconds later, that would be a whole different game.Tommstein 22:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

To directly address your question, I think the reason that no sources have been provided is that most of the editors that watch this article know very well that the date is indeed pivotal to JWs (as Tommstein indicated), and simply write the article on that assumption. (and probably because most of their time with this article is spent arguing minute details rather than doing a lot of productive work *sigh*) A detailed explanation might be viewed as of less than general interest (there are already several JW-related articles since this one would be far too long and boring if it included all the information they do) or, more likely, nobody has thought to write one yet. If you think that an explanation of why JWs endorse this date is beneficial to the clarity of the article, I'd be happy to do some research on the matter for you. Personally I think a detailed discussion of JWs' view of Bible chronology is unnecessary in this article, but might make a suitable additional article (seems like there would already be one...). -- uberpenguin 22:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, Uberpenguin. I agree that this article should be constrained to the facts of their religion, not the reasoning used to arrive at those. I have begun writing an article offline to establish the JW basis for 607 BC, 1874, 1878, 1914, 1925, and 1975, it will be posted as soon as have at least 607 BC and 1874 completed.--Evident 01:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Practical Reasons for Obfuscating Religious Doctrine

I think it is important to be aware, in our approach to these articles, that every religion has doctrines it considers to be "uncomfortable subjects." Catholics are usually not comfortable discussing the issue of celibacy or the issue of the Ever-Virgin status of Mary. Muslims (in the Western world) are usually not comfortable discussing the issues of the position of women in Muslim society. These are issues that make recruitment and acceptance of the religion more difficult and there is automatic environmental pressure to play down aspects that may be widely considered negative—even if they are factual.

The fact that there are doctrines that religions try to bury in rhetoric and double-talk is not surprising in the least. Neither is it surprising to me when individual constituents of a religion are unable to discern where those doctrines are in their own faith. I think that the forest/trees syndrome is clouding the judgement of otherwise reasonable and sensible people in this project team, as some who are particularly outraged by a particular doctrine post reams of quotes that hide the core doctrine in rhetoric (easily decipherable by anyone outside the religion) and those who are still faithful adherents are unwilling to even glance at the worst aspects of their doctrine.

I ask uberpenguin to consider carefully what has been written regardin the man with the secretary's inkhorn. Everyone who does not receive the mark, what will happen to them? What is the criteria for receiving the mark? Which babies and children will receive the mark and which will not?

If you answer these three questions honestly, according to what is available on the WT Library CD-ROM you will free up a lot of time and we can delete the bulk of two HUGE arguments from the dataset.

PLEASE NOTE, this addition is not an invitation to start the argument up again. This is a reasoned and fair appeal for consideration of a specific point, and I beg that this request for noble-mindedness be respected. Respectfully, Evident 01:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair-mindedness on a subject people care deeply about one way or the other is a difficult state to find, even for those that are otherwise very equanimous. You rarely find such "fair minded" articles about JWs from any source at all. From time to time I think this article has a strong case for being one, but that assessment swings just as my general love/hate relationship with the entire wiki concept does. However, I totally agree with your assessment, which is why I'm trying to avoid the previous futile tactics here of posting pages upon pages of quotes until the entire point of the conflict is lost. I'll be doing my research. Thanks for taking an interest; it's easy to lose all desire to create a fair-minded article when you realize you're sitting in an endless pile of quotes. -- uberpenguin 02:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Resources Critical of the Group

An IP address (210.185.94.93) added this resource and did not discuss its addition:

• A Muslim Guide to Countering Jehovah's Witnesses A site that displays scanned materials of past Watchtower and Awake magazines to illustrate the failed prophecies of Jehovah's

I corrected the title to match the one on the linked page (the first one did not match at all), but if we allow every site that is critical of Jehovah's Witnesses the article will double in size. I am not advocating censorship, but I don't think that insisting on some discussion of a specific site before addition is unreasonable. Perhaps I am off-base, I am still learning the ropes. Respectfully, Evident 18:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Central, for making the call on that one. Respectfully, Evident 20:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

On the subject, isn't all of this a little extreme? If you go to the Wikipedia article for the Catholic Church, from what I have seen, not one reference is made to the sexual molestation of young boys by priests, but in this article nearly every scandal by every member of the organization is mentioned here and there is even this "Resources Critical of the Group" section.

People in the discussion page are even saying that the article is still too bias towards the group, and yet no religious organization on Wikipedia seems so heavily scrutinized. [[User:|User:]]

Look through the pages and pages of archives and you'll quickly realize why. As someone recently put it, there aren't many third party scholars on JWs except those that already have some bias; either as a current practicing JW or an embittered ex-JW. Contrast this with a large denomination like Catholicism, for which there are a great number of more or less unbiased third part scholars. -- uberpenguin 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, all ex-Jehovah's Witnesses must be bitter. Way to try to paint everyone with one big dumb brush. My ESP tells me that you would be most displeased if someone were to refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as 'ignorant numbnuts' or anything remotely similar, despite the fact that that one is probably demonstrably more true.Tommstein 06:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The trend is certain enough for the generalization to be fairly safe... I'm sure that you are well aware that there are very few people that leave JWs on 'good terms' compared to other religions (and note, by 'leave' I'm not including inactive persons, since most of them generally still consider themself more or less JWs). Anyway, even for the small demographic of editors of this article I believe the term 'bitter' is more than apt. Disagree if you will, it's only one lowly person's opinion of course. -- uberpenguin 13:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Associating With Disfellowshipped Individuals

If baptized JW chooses to unrepentantly associate with a disfellowshipped individual that is not a family member, they are likely to be disfellowshipped. They are unlikely to be disfellowshipped just for associating with a close rlative, as the article currently states. Evident 05:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

DannyMuse knows this. In fact, he provided the reference that shows it. He just ignored the inconvenient part of the sentence, just as he's doing now. He's in full "theocratic warfare" mode now. Bothering him with them bothersome, snooty 'facts' is pointless. Look at the 16 pages I've spent trying to tell him this very same thing in the Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses Talk page.Tommstein 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This discussion often reminds me on the fact that JWs (of higher position?) are discussing here with us disfellowshipped about spiritual matters. How do they bring it in line with their belief?--Mini 06:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever accused him of knowing his own religion very well (or maybe he just plays the 'stupid' role just for us). He probably doesn't even know that he's not supposed to be associating, let alone discussing 'spiritual' things, with apostates and other disfellowshipped people. Oh, to be able to let the other elders in his congregation in on his little secret online double-life persona.Tommstein 07:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Tommstein: Interesting. Just so I can be clear, are you admitting that you are an apostate or are you one of the "other disfellowshipped people"? Because--as you pointed out--that would definitely change how I would deal with you. Looking forward to your clarification. --DannyMuse 13:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for asking that dumbass ad hominem question, I'm not going to answer it. Let's get something straight here, pal, you have zero authority over anyone or anything on Wikipedia. Do you understand me? You might make your wife and kids and the poor bastards that got stuck with you as a sorry excuse for 'spiritual leadership' bow to you and your 'awesome' elderly power and your kangaroo courts and your ability to play God, but here you are a big nothing. In fact, if knowledge is the currency of an encyclopedia, you're in the hole big-time, buddy. You don't run judicial committees on Wikipedia, and you don't interrogate people on Wikipedia. Got that? Good.Tommstein 14:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not disfellowshipped and I know this organization inside and out, why can he not discuss this with me? If a baptized JW unrepentantly associates with a disfellowshipped person they are not related to, they WILL be disfellowshipped. My cousin is a perfect example. His friend of 20 years was disfellowshipped, my cousin had a farewell meal with him after his disfellowshipping. My cousin refused to apologize for it and was disfellowshipped.

Well, DannyMuse? The decision was upheld on appeal. Why do you say individuals can associate with disfellowshipped ones without fear of expulsion? What is your basis for continuing to revert Tommstein's edits on this point? More to the point, why do you continue to rvt other editor's contributions without discussion? I am starting to think that you feel spit-shining your religion is a solemn duty before God and that you are being persecuted by those who challenge you for basis for what you say.

Please review the November 15, 1963 Watchtower article that starts on page 688 (Execution of Divine Judgment upon False Religion). Take special notice of paragraph 3, and please consider ceasing the very egoistic impression you are giving onlookers. The message you seem to be giving is that Jehovah's Witnesses are somehow divinely beyond challenge for basis. Respectfully, Evident 13:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Evident, I reviewed the reference you cited. What, may I ask, does that have to do with the subject under discussion, "Associating With Disfellowshipped Individuals"? Looking forward to your clarification. --DannyMuse 04:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

DannyMuse the reference has to do with my perception that you are battling to keep certain facts about your religions doctrines from surfacing in these pages. But the facts are neutral, it is only your opinion of how they will be perceived that makes them POV in your mind. The facts posted do not contradict reality, they contradict the impression you want strangers to have of your religion. I wanted you to read that article so you could see for yourself that stating truth is not a bad thing. Using that article as a frame of reference, I hope to show you that letting a really real picture of this religion (warts and all) flow onto these Wikipedia pages is only a bad thing if the religion is not true.

For instance, if I associate with my brother (who is disfellowshipped) in any setting outside of "necessary family matters" (eating a meal in a public restaurant, going to a movie, playing miniature golf, bowling, etc.) I could be disfellowshipped. And I need only do it once without feeling remorse for doing so to trigger that consequence. You know that what I say is true, yet you refuse to allow that factual reality stand starkly on the page without any pretty embellishments from you to make it seem like a better doctrine than it actually is. Are you embarrassed by facts about your religion? If not, let them stand. Be proud of them. I am not trying to make you feel ashamed of your beliefs, you are acting as though you are ashamed of your religion by your continual reversions to a "watered down" version of their policies.

On page 154, under the subheading Announcement of Disfellowshipping, Organized to Do Jehovah's Will 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?

I don't see any wiggle room there, DannyMuse. You see, power corrupts. It is a truth of humanity. "Man dominates man to his injury." "Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs." There are exceptions to the rule, and you very well may be one. But, among us mere mortals the degree of authority permitted tends to be just a little bit shy of the authority actually exercised. Elder bodies are no exception to that truth.

I'm willing to admit I may be wrong. Where is your source material showing it is okay for me to associate with my brother at all beyond "necessary family matters?" And if that is the limitation on association with my flesh-and-blood, where would I be expected to draw the line with anyone else? Please, be specific and cite source. In my opinion, this tip-toe around the issue is beneath you. Respectfully, Evident 05:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether anyone is disfellowshipped or not, he can either discuss things on Wikipedia or he can leave Wikipedia. It should be pretty blatantly obvious by now that, as you say, he feels that it is his solemn duty before God to spit-shine his most-unsavory religion, and that he doesn't think he has to answer to anybody on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what else he could possibly do to drive that point home farther. "Theocratic warfare" (i.e. lying and deceiving), as they call it, and in fact have a religious duty to do. It's a variation of the old 'see, I acted like a dumbass and pissed everybody off, and now that everyone is good and pissed at me, what more proof do I need that Satan is behind them and I'm right and that God is behind me and is going to kill all them homo infidels?' By the way, note that he has posted on this page since you posted that, but has completely ignored what you said, which is his standard response to anything he can't defend against (which you already know, but I just thought I would point it out yet again, since I'm talking about that in this very paragraph).Tommstein 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did think it was odd that he failed to respond to the point I raised. However, he also did not revert your edit again. Maybe that was a form of comment. Tommstein, I think you are being successfully baited by a master at the art. I think that it would be hard to establish ad hominem from DannyMuse without knowing how JWs go about insulting and bullying each other. But it would be easy to prove ad hominem from you and I suspect this may be intentionally done. It might do you well to keep in mind that although elders don't have authority on Wikipedia they are highly skilled at the art of lovingly getting people to hang themselves on their own words. As a friendly caution (and I'm sure it chafes), don't take the bait. I would recommend apology at this point. Respectfully, Evident 15:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Evident, I didn't respond to you because, 1) I am busy and only edit WP when I have the time and the inclination, and 2) I missed your question. 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 edited:

• "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)

If person A is disfellowshipped for presenting well-researched information to the elders that conflicts with the Society's views, and then person B, a Witness, continues to associate with person A, then person B would be interrogated by the elders and subject to disfellowshipping if they continue to not shun the innocent ex-member, even though neither persons A nor B have taken any "wrongful course". This presents issues with both association with 'disfellowshipped' ones, and with free speech. Additionally, the Society does indeed forbid even greeting a disfellowshipped person.--Jeffro77 05:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure he reverted it, I just fixed it again, presumably after he left since he hasn't edited anything since. I wouldn't consider him a master at baiting people, just a master at pissing people off and then crying 'Persecution!' when it all comes home to roost. It's not hard to establish his attempted ad hominem attacks either (had I fallen for them); he explicitly stated that he was going to start acting differently based on who I was or wasn't, like he's in some kind of higher caste and I would be beneath his dignity or something (which is what prompted me to inform him of just where exactly he stands here and just how important he is on Wikipedia, contrary to his belief that he doesn't have to talk to anyone on Wikipedia). If that's not ad hominem, nothing is. This dude's not talented at squat. There's nothing to apologize for; if someone goes around intentionally pissing people off and acting like they own Wikipedia and can do whatever they want, then people have every right to tell them to stop pissing people off and playing God of Wikipedia.Tommstein 16:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to add some meaningless stuff: my JC started with a mingling of me and some exJWs.--Mini 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why the discussion. There is no question that associating with disfellowshipped people is grounds for being disfellowshipped. If Danny Muse is an elder he is aware of this. In Pay Attention to Yourself and to All The Flock p103 it shows this principle can even be extended to relatives "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." As there is nothing stated in the bible about d/f a person associating with a d/f person the reason given is that it comes under loose conduct. If Danny wants to withhold information and preach propoganda it should be done house to house, not in an encyclopedia.

Not only was he shown that very quote about, oh, a cool 700 times, but he is the person who found it, although conveniently leaving out the first four words, which send his argument straight to the bottom of the sea. Can't say it helped get him to stop lying about it though, even a little; it's like there was a little chipmunk sitting on his connection between him and Wikipedia removing that quote from all pages he viewed and making sure that he never saw it no matter how many times it was brought up.Tommstein 08:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

IP 138.37.159.246, explanation of adjustments/deletion of your contributions

Firstly, your modifications were unsourced. Without demonstration of your point any editor can modify your content at will. We try to keep the number of revisions to a minimum as it impacts bandwidth and storage of the articles.

I will take each thing you changed in turn (since you modified extensively) and let you know why it was changed back or modified:

These legal battles have also had a significant effect on other organisations and groups of people in promoting freedom of speech and worship.

This change is POV as stated, it had to be qualified by a negative POV or be removed to achieve NPOV. I chose adding a negative POV to balance the two.

• Teaching authority is only possessed via the portion of the 144,000 still living (remnant), as a group, although Jesus is recognised as the Head of the Congregation.

I removed this portion. You may add it back as long as you realize that any errors in teaching are logically either the direct fault of Jesus Christ or due to Jesus' inability to communicate clearly, per your statement. I think you'd rather leave it out.

You removed: This was followed by an inspection period of all Christian Churches and Jehovah's Witnesses were chosen by Jesus in 1919 as the only true Christian organization.

I edited to read: Jesus invisible enthronement as King of Heaven in 1914 was followed by an inspection period of all Christian Churches and Jehovah's Witnesses were chosen by Jesus in 1919 as the only true Christian organization. (Watchtower May 1, 1993 p. 16, 17 paragraphs 4-8)

You may not think this fact of your religion's beliefs is a positive fact, however it remains a fact. It may not attract more adherents, yet facts are automatically NPOV. please be extremely cautious about removing facts from the articles on Wikipedia. You will quickly get an undesirable reputation.

Belief that all others who have rejected Jehovah will be destroyed.

This has already been exhaustively discussed, the doctrine of the man with the secretary's inkhorn is plain. It leaves no room for anything short of active siding with Jehovah as a mark of salvation. I cited the references in the current version. Again, consider your religion's doctrine carefully before leaping to the conclusion that someone was wrong in their contribution.

Not celebrating common religious or national holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas due to pagan origins.

Not celebrating birthdays due to pagan origins. (Genesis 40:20-22; Mark 6:19-27)

These were so similar there is no need to separate them. According to Jehovah's Witnesses usage of the term "pagan," there are pagan origins with the majority of customs surrounding weddings and marriage, Wedding Anniversaries, wedding cakes, the wedding ring, the finger the ring is placed on, the ring bearer, the honeymoon, carrying over the threshold, tying cans to the bumper of a car, etc.

There are no pagan origins associated with national Thanksgiving Day celebrations in most countries. Birthday are rejected because the Bible mentions two birthdays where people happened to die, not because of pagan origins. The Bible does not comment on whether birthdays were observed by others or not, it is neutral on the subject of birthdays. I removed both inferences of pagan orgins. Add them back if you wish, but if you do I will add the wedding customs that persist and their pagan origins.

Willful violations and a subsequent unrepentant attitude can result in disfellowshipping.

I shortened to "Unapologetic violations can result in ..." Repentance or its lack is entirely subjective and is therefore inherently POV.

Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who disagree with bible doctrine become apostate...

In my opinion this is offensive to the intellect of the reader. The Bible does not have a doctrine on cigarette smoking, one way or the other. The Bible does not have a doctrine on Birthday celebrations one way or the other. The doctrine of a "Faithful and Discreet Slave" that is a class of people is based on one verse that could more easily describe an individual or individuals. But the doctrine exists despite the absence of Biblical support. The Judicial Committee is completely absent from the Bible, the concept isn't even there. Reporting of activity in ministry to a centralized group who dutifully records and evaluates the activity is absent from the Bible as well. I can name dozens more.

I reworded that contribution to read: Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who unapologetically disagree with organizational doctrine are labeled apostate.

I used "labeled" because that is exactly what happens. They are accused of apostasy if they publicly disagree with the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses, whether their beliefs differ with the Bible or not. See your Pay Attention book for source: "Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." (Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock p. 94)

Rejection of evolutionas being the origin of life. (Genesis 1:11, 12)

Evolution does not claim to be the origin of life. It doesn't even address origin of life. Evolution describes the origin of species, as in speciation. If you don't know the meaning of the terms listed, you might want to avoid modifying contributions that include them in the future.

Women should be submissive to their husbands as both are to be to the Christ. Husbands are to have deep respect and love for their wives as they do their own bodies. The husband is the head of the family but is to discharge that headship in line with following Jesus' example (1 Corinthians 11:3)

"Jesus' example" is not a "thing" that is clearly defined enough to qualify the point of the Scripture. The husband is the head of the family. If, in his perception, Jesus would kill someone for mouthing off wouldn't he be following Jesus' example to kill his wife? If, in his perception, Jesus would be fawning and obsequious to his wife wouldn't he be following Jesus example to let his wife run things? I removed it because what it means to follow Jesus' example is entirely subjective.

Feel free to discuss all or any of my changes to your contributions. Respectfully, Evident 16:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Date: November 1, 2005

You made the following edit:

• While advocating freedoms of expression by religions as organizations, Jehovah's Witnesses have drawn sharp criticism for their stern rejection of those who freely express religious views that conflict with those they promote. "Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." (Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock p. 94 Apostasy) Some see such doctrine as evidence that Jehovah's Witnesses are diametrically opposed, as an organization, to the very concept of individual religious freedom that they argue in favor of before courts.

became

• While advocating freedoms of expression by religions as organizations, Jehovah's Witnesses view those who express religious views that conflict with those they promote whilst still attempting to continue in the organisation as being apostate and to be avoided/shunned.

While I left most of your text in place, with a couple of minor changes for accuracy of statement and agreement with the quoted primary source, you seriously breached the rule of Wikipedia regarding sources. You removed a source from the text without discussion. I believe it was unintentional, your edit was much easier to read and conveyed the same general idea as previously with fewer words and simpler construction. You took an amalgam of edits and condensed it nicely.

The text currently reads:

• While advocating freedoms of expression by religions as organizations, Jehovah's Witnesses view those who freely express religious views that conflict with those they promote as being apostate and to be avoided/shunned. "Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." (Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock p. 94 Apostasy)

I restored the source and made a couple of minor changes to your text. Jehovah's Witnesses believe, for instance, the Catholic Church is apostate. The Catholic Church has never been part of Jehovah's Witnesses, nor do they wish to remain part of the organization. Likewise, many who formally disassociate themselves yearly are labeled "apostates." They obviously do not wish to remain part of the organization, they disassociated themselves.

The primary source states, in unequivocal terms, what the view of Jehovah's Witnesses is. I added "freely" back into the text because 1) that is the bridging phrase between paragraphs and 2) Witnesses aren't viewed as apostates unless they are freely expressing their views, i.e. "deliberately spreading" them. Please use the discussion pages, especially if you are thinking of removing primary sources. Respectfully, Evident 14:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Early Bible students and 1878

The early Bible students taught that Christ's Millennial Reign began in Heaven in 1878. The second paragraph of the article contains an outright untruth.

"From their beginnings, the 'Bible Students' as they were known, focused their evangelizing work on proclaiming the Millennial Reign of Christ would soon begin and destroy the present 'system of things' (including religious organizations and governments)."

It is not true. Firstly, they were not known as the Bible students from their beginning. Secondly, active evangelizing work of the "Millennial Dawnists" or "Russellites" began in 1881 (according to the Proclaimers p. 404) which was three years AFTER the Millennial Reign began. The publications named Millennial Dawn (later called "Studies in the Scriptures") made that teaching a central theme. They were teaching that Christ's Millenial reign had already begun, they weren't teaching that it would soon begin.

They were teaching it would soon destroy the present "system of things." In 1914, to be exact. In fact, as late as 1939 that was still the teaching—the world of Satan ended in 1914. I will correct this portion to reflect factual history instead of desired history. Respectfully, Evident 23:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Dang, that's a whopper of a lie that you caught there. Although the fact that the Watchtower Society itself lies about that very topic undoubtedly doesn't help anyone wanting to learn their history if they only stick to their bogus version of it instead of doing outside research on their own.Tommstein 08:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Quotes lawsuit

DannyMuse, here is the applicable claim from the Statement of Claim: "31. The Defendant’s main purpose in operating the website is...to try to embarrass the Plaintiffs."

I hope that clears that up. I agree that embarrassment is not a tort. At least not under any system of law I am familiar with outside of playground law. However, there it is in the claim. Respectfully, Evident 06:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I revised it in an effort to make it more complete. There are a number of claims. Quoting only one seemed unbalanced and POV. --DannyMuse 15:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Heresy or heresy

In the "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses" section, is heresy really supposed to be capitalized?Tommstein 09:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Tommstein, typically "Heresy" refers only to opposition to dogma of the Catholic Church. The preferred usage would be "heresy" for any other use, unless the writer is using wit to liken the heresy to that against Catholic dogma, or the reaction to it is being likened to the reaction by the Catholic Church in past times. I would personally consider either capitalized use as POV and antagonistic, much as calling a particular view or practice a "Nazi" view or practice would be. But that is just one opinion. Respectfully, Evident 14:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Catholics get their Heresies capitalized? Who made them cool and special?Tommstein 14:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I suppose it is the privilege that arises from being first out of the gate. I don't really know how it got that way but, except in satire, the preferred use would be "heresy" unless it refers to a Heresy against Catholic dogma. Since Wikipedia is obviously no place for satire, it should be lowercased in most cases. Respectfully, Evident 15:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, it should be lowercase here. I'll change it in a moment if you haven't already done it. I just didn't know that Catholic Heresies were afforded the honor of being capitalized. I guess it's the least we can do for them, considering the Inquisition, the holding of civilization back for at least a thousand years, etc.Tommstein 16:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

DannyMuse and the Problem of Sources

DannyMuse, so there is no confusion on your part, here is the edit in question.

• "Like it or not, Jehovah's Witnesses have done more to help preserve our freedoms than any other religious group." --Irving Dilliard.

I removed it, you restored it calling the removal "obviously POV." My removing this quoted opinion expressed by an author/editor in ... gosh, from what is provided I can't verify he ever said that can I? But, I digress. My removal had nothing to do with POV or NPOV. Attribution is not the same as sourcing, except as defined in closed societies that do not concern themselves with trifles like "accuracy of statement."

I followed Wikipedia policy. I could not independently verify (even on exhaustive search within my means) any source for this quote beyond an assertion that it came from "a speech" on a campus. Once I found I could not verify the quote, I deleted it.

Whether or not you initially posted the quote, as an editor of Wikipedia you have an obligation to source it if you EVER restore it to the page because: It wasn't there until you put it back, so you may as well have initially added it. Please SOURCE your edits.

Part of the reason for sourcing is that it is possible to take comments grossly out of context. The book "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?" is full of unsourced quotes taken out of context, if you would like an example of what I mean.

What is the source of this quote? How can I independently verify that this was ever said by Irving Dilliard if you do not source the quote? I don't know why an author/editor's POV comment has any weight, but that is a separate discussion. This quote was removed because it was unsourced. Any editor can do that, it wasn't a POV removal. It was an editor's removal. Please learn to critically analyze for proper sourcing. Your accusation of POV removal was attributing bad motive to me and was undeserved. Evident 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification regarding format and content

In response to Evident's comments above I am reposting my 5 August 2005 comments on sourcing and formatting of those sources. The complete comments are available in Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 15:

FORMATTING: [T]he Wikipedia: Cite sources article says, "… inline references to web pages … [are] … much better than not citing your sources at all.” While that's certainly true, I was aiming for something better than “better than nothing”. That same article also makes clear, “There are several disadvantages with such embedded links, however. Such links do not normally provide all the information that a traditional citation would have; thus, if the material moves or is dramatically changed, it can be very difficult to rediscover the cited material. … For these reasons, embedded HTML links are discouraged as a choice of citation format.”

Wikipedia:Cite sources has these guidelines for citations: “All references should be collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. List the complete reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one per reference work. A numbered reference list, although common in many publications, is currently discouraged in Wikipedia; see below for discussion of this.” This is general format that I am currently after. So what should be included?

• Amount of citation detail – “A citation should include enough information to allow a reader to find your sources. In particular, be sure to give page numbers or section numbers of a lengthy work if only a small portion is referenced (and it is not immediately obvious where to look). Sometimes, you may want to give a more complete explanation of how you know something, or why your sources are credible.”

As a general example, please see the Notes and references section of the WP Intelligent design article.

Obviously this article has a variety of different source types. For specific examples of citation styles see examples of citation styles in the Wikipedia:Cite sources article.

CONTENT - Use Reliable Sources: Far more important than format concerns is the issue of the source of the citation. The Wikipedia:Cite sources article states when you add content “provide all the information necessary to find the original source.” (Emphasis added).

The article, Wikipedia:Reliable sources advises, “Wikipedia articles should use reliable sources. Edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor. (Emphasis added).

There are several source types: primary source, secondary, tertiary. When editing WP we need to avoid hearsay, and get close to the source. “When reporting on objective facts, Wikipedia articles should cite primary and secondary sources whenever they exist.” Obviously, primary sources are to be preferred and when they are available they should be used. There are many references in this article by secondary sources and should be replaced by the primary source. That’s just good editing. For these reasons I will continue to insist on using primary sources when they exist. (Emphasis added).

Does this mean that we shouldn't use secondary sources? No, but when using secondary sources we need to exercise caution. The following question is particularly helpful when evaluating secondary sources for reliability and appropriateness:

• Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?

Regarding using online sources it is vital that you don't drop your guard. “Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in.”

“Personal websites and weblogs are not acceptable as sources. Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They are at the lowest end of the reliability scale and … should be treated accordingly — with significant skepticism. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane … .”

“Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political or religious website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group.”

• Note: all quotations are from either the Wikipedia:Reliable sources or the Wikipedia:Cite sources article.

As I wrote previously, there are currently many links throughout the article that could/should be changed to this format. I can’t do it all myself. The assistance and cooperation of all editors to this article would be greatly appreciated. I hope this helps clear things up! --DannyMuse 19:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC); reposted 4 December 2005

Why not just link to WP:CITE rather than clogging up the talk page with duplicate information that everyone has access to anyway? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1874 and 1878

Dtbrown, if the article isn't clear that they don't hold to 1874 and 1878 any more, by all means, feel free to clarify that however you wish. Or I (or anyone else) can do it if you want me to, either way.Tommstein 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the concern was addressed in Dtbrown's edit. Dtbrown just wanted to make sure that the reader's attention was drawn to the fact that the interpretation of "prophetic dates" (instead of "the Bible") had changed. That was the only part modified before my edit. It seemed to accomplish the goal, in my book. But I agree with you, if Dtbrown still feels that needs more clarification, I'm all for it. Respectfully, Evident 03:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Changed" is a good edit, IMO. DTBrown 03:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Visible & Dramatic Return

I'm just figuring out this talk page, so bear with me...

The article currently states:

In the group's early period, during the late 1800s, Jehovah's Witnesses (then called Bible Students) believed that the return of Jesus Christ would be a visible, dramatic and world shattering event, a position also commonly held among many Christian groups.

It was my understanding that post 1874, Barbour and Russell and the later Bible Students did not believe in a 'visible' and 'dramatic' return of Christ but held it was invisible. Do we need to clear this up? DTBrown

I missed that entirely. Yes, that needs to be addressed. Here is the history:

They believed that Christ would return/returned invisibly in 1874. That would begin a 40-year day of our Lord that would culminate in 1914 with Armageddon, Lord returns with a flaming fire visibly. They believed that the visible and dramatic return would be at Armageddon in 1914, when Christ would "wrest the earth" from Satan's control.

Would you like to try your hand at it? It will need thorough sourcing or it risks sanitization, that won't be a popular truth to display. And, WELCOME, since I forgot to do so earlier (tsk, no manners). Respectfully, Evident 03:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I am almost certain that the following will be off on a few technicalities, but I believe that their basic story back then was that the last days started in 1799, Jesus was enthroned in either 1874 or 1878 (not sure which it was exactly), and that Armageddon was coming in 1914, which would have definitely been visible. It seems to boil down to what we mean by "the return of Jesus Christ," whether his enthronement, his literal "coming" to whip butt at Armageddon, or some combination of the two.

P.S. I see that Evident beat me to the punch above in the time it took me to write this, but no sense in wasting a perfectly good paragraph that I already wrote.Tommstein 03:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry, Tommstein. But you are right about 1799 signalling the start of the Last Days. 1874 was invisible presence/return, 1878 (3½ years later, of course! D'oh!) was invisible enthronement in heaven. "Return" as taught by Russell/Barbour was 1874, but by 1881 Russell and Barbour had pretty much parted company (no pun intended). Evident 04:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Did they believe that there would be a visible and dramatic return at Armageddon? My understanding was that Barbour had held to a visible return for 1873, and then changed that to 1874. Then soon afterwards he accepted the idea that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874. In agreement with this, Barbour (and later Russell) denied that Christ's fleshly body had been resurrected. Therefore, they believed he did not have a physical body which could be seen at the Second Coming (Presence) or at Armageddon.

I do believe the Bible Students were expecting a rapture or translation of the saints and that they would see Christ as they were changed at that time. But, did they believe the world would see Christ? Anyone with other thoughts on this? DTBrown 04:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a source from a 1908 Watchtower that indicates what they were expecting in the next 10 years or so:

http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r4232b.htm

This was a Father's letter to his infant son for him to read on his 10th birthday in 1916.

It mentions many things but I don't see a "visible" return of Christ. DTBrown 04:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Dtbrown, I like how you edited that paragraph. You added extra details and precision and good stuff like that. I'm not an expert in all the finer details of their beliefs at that time, but not a single factual error stood out to me either. If there's anything wrong, undoubtedly someone will come along and let us know, but it sure looks good for now.Tommstein 05:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't an actual letter. It also wasn't a compendium of their view of Chronology in 1909. At that time, they still believed (taught) that Armageddon would shortly precede the resurrection of the ancient worthies, which resurrection was due to occur in 1915. They expected Armageddon in late 1914, which was why the announcement was made on October 14: "The Gentile times have ended, their kings have had their day."

• At the present time your dear mother and myself are in good health, and the affairs of the world are moving along in about the same general way as they have always moved within my lifetime. The world in general expects it to continue in this way indefinitely, and yet, looking at matters through the Lord's Word, I know that when this letter is read your papa and mamma will have passed from earthly scenes forever, and the great time of trouble, "such as never was since there was a nation," will no longer be a matter of prophecy, but of history.

Even with this letter, they taught that by 1916 (when the kid opens the letter) the Great Tribulation would be over (including Armageddon).

And yes, it was expected to be dramatic and visible (every knee will bend, etc.). Respectfully, Evident 05:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I read and responded on the talk page before reading your updates on the page. I have read the edits. Beautifully done! Evident 05:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought Russell waltzed in there and made that announcement on like October 2. Not that it matters in the slightest. Although it does matter that by that time World War I was in full swing, making it kind of hard to blame it on Satan being kicked out of heaven if the war started before he was supposedly even booted down here. If Satan caused World War I when he was supposedly booted out of heaven, then the earliest it could have started was October 1914. Yet that's not how history went down.Tommstein 06:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize. You are right, Tommstein. It was October 2. Evident 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The name of God, Zambia and entertainment

I'm curious about three things the article says. 1: What is God's name in German? I'm learning that language but I don't know that word yet. 2: What is the source for 1% of Zambia's population being Witnesses? Time Almanac 2004 say 99% of Zambia is Christian, Hindu or Muslim with the remainder indigenous beliefs. Would Witnesses be considered Christians then? 3: I understand the encouragement to abstain from sexual or spiritualistic entertainment but not violent entertainment.--HistoricalPisces 19:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

1: Jehovah is transliterated in a similar fashion: Jehova [1].

2: Regardless of the almanac count, the Witness population is a direct correlation to the population of the country(-ies) named. One percent (1%) would be one Witness for every 100 Zambian.

Yes, the almanac would most likely consider the Jehovah's Witnesses as part of the 99% Christian population.--Jeffro77 05:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

3: Jehovah says in the Bible, "Anyone loving violence my soul certainly hates." Other passages condemn varoius acts of voilence. Jesus told his followers to 'turn the other cheek' when confronted with violence. Jehovah's Witnesses, while not pacifists stricly, follow the direction, "As far as is depends upn you, be peaceable with all men."

(Perhaps other Witnesses here can help me with the chapter and verse references...) - CobaltBlueTony 19:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

66.32.226.129, contribution needs source

66.32.226.129, your contribution needs a source for verification. I am pulling it as POV until it is sourced, but I am posting it here so you can copy and paste it back in once it is sourced. Keep in mind, the source must support the statement, "many mainline denominations" is too general for my tastes.

Here is your contribution: "However, the denomination is considered to be a cult by many mainline denominations because of doctrines that are viewed as heretical."

I agree with the statement, but as written it is (1) POV and is (2) positioning the paragraph as primary source. Both of these are disallowed by Wikipedia. Respectfully, Evident 02:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

68.111.174.23, please show cause for deletions

68.111.174.232, you aren't supposed to hack and slash what you don't like. Much of what you deleted has been discussed in the talk pages already. I am going to put it back up, please discuss your deletions when you make them.

• Jesus invisible enthronement as King of Heaven in 1914 was followed by an inspection period of all Churches and Jehovah's Witnesses were chosen by Jesus in 1919 as the only true Christian organization. (Watchtower May 1, 1993 p. 16, 17 paragraphs 4-8)

The inspection was only of Churches claiming to be Christian. The original comment was factually more correct.

• Jesus is mediator for all humanity. (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 7:25)

This is not true according to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (see 1989 Watchtower 8/15 Questions From Readers: Is Jesus the Mediator only for spirit-anointed Christians or for all mankind, since 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 speaks of him as the “mediator” who “gave himself a corresponding ransom for all”?)

• Worlwide Security Under the "Prince of Peace" chap. 1 pp. 10-11 The Desire for Peace and Security Worldwide
  
  16 Just as the ancient nation of Israel was in a covenant relationship with Jehovah God through the mediator Moses, so the nation of spiritual Israel, “the Israel of God,” has a covenant relationship through a mediator. (Galatians 6:16) It is as the apostle Paul wrote to his Christian fellow worker: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5) Was Moses the mediator between Jehovah God and mankind in general? No, he was the mediator between the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the nation of their fleshly descendants. Likewise, the Greater Moses, Jesus Christ, is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members. This spiritual nation is like a little flock of Jehovah’s sheeplike ones.—Romans 9:6; Revelation 7:4.

The original comment is factually correct regarding the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, whether you agree with their teaching or not.

You removed:

• Teaching authority is only possessed by the portion of the 144,000 still living (remnant), as a group. This group of the "remnant" is also referred to as the Faithful and Discreet Slave.

If you believe otherwise, please show where teaching authority is vested in someone else by Jehovah's Witnesses (Matthew 24:45-47), don't just delete it without showing cause. This belief is sourced thoroughly on the linked page Faithful and Discreet Slave.

My thoughts on this: Matthew 28:19, 20 is applied to all JWs in terms of their teching non-believers. Additionally, any JW considered to be spiritually mature can 'adjust with a spirit of mildness' his/her spiritual siblings. While technically the Governing Body's comments and positions are sometimes referenced, discussions are usually geared towards reasoning from comparative passages from the Bible. The GB's position is likewise reasoned upon by this method, so a similar pattern is followed by anyone teaching. - CobaltBlueTony 21:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• ...The "heavenly call" ended in 1935, later additions are replacements of disfellowshipped ones.

I will wait until I have time to find a source for this, I have seen this in Watchtower articles several times.

Removing contributions without showing cause is considered bad manners. Respectfully, Evident 05:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony, while I understand your feeling that way you must realize that if anyone teaches something outside the boundaries of Governing Body sanctioned teaching they risk exposure and discipline, possibly including disfellowshipping for apostasy unless they repent. Therefore, doctrinal authority (the JW equivalent of magisterium), commonly called "teaching authority" is only actually held by the Governing Body. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that anointed remnant is the source of the teachings, but actually it is only a very tiny subset of them. Obviously, any JW can teach, but if they teach anything other than what has been given from the Governing Body it is apostasy. Being a mouthpiece for Governing Body teachings is not a position of teaching authority.

"Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." (Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock p. 94 Apostasy)

In this context, "teachings...as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses" refers to the teachings received from the Governing Body. Therefore, teaching authority (the authority to determine what is taught and how it is taught) belongs to the Governing Body. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the Governing Body represents the Faithful and Discreet Slave in that effort. ("Trusting the 'Faithful and Discreet Slave'". Organized to Do Jehovah's Will. (2005). pp. 15-21) Primary sources don't seem to support a view allowing for everyone to have authority over what they teach. I would be delighted to report it, if that were the case. Respectfully, Evident 22:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  Evident, the same is true in any other organization of voluntary members, religious or otherwise. There is a central authority that has a final say. In the presentation and wording of this, you give the impression that members of the Governing Body are themselves considered to be the final authority, whereas JWs believe that, since any member can be removed no matter their office, it is the office, not the person, that is considered, not THE final authority, but the sole voice for consensus. That is, any doctrine can theoretically change, but this is not unilateral across all beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses are such because they have come to accept and align themselves to this particular set of beliefs, including the use of office of the Governing Body as the 'faithful slave' foretold by Jesus in Matthew 24:45.

Cooperation with the Governing Body and acceptance of its consensus is not intended to supress personal study, doubts, or conflict. Since Paul speaks of being 'fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought,' Jehovah's Witnesses accept that either the Bible is clear and specific on a certain matter, or it is not. And when it is not, it is possible to apply a guiding principle to arrive at a limited opinion. Moreover, depending on the significance of the issue and/or its affect on the spiritual safety and well-being of the flock, it is possible for the Governing Body to have an opinion that is not held as strictly as, say, the teaching of the ransom sacrifice.

Case in point (and someone can find the references for me as I'm at work now): Do extraterrestials exist? The Awake! concluded 'no'. Why? If they did, they would have either been perfect, or imperfect, subject to Adamic-like sin. If they were perfect, they could have been presented as a justification for the execution of Adam and Eve, being creatures of flesh that were perfectly capable of obedience. They could have been brought forth to Earth as evidence in some manner, though the standards of justice would have only been 'visible' to the heavenly realm. If they were imperfect, they would have needed a ransom sacrifice (and visibly so, as did humanity); yet Jesus Christ, the one deemed most qualified to volunteer, died 'once for all time.' Therefore, extreaterrestrial beings do not appear to exist. Now since this logic is based on extremely limited evidence (since the Bible does not even mention anything like extraterrestrial, with the obvious exception of angelic and demonic spirit creatures), a JW who said he thought they existed would most likely not be disfellowshipped -- unless his attitude or approach were confrontational or antagonistic.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not want to argue and fight. We realize that there are instances in which opinions may be held that do not harm the unity of the congregation. However, any antagonism can disrupt the peacefulness that is cherished by many who are drawn to become Jehovah's Witnesses. Resolutions must be reached, or at least a peacful acceptance of differences must be the closure. This is VERY important to Jehovah's Witnesses as a whole; they refer to their organization as a spirutal Paradise. Those who disrupt this either deliberately for their own interests, or as a consequence of thoughtlessness may be subject to disciplinary measures up to and including disfellowshipping. This is initiated, not out of fear of reprisal by the Governing Body, but out of a genuine dedication to the priciples which inspire this policy on the part of the local elders involved.

This article should reflect how faithful Jehovah's Witnesses in good standing genuinely feel about their beliefs; filtration of said beliefs through the grammar and wording of disaffected individuals paints the very POV-negative image that NPOV policies attempt to discourage. How Jehovah's Witnesses FEEL about their beliefs and their origins is central to defining who they ARE. This is how they wish to define themselves, not through wording that dilutes WHY they have come to certain conclusions in the first place. In this they are not like many other organizations which tolerate schisms and rifts. A Catholic is a church member who pays his dues, whether or not he agrees with, supports, or advocates the teachings of the Church. Other divisions of Christendom likewise have a very small core of beliefs that are considered immutable; most other things are open to debates and disagreements -- which lead to schisms, and variances from one member to another about some pretty intense topics. This unity of thought is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses as they are found throughout the world in different cultures, all sharing this same spirit and attitude about their beliefs.

I sincerely think it is a mistake to try to have non-Witnesses have authority over the wording of someone else's beliefs. Not that I'm accusing anyone of conscious malice. This article CAN be written in NPOV through observation without interpretations of [sometimes some very outdated] source material of people who may not understand Jehovah's Witnesses. There are plenty of non-Witness scholars who present information about JWs without showing favoritism or antipathy. Where is their work?

CobaltBlueTony, can you point us to where they are? I can't find any non-Witness scholars that the Witnesses accept as authoritative, but it would be great to include their info. Do you know any? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This point about the Governing Body as the "teaching authority", and the consequences of contradiction should be refined to illustrate the attitude of the ones presenting their viewpoints and the significance of their points, as well as the method and discretion they use, in terms of perserving the peace of the congregations. If material is being taken from books that were meant to be used by elders alone, then certainly the information I've described is present there in some from. I know from my own observation that discussion about differing opinions can be accomplished without showing disrespect, disrupting the peace, or contradicting the core beliefs.

Respectfully, CobaltBlueTony 16:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony, to me, the most bizarre thing about this discussion is that I am being told the exact same things by the body of elders currently "working with me" on this very issue of personal study, doubts, and conflicts. They also tell me to "shut up about it" and "keep it to myself." I obviously do not have teaching authority as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. In my efforts to damp down fires in my bones (Jeremiah 20:9) I have been inactive for a year waiting on a clear response from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. If I am around other people, I am going to talk about it.

• "Cooperation with the Governing Body and acceptance of its consensus is not intended to supress personal study, doubts, or conflict."

Punishment for failure to cooperate is intended to supress free expression of the results of personal study, doubts, or conflicts. Teaching authority belongs only to the Faithful and Discreet Slave. That someone can state they disagree with a minor point (aliens existing) without serious fear of disfellowshipping is not the same as saying that if they unrepentantly TAUGHT a disagreeing view, as truth, that they would not be disfellowshipped.

When it comes to questions like the one you raised (a blatant straw man) you're probably correct. However, what if someone raised the question of whether joining the UN/DPI as an Associate for 10-years constitutes apostasy and the commission of organizational spiritual adultery? Are we allowed to raise this question to others in the congregations? Even passingly?

Do you understand the difference between allowance for personal views and authority to teach those views? In my opinion, your response did not indicate that awareness.

• "This article should reflect how faithful Jehovah's Witnesses in good standing genuinely feel about their beliefs"

I disagree. It should reflect both how Jehovah's Witnesses feel about it and how it actually is. These are not always one and the same. Sometimes those who are in the middle of the trees have trouble seeing the forest.

• This point about the Governing Body as the "teaching authority", and the consequences of contradiction should be refined to illustrate the attitude of the ones presenting their viewpoints and the significance of their points.

The question I raised here is not belligerently raised, and I am happy to discuss it reasonably and respectfully with anyone. I would not be inactive but for this question, I would not have gotten accustomed to questioning the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses but for their responses to this question. The significance is plain to any Witness. Why don't you demonstrate what you claim happens by discussing this one: I say that voluntarily joining the UN/DPI as an Associate for 10-years—according to their own published teachings—constituted apostasy and the commission of organizational spiritual adultery.

• "Concerning those who renounced their Christian faith in his day, the apostle John wrote: 'They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.' (1 John 2:19) For example, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Isa. 2:4; Rev. 19:17-21) If a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, a brief announcement is made to the congregation, stating: '[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.' Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. The presiding overseer should approve this announcement." (Organized to Do Jehovah's Will, p. 155 paragraph 2)

• "THAT, in order to prevent the destruction of the nations by their own means in war, the nations further refused the surrender of their sovereignty to God’s Messianic kingdom by setting up a society of nations, which, since 1945, has taken the form and the name of the United Nations, with international headquarters at New York city. This international organization stands for world sovereignty by political men. For years men without faith in God’s kingdom have endeavored to get all people to worship this international image of human political sovereignty as the best hope for earthly peace and security, in fact, the last hope for humanity. To date 111 nations have given worship to this political image by becoming members of it. However, we, as witnesses of the Sovereign God Jehovah, will continue refusing to engage in such idolatrous worship, for we see, under angelic enlightenment, that God has smitten such idolaters with a malignant ulcer, symbolically speaking, that will spell death to them as spiritually diseased image worshipers who worship a man-made political creation rather than the Creator of heaven and earth;" ("The Resolution" November 15, 1963 Watchtower p. 685 paragraph 5)

I believe the applicable principles taught are unambiguous and have been long understood. I was told in no uncertain terms that the Governing Body is accountable to itself and to Jehovah, and that I am not owed a full explanation. I disagree. You seem to believe I was told incorrectly.

If you can produce anything more meaningful than "Wait on Jehovah," and "don't put off attending meetings," as a response you will have outdone two bodies of elders, four other elders they brought this up with, the Service Department of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and a Circuit Overseer. On this issue, I await your demonstration of your ability to discuss "differing opinions...without showing disrespect, disrupting the peace, or contradicting the core beliefs." Respectfully, Evident 20:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is an archived section of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. No further edits should be made to this page.