Jump to content

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Blood section

There are many statements in this section that defend the JW position on blood. The role of the article is to state their position, not to defend it. For example, statements such as 'transfusion patients requiring 24 hour monitoring' is not necessary or appropriate in this article.--Jeffro77 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that one crept in just recently. I would agree it (and some other points) need trimming. Dtbrown 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer has restored a footnote that I commented out. The footnote in question quotes a Watchtower article that says that voluntary recipients of blood transusions are not disfellowshipped. This is not current doctrine, and the footnote is therefore misleading. Removing the footnote does not significantly harm the point addressed, so the footnote should be removed.--Jeffro77 08:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, Reference material is supplied for purpose of specific verification. The 1958 reference is noteworthy because it verifies that even at this early point from the 1945 instigation of the Watchtower’s blood taboo, not all Jehovah’s Witnesses wholly endorsed it. In this case (the 1958 reference) the verification is such that it goes beyond merely voicing a divergence (as is found in the 1950 reference). It verifies that in practice not all Jehovah’s Witnesses wholly endorsed the blood doctrine. The other, additional, references show this remains the case until today. I want to reiterate something you, apparently, failed to grasp earlier when it was pointed out. The 1958 article is provided NOT to verify (or even discuss) whether a person is or is not subject to organized shunning under Watchtower rules. The 1958 article is specifically referenced in verification of a persisting failure among Jehovah’s Witnesses to wholly endorse the Watchtower’s blood taboo.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether such reference is for specific verification is subject to the value of the reference in contrast to the implication that such reference makes. The other references provided are sufficient to indicate that not all JWs agree with the JW position on blood transfusions. That being the case, the reference in question, which presents a view from JW sources that is not consistent with curernt JW doctrine, is not necessary - or appropriate - as the reference may mislead readers in regard to current JW position on the issue.--Jeffro77 11:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeffro77, The reference material implies nothing whatsoever other than what was contemporary at the time it was written. No responsible researcher would dare read a 50 year old reference as though it represented up to date policy. On the other hand, 50 year old written material is very useful for documenting whatever was historical for the period. If researchers were to apply your opinion to encyclopedic content it would present contemporary information without its historical context, which has great potential to suggest wrongheaded conclusions. Subjects with a historical root and a current status both need and deserve to have these expounded. We cannot form an encyclopedic content based on inferior skills of a readership. Encyclopedic content is that which is verifiable and objective information. On the other hand, quoted material from the 1958 reference did need paring down to the essential element of its usefulness. I edited accordingly.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Marvin, your edit shows that you understood what I was saying, and why I was saying it. And yet you posted the above rant anyway. Thank you for removing the unnecessary and misleading detail.--Jeffro77 02:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The blood section contains what appears to be a JW POV defense of their no-blood stance (wherein they seem to think that a theological proscription needs a evidence-based medicine risk management line of support):
"However, blood transfusions still pose risks and can lead to complications, including death"
While this statement is correct, when presented in a vacuum in this fashion it is misleading. The fact is: most -- perhaps all? -- medical procedures carry some risk. The question, which Drs. ask themselves every day, is what course of treatment minimizes risks to the patient overall? How do the risks of treatment compare to the risks of non-treatment? A more NPOV statement for this section would be
"However, like most medical procedures, blood transfusions pose risks and can lead to complications, including death." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.243.173.198 (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a religious objection or a medical one? I donated my blood for years, and I was once in need of a blood transfusion myself. As 63.243.173.198 says, every medical procedure involves a risk. Though they are tested procedures as well, and blood transfusions cannot be scientifically objected when they are properly done. But there can be a religious objection as well. About this, can science say anything valuable? I guess things cannot be mixed up here. The article talks about a religion, not about medicine. Horseshoekick 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and religious freedom

I just added the following to the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article...

In the period from 1938-1955, the Jehovah's Witnesses won 36 out of 45 religion-related court cases. These legal battles resulted in significant expansions in freedom of speech and religion in both countries.[1]

As I thought more about those two sentences, I started to realize that there should be an article on Jehovah's Witnesses and religious freedom and, finding none, I created one.

Here is the current text of the new article. Your help in expanding the article is requested.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have a long history of being the targets of antagonism from secular governments, primarily because of their positions with respect to other religions, saluting the flag, war involvement, voting, and other activities considered by the majority to be "patriotic". Opposition against them has been at times extremely violent, both in the Western nations as well as in the communist and totalitarian societies. In the United States of America and several other countries, the legal struggles of the Jehovah's Witnesses have yielded some of the most important judicial decisions regarding freedom of religion, press and speech.

--Richard 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have broadened the scope of the article and therefore have retitled it Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties. --Richard 15:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Moving info from Beliefs and practices to Blood or Controversy

This sentence:
" Medical procedures involving certain blood fractions are left to conscience, it is basically contradicting the fact that they believe abortion is murder, because not giving someone else blood is also like killing someone. [97] "
found in the beliefs and practices section is properly referenced and all, but doesn't necessarily relate to beliefs or practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith. I believe that this sentence should be moved to the section concerning blood or the one about controversy. What do you think? Icestorm815 04:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Something that deliberately inflammatory really should just be deleted. Refusing abortion and refusing blood transfusions are very different topics. Duffer 08:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and governments

I have proposed a merger of Jehovah's Witnesses and governments with Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses or Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties. Please express your opinions at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. --Richard 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Stafford no longer affiliated with Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

It appears that Greg Stafford is no longer affiliated with the JWs and I have edited the link to his book in "Further Reading" to reflect that. I leave to others to discuss the merits of continuing to include his book in the "Further Reading" section. For Stafford's status, see:

http://www.elihubooks.com/greg-stafford/Christian_Witnesses_of_Jah%20.htm

Dtbrown 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer: Stafford has not renounced his association with Jehovah’s Witnesses as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Indeed, he actually states, “We are Jehovah’s Witnesses!” (See: http://www.elihubooks.com/greg-stafford/Christian_Witnesses_of_Jah%20.htm) Yet Stafford clarifies his self-declaration by further stipulating, “I will no longer associate myself with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.” Hence, Stafford has not renounced Jehovah’s Witnesses, or his association with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Rather, he has renounced his affiliation with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I have edited the article, and the heading for this talk Section, accordingly. --Marvin Shilmer 13:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean Dtbrown? :) Duffer 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I meant to write Dtbrown. Sorry for any confusion.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Marvin Shilmer are you saying that this, person Greg Stafford, has disassociated from the WTBTS and their publications? Wonderpet

If Stafford has dissasociated himself from the organization and its leadership, his current wrintings can no longer be taken as representative for JW. Articles about JW as a group are to be based on their offical teachings, which are in correnspondance to the statements provided by the Governing Body.

If some states that they still are Jehovah's Witnesses but not longer in association with the organization, they must be considered splinter persons with break-away teachings. Their point of view is not representative for JW as a group.

If Mr. Shilmer wants it otherwise, he is clearly breaking the standard of Wikipedia.

Summer Song 07:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

SummerSong: I have no idea why you suggest I may prefer some conclusion on this issue that “is clearly breaking the standard of Wikipedia”. Stafford’s writings have never amounted to anything other than his own presentation as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The same is true of you and me, and any other individual among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whether any of his or anyone else’s presentations are representative of a consensus held among Jehovah’s Witnesses depends not on their person or religious affiliation (if any). Rather, it depends on what evidences and proofs are offered. As for Stafford, my editing on this issue was/is to present accurately Staffords’ latest self-declared status. That is, Stafford considers himself one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but he has ceased affiliation with the Watchtower organization. Do not forget that Jehovah’s Witnesses is a population comprised of individuals, whereas the Watchtower organization is a hierarchy. The two are not the same, and should not be equivocated. -- Marvin Shilmer 13:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Picky point of English usage - I think Marvin meant "should not be equated" rather than "should not be equivocated". --Richard 17:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Shilmer: Are you saying that Jehovah's Witnesses should be treated as a group concisting of some who are supportive to the organization and the official teachings and some who are not, claiming to be witnesses but rejecting the leadership and various teachings? Summer Song 12:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
SummerSong: Jehovah’s Witnesses as a group is made up of individuals. The Watchtower organization admits there are views held among these individuals that are divergent from official Watchtower doctrine. Only the extent of these divergent views is unknown. Plus we have no means of knowing what, if any, consensus is held among Jehovah’s Witnesses on specific doctrinal points. For instance, based on internal documents in the form of Watchtower letters to its appointed elders, we have reason to believe there is not a consensus of acceptance among Jehovah’s Witnesses of the seriousness Watchtower places on its blood taboo. (Watchtower letter dated December 1, 2000)
That some of Jehovah’s Witnesses have rejected Watchtower leadership is self-evident from the history of the organization. That this continues is again self-evident from an analysis of annual published statistics published by Watchtower. We also have access to personal letters addressed to the Watchtower organization by many of its appointed officials where these officials express disagreement with various doctrinal positions. Furthermore, the Watchtower organization itself has a protocol for Jehovah’s Witnesses to express what they feel like needs to change. This latter protocol would be unnecessary unless the Watchtower knew there were Jehovah’s Witnesses who disagreed with current doctrinal positions or policies.
Accordingly, we have no choice but to recognize a distinction between the people affiliated as Jehovah’s Witnesses compared to the Watchtower organization itself. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Marvin Shilmer: You state above that Stafford has withdrawn his support and is no longer subject to the Watchtower organization itself. Anything submitted about the Watchtower's policies on dealing with alternative views are now moot -- Mr Stafford has rejected this avenue and chosen his own course apart from the Watchtower organization. He no longer is abiding by statements he publicly and willingly that he agreed authorized him to identify himself as one of JW's. This is his right. It is also his right to say whatever he feels like saying, consequences notwithstanding. In Stafford's stated position he has disassociated himself: indeed, it was why he said it, is it not? -- to publicly establish that he is no longer associated with the Watchtower organization. The internal actions of the Watchtower organization are irrelevant -- Stafford's own wish is that he not be associated with the organization. In sections below you argue that JW's should not be considered Christian simply because they say so themselves; rather you argue that external tests be applied: ("Wonderpet, the opening sentence represents a consensus that has been achieved repeatedly. The archives of this talk page bear this out. Additionally, it is one thing to state the belief of a religion, and the article does this in respect to the religion believing itself Christian. On the other hand, to declare the religion "Christian" is entirely subjective. Please refrain from editing contrary to consensus without achieving a new consensus on the talk page. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)") You must be consistent or you inadvertently expose a personal bias. Stafford's own words show his position, but you accept that he is a JW just because he says so, even though all evidence is to the contrary, whereas you assert that JW's cannot be called Christian because unaffiliated onlookers vote against the notion. You further assert that adherence to Christ's teachings are no measure of Christianity (and you don't really articulate why you feel this way). "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," meaning what matters is what something is, not what it is called. Christians are defined by what they do as compared with the teachings of the Christ and that is an objective measure. Stafford says he is not affiliated with the Watchtower organization and so defines what he is: something other than a JW, independent of what he calls himself.
So which is it: A) Stafford is a JW insofar as Wikipedia is concerned simply because he says so, and so JW's are Christians by the same measure; or, B) that Stafford has chosen to break away from the official JW organization and proclaims his views are superior and unilaterally applies the JW name to himself anyway, and also that the JW organization claims itself to be Christian because they adhere as closely to Christ's teachings as they determine from unceasing in-depth studies of the Bible. I personally support (B) as the NPOV since it can be proven by independent analysis and review, whereas the former is simply perpetuating one's own claims as fact. As to the matter of Christianity itself, there are inarguably objective measures for who is a Christian set forth by Jesus Christ himself and highlighted in application by his Apostles, and they are clearly set forth in the Bible. Tradition and or popular decree are not valid measures. I believe you should reconsider your opinion that Christianity is purely a subjective analysis. It s intellectually dishonest to say that the Catholic or Baptist faiths define Christianity; they are merely members of Christendom by their own claim, but clearly Christ defines Christianity. Frankly, I am bewildered as to why you you discount the Christ's own definition of Christianity in preference to a given faith's definition of it (or some composite amalgamation of faiths' interpretations), and at the same time allow an individual such as Stafford to define the faith of an organization which he denies.
One further point: You wrote above, "For instance, based on internal documents in the form of Watchtower letters to its appointed elders, we have reason to believe there is not a consensus of acceptance among Jehovah’s Witnesses of the seriousness Watchtower places on its blood taboo. (Watchtower letter dated December 1, 2000)" Since you did not supply the independently verified text of the letter, it must be considered uncorroborated hearsay, something to which you routinely object considering for inclusion herein. It seems to be added here solely to build support for your opinions and your personal conclusions. Also, "consensus" means a general agreement reached by a group as a whole, quite apart from complete and exact uniformity by unfailing unanimous decree. To say that the JW organization has dissenters on any matter does not mean there is not a consensus. In fact it seems incredible to me that anyone with any substantive knowledge of JW beliefs would argue against there being a lack of consensus on the blood issue in terms of whole blood or major blood components. As to protein compounds that are found in blood or other components of blood (e.g., water) there are no specific requirements and they are a matter of conscience, and there is consensus on that, point to be sure.-- cfrito 15:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Cfrito: You mistake my position regarding Greg Stafford. If we are to take Greg’s word on this matter (and that is what was done leading to this discussion log) then we should express what Greg expressed himself without interpreting what that means. The latter is POV, and it is what I objected to. Greg’s statement that he no longer affiliates with the Watchtower organization but still considers himself one of Jehovah’s Witnesses contradicts your suggestion that Greg believes affiliation with the Watchtower organization is essential to being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Regarding the December 1, 2000 letter, all editors have to do is call the Watchtower organization and ask if I have misrepresented the material when I wrote, “This correspondence reports that up to 50% of Jehovah’s Witnesses had failed to maintain up-to-date Medical Directive cards and were unprotected from routine transfusions.”
The fact is that among Jehovah’s Witnesses there is no mechanism in place to demonstrate what, if any, consensus of belief there is on a great many issues. If you feel otherwise then feel free to share it. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If a JW expresses that they reject the Watchtower Society, the religion labels them as having 'disassociated'. Whether they thereafter feel that they are 'Witnesses of Jehovah' in some alleged literal sense, that is merely a belief rather than any affiliation with the actual religious group, and is irrelevant as regards membership. That said, whether he is a member or not does not preclude him from speaking favourably about the religion.--Jeffro77 09:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Last I heard it is an inalienable right to choose religion and belief. If Greg Stafford says he is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses then we have to respect it as his belief. Of course every religion has a prerogative to determine who they acknowledge or recognize as a member. But this does not remove the individual liberty to claim a religious preference or affiliation. In Stafford’s case, he has rejected the Watchtower organization; he has not rejected the many individuals who comprise the membership of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses are people. The Watchtower Society is an organization. Stafford has rejected the organization, but he embraces the people. If an editor wants to assert Stafford’s has rejected the Watchtower organization based on his own statement then they have to apply the same standard to the rest of his statement, which statement is that he is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Shilmer (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. If some openly state that they do no longer support the leadership and the official decisions, they will no longer be regarded as members of Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization. If they still claim that they are Jehovah's Witnesses, they will be looked upon as some who have formed a break-away religion. An encyclopedia shall treat religions in a way that is based on how a particular religion officially believes and discribes itself. The religion Jehovah's Witnesses is a group that requires something from the individuals who want to be known as members. Any person like Mr. Stafford will be known as a 'disassociate' among those Jehovah's Witnesses who still support the organization. The encyclopedia will be far away from neutral if it says something else, claiming that Jehovah's Witnesses as a group consists of individuals who are either supporting the leadership or not. If some break away from a religious organization and founds a new set of teachings, they have broken away, and no doubt about that. Summer Song (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Summersong: When you talk specifically about Greg Stafford you are not talking about a religion. You are talking about an individual and their profession of faith
From a Watchtower organizational perspective the only persons it officially categorizes as “disassociated” are individuals whom local elders have completed and sent in Watchtower S-77 forms indicating the same. These same individuals have also had their names publicly announced as disassociated. Unless you have evidence of these then you are premature in your assessment of Stafford from a Watchtower organizational perspective. In short, if you want to prop your conclusions on the Watchtower leadership’s official position then you will have to defer to the details of that position.
Otherwise your response confuses the Watchtower organization with the people making up Jehovah’s Witnesses. These are not one and the same. There are many among Jehovah’s Witnesses who disagree strongly with various teachings and policies of the Watchtower organization. These individuals continue professing themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses not because of the Watchtower organization but, rather, despite the Watchtower organization. On other occasions you have asserted that self-professions of faith should be respected. Are you now retracting that opinion? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you are the one being confusing here. If some say that they are JW, but reject the leadership, they can not be included as members of the organization. Stafford is, as I understand, stating that he do not longer support the leadership at all. If some say that they reject the 'faithful servant' and the official teachings of the organization, they are not longer to be looked upon as members of the organization. If they still claim to be JW, they are forming a break-away religion. That is exactly what I try to say. Summer Song (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If one Witness said that he clearly rejected the leadership of the Governing Body and the official view of their teachings, he would no longer be welcome in his congregation. If he went together with some others and claimed that they were reformating JW teachings from their own viewpoints, they would actually be considered as a splinter group. The original organization would not condone their preaching or viewpoints. Therefore, I will consider Stafford the same way. We have to respect a religious organization too, not only individuals. Summer Song (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Summersong: I have not said Stafford should be included “as a member of the organization”. The organization is a battery of corporate entities, headed by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. Stafford has settled the question of his association with this organization because he has unilaterally renounced it. But he has not renounced his faith as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and he has not renounced the people of Jehovah’s Witnesses and association with them. He rejects the Watchtower organization and he embraces the people making up Jehovah’s Witnesses. I know it is difficult for Watchtower followers to understand this distinction, but this distinction is understood by many among Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not look at the Watchtower organization as their leader. The latter say they view Jesus as their only leader.
Stafford’s religious preference is something else altogether. Just like you, he is free to profess whatever religion he prefers. Whether other Jehovah’s Witnesses view Stafford as a fellow in faith is for each one to decide. You apparently reject Stafford as a fellow in faith. So what? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Stafford is free to profess whatever he likes. However, if he is not officially a member of the organisation, he should not be stated as being so in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeffro77: For reasons expressed above to Summersong, I have never asserted the article should present Stafford as a member of the organization since his recent public statement that he has rejected the Watchtower organization. I am fine with your current edit. The additional reference in the article to Stafford (in the book Section) should remain as is. There is where a dispute arose regarding Stafford. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

heirarchy vs theocracy and the governing body

jeffro, stating that Jehovah's witnesses is a heirarchy with men in charge is a false and unprovable statement. the governing body does not determine what the bible says, but the bible determines what the governing body does. Wonderpet —Preceding comment was added at 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that it is a false statement is POV, because there is no proof available of any higher authority within (or beyond) the group. As with all religions claiming to be Christian, the bible provides the raw material for doctrine, however as with the leaderships of all other Christian religions, the Governing Body interprets that material in its own way. Your statement that 'the bible determines what the governing body does' could be applied to any Christian religion, and the statement does nothing to suggest a 'theocracy', which cannot be validly stated in an encyclopedic article as if it were an established fact. Irrespective of whether a deity is actually controlling the Governing Body in any specific way, it is still a heirarchy, with the Governing Body as the highest verifiable authority of the group dispensing doctrine based on their understanding of the scriptures.--Jeffro77 08:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

additionally, the organization is not a heirarchy by definition since all earthbound members are equal members of one body with Jesus as the Head. Wonderpet —Preceding comment was added at 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a doctrinal viewpoint, not how the organisation operates in practice.--Jeffro77 08:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wonderpet, Witnesses believe that God has chosen a "Faithful and Discreet Slave" to lead them in doctrinal understandings and in appointing leaders. Witnesses also believe that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses represents that "Slave." We, as encyclopedia editors, cannot determine if that is true. We can record this belief which is commonly known as "hierarchial" as opposed to "congregational." Dtbrown 23:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: Where do you get your information from? Do you know who Don Adams is? He is the current president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. In an affidavit filed February 10, 1986 Don Adams stated, “To implement their decisions, the Governing Body uses a hierarchical organization together with corporate entities, when appropriate, to accomplish its worldwide work of teaching and declaring the good news of God’s established Kingdom.” In 1986 Don Adams was the Assistant Secretary Treasurer of the Watchtower organization. He has worked at the world headquarters of the Watchtower organization since 1943. A copy of this affidavit is available in the District Clerk’s office of Fannin County, Texas. -- Marvin Shilmer 01:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I distinctly remember this same discussion we had last year. From the archives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive_22#.22Theocratic.22_in_Intro_paragraph . I am still in support of "theocracy" or some variant over "hierarchical", but I won't RV either. Duffer 12:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer: Why would you be in support of “theocracy” rather than “hierarchical” when the source (via Don Adams) has stipulated that “the Governing Body uses a hierarchical organization”? Do you hesitant to accept the word of Don Adams on this point? In the archive I read the entries you cite from Encyclopedia Britannica and Lindsay Jones Encyclopaedia of Religion. The more extensive 2007 online version of EB does not use the language you cite from 2006. It has the same paragraph. But it attributes no theocracy. As for LJER, do you have any idea who authored the material you cite? If not, then leveraging it for another encyclopedic entry is less than convincing. We can say the same for EB. --Marvin Shilmer 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware of the Don Adams quote when we had this discussion last year. The best data available to me at the time, two independent encyclopedias, said "theocracy". It doesn't really matter to me (anymore), but if you notice Don Adams says that the GB implements their decisions via a hierarchical organization. Technically the GB makes the decisions, the organizational arrangement implements them, wouldn't that necessitate the "theocracy" description? Duffer 23:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Duffer: From a practical perspective whether a government is theocratic is subjective. A theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is recognized as immediate ruler. Whether this is in fact the case with Jehovah’s Witnesses is debatable, and depends more on personal belief than demonstrable conclusions. On the other hand, whether an organization (any organization) is, for example, hierarchical is rather easy to demonstrate objectively. The affidavit of Don Adams, in this instance, only seals a conclusion already established by other objective means. If, as you say, “the GB makes the decisions,” then the Watchtower organization is not a theocracy because in a theocracy God makes the decisions whereas the organization is administered by God’s subordinates, his priests if you will. Why do you say this doesn’t matter to you anymore? -- Marvin Shilmer 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I mean this discussion doesn't really matter to me, not necessarily the issue itself. Duffer 02:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet, your opinion of the role of the Governing Body is incorrect.

*** w98 3/15 p. 21 par. 11 Living Up to Christian Dedication in Freedom ***
Presently, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is composed of ten anointed Christians, all with decades of Christian experience behind them. They offer spiritual direction to Jehovah’s Witnesses, as did the first-century governing body. (Acts 16:4) Like the early Christians, the Witnesses gladly look to the mature brothers of the Governing Body for Bible-based direction and guidance in matters of worship.

According to the Watchtower, they specifically provide instruction in matters of worship. Stop vandalising the article with your incorrect opinion.--Jeffro77 12:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro, providing spiritual instruction and interpreting the bible are not the same thing.

now I ask you, please stop reversing my improvements to the article. Wonderpet —Preceding comment was added at 18:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your changes that I reveresed were not improvements. It is a plain fact that the Governing Body determines doctrine for the religion. The alleged role of the "Governing Body" is to 'dispense spiritual food'. That is specificially and directly related to doctrine, not 'organisational' matters. In contrast, the 'legal instruments in use by Jehovah's Witnesses' take care of "organisational matters".--Jeffro77 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wonderpet: Do you disput Don Adams, currently the President of the Watchtower Society, when he says “the Governing Body uses a hierarchical organization”? -- Marvin Shilmer 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Jeffro, I disagree with your reasonings, dispensing spiritual food is not the same thing as writing doctrine, the doctrine was written thousands of years ago. Wonderpet 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree, you are wrong. As far as they are concerned, the 'spiritual food' is the 'doctrine'. The bible says nothing of 1914 or 607. Their alleged meanings of many visions and prophecies are not stated in the bible. The bible says nothing about not growing beards... I could list a great many things. These and other matters are specific doctrines arrived at by the GB.--Jeffro77 07:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Shilmer, the book "organized to do Jehovahs will" page 22,"the Christian congregation was established in 33C.E. on the Jewish festival day of Pentecost, what can we learn about the congregation at that time? It was organized and governed Theocratically.." "...The same pattern of organization and operation that was established during the first century is adhered to by the Christian Congregation of God today..." Wonderpet 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Wonderpet: You have edited the main article again without responding to express statements offered under oath by the now President of the Watchtower organization, Don Adams, where he stipulates “the Governing Body uses a hierarchical organization”. It is inappropriate to disregard this express statement from a high-ranking Watchtower official, yet offer a conflicting edit. I will ask you again, do you disagree with this statement from the President of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society? Yes, or no? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Shilmer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No Marvin I disagree with you, Do you disagree with the statement made in print in 2005 which I've quoted above? If so that is fine with me, it is still a more recent source than yours from the 80's Wonderpet 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Wonderpet: I did not ask if you agreed with me. I asked if you argee or disagree with the current President of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. You have yet to answer this question. As for your 2005 citation, I read the Watchtower reference you supplied. It is a self-declaration that the organization is theocratic. But this is a self-declaration rather than an objective and verified observation. I do not disagree that the Watchtower organization claims itself a theocracy, but whether this is in fact the case is subjective and debatable. Evidence shows the Watchtower organization promotes a public view (in its publications) that it is a theocracy. Yet when it gets down to defending itself against monetary damages it admits the organization is, legally, hierarchical. In court papers filed by Watchtower attorneys this is admitted:
1. In a Case Management Statement filed in Napa County Superior Court dated May 4, 2004, Watchtower attorneys acknowledge the organization is hierarchical. (Available upon request to the Clerk of Napa County Superior Court, California)
2. In a Case Management Statement filed in Napa County Superior Court dated August 18, 2004, Watchtower attorneys acknowledge the organization is hierarchical. (Available upon request to the Clerk of Napa County Superior Court, California)
3. In a Case Management Statement filed in Napa County Superior Court dated November 9, 2005, Watchtower attorneys acknowledge the organization is hierarchical. (Available upon request to the Clerk of Napa County Superior Court, California)
4. In direct testimony taken on August 5, 2004 Alexander Reinmueller, a high ranking member of the Watchtower organizaiton currently holding the position of Secretary Treasurer of Kingdom Support Services, testifies under oath that the Watchtower organization is hierarchical. (Available upon request to the Clerk of Napa County Superior Court, California)
These court recorded admissions by Watchtower defense attorneys substantiate and continue the earlier testimony by Don Adams (from 1986) that the Watchtower organization is hierarchical. Hence, from an objective point of view, and by Watchtower admission, the Watchtower organization is hierarchical. --Marvin Shilmer 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As a latecomer to this discussion and a non-expert in JW doctrine and practice, I join in with some trepidation. However, I find this whole "theocracy" vs. "hierarchy" discussion confusing and, IMHO, missing the point. Most religions theistic are theocratic internally. That is, unless your religion rejects the supremacy of God, you will assert that God is the Supreme Ruler of all. How's that for a tautology? One can argue that Buddhism is not a theocracy because they don't really believe in God. Nonetheless, some Buddhists would probably favor a religion-ocracy (a term that I have just coined) in which civil government is guided by Buddhist principles.

So... internally within the religion, JWs ARE a theocracy but this is really quite unremarkable in that all Christians believe that God is the Supreme Ruler as do Jews and Muslims. Talking about a religion being a theocracy is really a "not very useful" assertion because it is so fundamental that it doesn't serve to distinguish that religion from other theistic religions.

The more useful employment of the term "theocracy" is in describing relationship of religion with civil government. In this, the JWs are most stridently theocratic because they oppose civil government interference in many domains. I'm not 100% clear on the JW doctrine here but I think it runs something along the lines that secular governments are creations of the devil and that all government should be run under theological principles, i.e. society should be theocratic. This is, to me, the epitome of theocracy. Other Christians argue along these lines but the JWs actually put it into practice in their individual lives, at times with significant risk to life, liberty and property. See Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses

However, being a theocracy does not preclude a religion from being heirarchical. The Roman Catholic Church is an example of a church that acknowledges God as the Supreme Ruler but with an extensive heirarchy that starts with the Pope as the Vicar of Christ followed by cardinals, bishops, and priests.

The other extreme of this model of church polity is Congregationalist polity in which each congregation is independent, ecclesiastically sovereign, or "autonomous."

Thus, IMHO, the JWs are BOTH a theocracy (although it's not a very interesting assertion) and heirarchical.

All doctrine flows from God (Jehovah, if you will) as expressed in the Holy Scriptures (the Bible). However, interpretation of the Bible is not left up to the individual or the congregation. Doctrine is established by the publications of the Watchtower Society and enforced by disfellowshipping which is a duty of the elders.

The only question that I have is whether the elders have an autonomy to determine what is and is not a disfellowshipping situation or whether the heirarchy can command and overrule the decisions of local elders. I suspect that the heirarchy does have significant power over the local elders but this isn't documented anywhere in Wikipedia so I assert this with a modicum of caution. (but not much!)

--Richard 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Diet

If "They do interpret some scriptures literally", does the content of Leviticus 11 (see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+11 ) mean that they have a restricted diet and, if so, should mention of it be included in the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.52.104 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, and their literal interpretation of that verse is irrelevant to your question - JWs do not believe Christians are subject to the Mosaic Law, based on their interpretation of Romans 6:14 and other scriptures.
The only dietary restriction they have is regarding foods made from blood, such as blood sausage. However, they can eat (bone) marrow, as well as traces of blood found in bled meat.--Jeffro77 07:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah’s Witnesses are governed by....

SerialVerb has, recently, added language that Jehovah’s Witnesses are governed by their understanding of Scriptural laws and principles from the Bible, “as interpreted by their Governing Body and their own consciences.” The latter part (“and their own consciences”) is contrary to the governance imposed by the Governing Body.

The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses forms and promulgates doctrine. The community of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not polled or otherwise consulted as a protocol to determine doctrine imposed by the Governing Body. When it comes to what is a “matter of conscience” and what is not a “matter of consciences” this too is determined by the Governing Body so far as its official doctrine is concerned. That is, tomorrow the Governing Body could determine a change in doctrine that is at odds with the conscience of some, many or most of Jehovah’s Witnesses and it would not matter so far as what the Governing Body imposes. Accordingly, it is not a POV to leave off the phrase “and their own consciences”. That is, it is correct and verifiable that the governance administered among Jehovah’s Witnesses is centralized to the Governing Body. It is also correct and verifiable that the Governing Body does not establish its doctrine as a result of consensus of conscience among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Accordingly, I have reverted the language to Jeffro’s last version. I invite comment here. -- Marvin Shilmer 02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rules vs Conscience. SV 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
SerialVerb: I have read the reference you cited several times, and have reviewed it again recently upon your editing. The material suggests Jehovah’s Witnesses should attune their conscience “to God’s thinking”. But this material fails to inform readers that among Jehovah’s Witnesses the Governing Body takes it upon itself to determine what is or is not left to an individual as a “matter of conscience”. In plain English, among Jehovah’s Witnesses the Governing Body imposes itself as the governing agent to inform Jehovah’s Witnesses as to what is or is not a matter of conscience. Hence, in effect, the Governing Body tells Jehovah’s Witnesses to apply their consciences, but that they must do it as the Governing Body determines. Is this something you are unfamiliar with? -- Marvin Shilmer 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted before checking the Talk page, however it wasn't worth reverting back again. It is redundant to state that something is a 'conscience matter'. In real terms, anything not explicitly stated as a rule is inherently a 'conscience matter', though in mainstream society, the buzzword simply isn't used, and the term - though understandable in concept - verges on jargon. JW articles will occasionally lead readers toward a 'preferred' view, and then state that it is a 'conscience matter', so stating that something is a 'conscience matter' among JWs is not always clear cut. Additionally, the fact that they are told by the leadership what is and is not a conscience matter is in itself, an expression of doctrine.--Jeffro77 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that you both, Shimler and Jeffro, are thinking of specific issues like blood, neutrality, etc. However, what we're doing here is comparing JW's to other organisations. Take Judaism, 600+ rules, amazing amount of commentary which have become rules in some sects. What is different about JW's is the small amount of rules and the large amount of principles. There are three things the GB does: (1) Organisational Procedures (2) Rulings (3) Commentary on principles. The small amount of rules means that the majority of JW's governance is by conscience or the Law of Love. Skipping over the major portion of JW law give undue weight to one POV. SV 17:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
SerialVerb: Jeffro77 must speak for him or herself. As for me, I am not thinking at all about specific issues. The religious position of the Governing Body is that it determines what is and is not left as “a matter of conscience” for individual Jehovah’s Witnesses to act on based on their own conscientious view. This doctrinal position looms over every theological and organizational position and policy imposed or not imposed upon Jehovah’s Witnesses. Consider the following, which has never been retracted:
From The Watchtower of July 1, 1943 p. 205:
“Every organization requires specific instructions for all those who serve in it. In the past the Lord issued his "organization instructions" to his servants through his central agency or channel. Each one joyfully accepted his part therein and faithfully carried it out.
“Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his Son. (Heb. 1:1, 2) The Son has returned as King; has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says to those who are privileged to represent him upon the earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations" (Matthew 24:14); and, "The inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before the LORD. and to seek the LORD of hosts" (Zech. 8 : 21), and, "Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks."--Jer. 16: 16.
“These expressions of God’s will by his King and through his established agency constitute his law or rule of action for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill companions today who will dwell upon the earth for ever in the New World. The Lord breaks down our organization instructions further and makes them more practicable by further instructing us through his "faithful and wise servant". He says, ’Let us assign the field, the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies of Jehovah’s witnesses in an orderly way, sufficient for everyone to thoroughly witness therein, and let us place upon each one the responsibility of caring for the New World interests in these respective assignments.’ He says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175 hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as can be properly developed during that time. And for company publishers he says, ’Let us make a quota of 60 hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week for each publisher.’ These directions come to us from the Lord through his established agency directing what is required of us; and, for those who really love the Lord and are guided by his counsel, that is a reasonable service requirement. This expression of the Lord’s will should be the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to prove your integrity and magnify the Lord’s name.
“These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals and as collective units called "companies"….”
From The Watchtower of June 15, 1957 p. 370:
“It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision.”
--Marvin Shilmer 00:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Why is there no mention of the child molestation cover up controversy?

Jehovahs Witnesses had a rather significant controversy involving allegations of covering up child molestation by their members. It seemed very strange to me that that wasn't even mentioned under controversies. Is there fear of the witnesses suing Wiki to silence it?

Teranceofathens 03:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is not the place for it. See Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#Reporting of sexual abuse and Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse--Jeffro77 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


There seems to be no clear argument as to why valid and appropriate links containing historical information and pertinent historic documents have been repeatedly removed. Additionally, there are several footnotes which contain links to websites that contain documents which were stolen from pastor-russell.com, yet the attempt to replace those links with the original website source has also been reverted. Why? Official websites which contain historical material pertinent and applicable to a Wikipedia article are not only completely appropriate, but should also be the first source. Please explain why this has been repeatedly violated in this article. Thank you. Pastorrussell 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your username implies that you are not impartial in this matter regarding a website which is very probably of your own creation. It is difficult to establish whether the site is actually 'official'.--Jeffro77 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand the point you are trying to make, but your response doesn't address the main point of my post. Whether one wishes to acknowledge the official character of the website isn't necessarily relevant in regard to which website should be listed as a link to documents cited in this article. The aforementioned website was the first on the web to make available to the public scans and text of original documents relating to the history of CT Russell, the early Watchtower et.al. Over the years several websites have borrowed or stolen that material and now try to present it as their own without any link or acknowledgment to the original source. This is plagiarism. I am not the only person to attempt to remedy this problem. Others have properly replaced the links only to have them removed without explanation. Additionally, a link was placed to a document relating to the history of JFR and the 1918 imprisonment, and was also removed without explanation. Because this has been going on for over a year it certainly gives the appearance of unprofessional and biased behavior. No legitimacy or recognition should be tacitly given to websites which contain stolen material. Only the original source should be listed. Pastorrussell 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A particular site providing scans of material published by a different source, even if it is the first website to do so, does not become the owner of the scanned material. Other than that, I cannot prove the veracity of your claim of originality, so can neither confirm nor deny your point of view.--Jeffro77 08:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Pastorrussell, which footnote links contain material which was stolen from your site? Dtbrown 15:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New section "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses"

Wonderpet has started a new section entitled "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses." While interesting to read, I think it needs some balance. While it is true JWs have met heavy opposition from other religions throughout their history, the JWs have also heavily criticized other religions. For example, during Rutherford's era the JWs heavily criticized the Roman Catholic Church (which would be considered extreme by today's standards). I think the question we should determine is if we want to add a new section to the main page and make the page longer than it already is? If so, how do we want to balance the new presentation? Dtbrown (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The section doesn't really belong in the main article. The content relating to success in court cases, while related, doesn't really belong in the section. Saying they were 'targeted in the Holocaust' is misleading, as they were not the only targets, nor the prime targets, nor the only religious group targeted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the detail minimizing the significance of JWs killed in Nazi camps. They (and similar religious groups) were a target group. The fact that fewer of them were killed is because there were fewer of them to start with, not because they were necessarily treated better than other target groups. Comparing them with the number of Jews who died in the manner used is an invalid comparison.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the inclusion is to counterbalance the mileage Jehovah's Witnesses have gotten out of their persecution by Nazis angle. "In their official publication ('Watchtower' May 15, 1975 p. 294) they write 'thousands of European Jews can testify that one religious group in Germany underwent persecution equal to that heaped upon the Jews: "Jehovah’s Witnesses"'. But equating their suffering to that of the Jews, apparently wasn’t enough for them. In another publication they went further: '...a horrible Nazi persecution of 'Jehovah’s Witnesses', worse than that of the Jews'" - Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God’s Kingdom Rules, pp. 549-550 [1]. In fact only 1/100th of 1% of Jehovah's Witnesses compare to Jews lost their lives in Nazi camps (635). In Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich: Sectarian Politics under Persecution M. James Penton writes that the suffering some of the rank and file of Jehovah's Witnesses suffered in Nazi Germany was in large part unnecessary and due to Rutherford's (who was himself safe in the United States) rash words and actions - which weren't consistant. He'd made several shocking statements against the Jews and in support of Hitler when the latter rose to power. 63.196.193.42 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you give a clear explaination on how the number 635 should be considered as the 'most specific'? As I know of, the numbers have varied because the sources used, mostly outside JW, also have varied. And I don't think we shall rely on the writings of Norman Hovland. He is an extremely critic person that have written many higly provocative texts.Summer Song (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, statements about Rutherfors not being totally neutral to the Government in Germany are not objective facts. They are rather opinions.Summer Song (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
635 is the most specific and consistantly used figure by the WT themselves. They have infact used it three times: the 1974 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 212, The Watchtower, February 1, 1976, p. 82, and The Watchtower, July 1, 1979, pp. 7-8. About Rutherford's role during the Nazi regime see the above referenced book Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich: Sectarian Politics under Persecution written by once Jehovah's Witness himself and now university professor M. James Penton who provides photocopies of letters etc written by Rutherford during the period as evidence. By the way he has a Master of Arts and a Ph.D. in history. 63.196.193.59 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ See, e.g., Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_30&oldid=842684614"