Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

E-Watchman Exposed link off-topic?

I would have to say so. What does everyone thing? joshbuddy 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

For this article, certainly, however, it does contain one of the easiest to understand summaries of various arguments against the 607 date that I've ever read (despite it's outwardly hostile tone). A note about these resources, during the ongoing Arbitration process I have brought forth in regards to Central and Tommstein one of the admins considered an instance where I deleted a link. This can be found here. Even though the link I deleted is a direct link to not only Witness related forums but also lude jokes and pornography, the link was still acceptable, and my deletion of it is considered WP:POV. Since the Ewatchman Exposed website does contain defenses of Witness doctrine this must be considered in light of the above. I believe it should be kept, as is, in the Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues section for now, if the website develops its content further to encompass more defenses of Witness (not E-watchman) doctrine then it should recieve a promotion to the main Jehovah's Witness article. Duffer 05:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was an argument FOR 607? Did I read it wrong? (i'm sure you meant for... no matter) At any rate, I agree with you, it seems better on the controversy page. The website itself has the interesting bulletin board though, perhaps the link should be modified to go directly to this board, or the description should be updated to reflect that content (which would be of interest to one learning about JWs) joshbuddy 06:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, it is an argument for 607 but provides consice summaries of opposing arguments. I'm ok with it as is, but I see no problem with a direct link to the forums and/or modified description. Duffer 12:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The 607 article, which actually had a link earlier, was definitely a valid and on-topic link that should have been left intact, as it tackles a diverse array of the arguments both pro- and con- on the Watchtower Society's current stance on the 607BCE date. However, the e-watchman-exposed.co.uk link now goes to that site's front page. At that URL, one must proceed to click on one of the links--and thus seems to be more of a promotional than a factual addition to the links; otherwise, why not just directly link to the 607BCE article? Similarly, the Jehovah Himself Has Become King link originally linked to a front page, rather than to the actual link that made it on-topic and appropriate as a link: it was subsequently edited to link directly to the e-book rather than the front page. If we are looking for consistency, the e-watchman-exposed link should link directly to the pertinent information (607BCE defense), or otherwise demonstrate how it is a resource for the article "Jehovah's Witnesses" and not serve as simply a "personal attack" site (the name pretty much demonstrates its goal, IMO).

As I believe I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure how the link description could be modified to make it actually on-topic. But a suggestion might be "a site that addresses apostate accusations and argumentations." Timothy Kline 16:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a direct link to the 607 article is best, which has already been done on the Controversial Issues Wiki. Duffer 10:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments Cont.

Moved to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and governments#Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments Cont. joshbuddy 03:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is long!! Who archives this stuff?

This talk page has become quite large and with some slower connections takes a long time to load. Is it time to archive it? Who does that around here? Dtbrown 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks to the archiver! Dtbrown 04:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Me? I created templates to simplify this task in the future. :) joshbuddy 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks alot, I was planning on doing this at the conclusion of Tommstien's arbitration (for evidence link purposes), but the ArbCom pretty much done anyways so.., thanks again. Duffer 08:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks joshbuddy. I had been doing the archiving, but while I was on wikiholiday, no one seems to have done anything. joshbuddy to the rescue! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

New images in the article

I think the new images in the article make it look much better. Thanks, joshbuddy! Dtbrown 03:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the image of the Tetragrammaton. Nice touch! Dtbrown 03:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Disfellowshipping for belief

Duffer suggests this edit:

Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who disagree with doctrine can potentially be disfellowshipped and subsequently labeled "apostate", this is largely based on the nature of the disagreement and the extent to which it is taken.

You mention it is based on page 2 of the source cited. I went there again and not sure which part you are referring to. Dtbrown 05:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Page 2 says: "..an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views", "If a baptized Christian adandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented through the faithful and discrete slave and persists in believing other despite scriptural reproof, than he is apostatizing." I do not see any phrase that indicates that there is a qualifier for what is beleived, or to what extant "it is taken." By all means, please explain this. Or is there another reference which you feel leads to the above presented conclusion? I'm not going to shut you down based on one reference.

Just reading the letter again, I see the phrase "reasonably substantial." I took that to mean the persistence in belief to something contrary of what the FDS teaches. Did you feel this related to degree of variation? joshbuddy 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe "reasonably substantial" covers "largely based on the nature of the disagreement" given the context of the page 2 quote. The nature of the disagreement would have to be quite serious to be "reasonably substantial", it also brings out that disfellowshipping is a LAST resort consequence of unresponsiveness to counsel and/or reproof; which I believe adaquately covers "and the extent to which it is taken." Duffer 07:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum - I'm not trying to say that less significant disagreements won't warrant an inquiry (which is a possibility) I'm trying to disambiguate the statement: "Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who disagree with doctrine can potentially be disfellowshipped", it is one thing to disagree, it is quite another to actually be disfellowshipped over it. Even the letter itself doesn't explicitly mandate expulsion over a disagreement even in serious cases; specifically quoting from the letter: "..appropriate judicial action should be taken." Appropriate judicial action can include expulsion, but does not necessitate it. Removal of congregational and proselytizing privilages are another form of "judicial action" that may be deemed "appropriate" for the particular circumstance. Duffer 07:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Addendum 2 - I don't feel the line: "Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who disagree with doctrine can potentially be disfellowshipped and subsequently labeled "apostate" adaquately reflects how highly circumstancial such matters are. I believe my addition: "this is largely based on the nature of the disagreement and the extent to which it is taken" properlly qualifies the issue. Duffer 08:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical events made it very clear that just thinking non-conforming thoughts will lead and has lead to disfellowshipping as occurred in Bethel in 1980. You can read about them here:

http://users.volja.net/izobcenec4/coc/11.pdf

http://users.volja.net/izobcenec4/coc/12.pdf

This has all been discussed in detail before; so I'm not sure why you are trying again to get the whole severity of the organization's rules watered down to make them look less harsh and more liberal when you know very well that is not the reality. Central 09:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The personal account of one man (of an alleged incident that took place prior to the date of the source cited in the article) is not a refutation of (in any way) what I have said above. I don't see how it addresses my points regarding the 1980 letters at all. As for further citation of Franz as a source for any argument please see What counts as a reputable publication (as well as Self-published sources). This matter was not sufficiently disgussed previously, it was lost in the mediations and subsequent arbitration. Please do not accuse me of deceit again. Duffer 10:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Both of Franz's books and Penton's book contain numerous examples of people being disfellowshipped for disagreeing with doctrinal points. Franz's books pass the hurdle of being a reutable source. Have you read the books incidently? Does your intuition tell you that he making things up, or is exaggerating details? If you haven't read the books, I don't think you are qualified to comment on their veracity. joshbuddy 17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But how does that amount to more than hear-say, and what specifically were the circumstances involved in their disfellowshipping? Also, does it contradict what I have written regarding the 1980 Letter? Lets keep on topic here: is what I have written regarding the 1980 letter disputed? If so: why; and how should it effect the outcome of the disputed bullet? I believe splitting the two as I have done below is appropriate, but is the bolded section contested? I believe the 1980 letter justifies the inclusion of the bolded text. Comments?

• Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who disagree on doctrine can potentially be disfellowshipped and labeled "apostate", such incedants are based on the nature of the disagreement and the extent to which it is taken.[47]
• All members are expected to abide by the doctrines and organizational requirements as determined by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.[48]

Duffer 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the "reasonably substantial" part refers more to the nature of the allegations, that is, are the allegations sustainable? Do they come from a reputable source? Is it one person's word vs another? I thought the inclusion of the word "potentially" causes the sentence to be ambiguous enough to satisfy both of us. I mean, there are a whole lot of qualifiers that could be put in there. But is simply a list of beliefs, how much detail do we need to go into? Does not the word "potentially" cover the fact that this is not an absolute thing? That it would vary from case to case, and elder body to elder body? I'm concerned with the brevity and readability of these statements. I find your version, while you may feel is more accurate, difficult to read. Just my opinion.

Re: the letters and franz as a source. If you haven't read the source, or the context in which Franz included them, I'm not sure what sort of argument you want to make against using Franz as a source. The books "feel" true. They have many citations. He publishes corrections. Not sure what more to say about it. joshbuddy 18:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that "potentially" fully reflects just how circumstantial such incedants are, I feel a qualifier is appropriate, regardless of how it's worded as there's just not enough 'weight' in the word "potentially". I just don't want to see the nuances of Witness practices and theology sacrificed merely for the sake of brevity. To what you said above, I think that your interpretation of "reasonably substantial" can refer to the nature of the allegations as you say, but as part of the overall circumstances that brought about how the disagreement was made known. Was the person trying to actually teach a disagreement, or merely expressing uncertainty in a certain doctrine, or expressing disagreement of an inconsequential belief? These factors (along with the initial allegations) are inherently part of the nature of the circumstances that deem a disagreement: "reasonably substantial". Even in matters where a person is trying to actively teach a disagreement the Elders make repeated, diligent, efforts to persuade/dissuade the individual through exhortation & review of scriptures, revoking of congregational privilages, etc.. before the person is dissfellowshipped (except maybe in cases of clear unresponsiveness and/or disassociation).

Can I have my qualifier? Can we re-word it if it is in need of re-wording?

Re: Franz, I'm not speaking to the veracity of Franzs' (and others') claims, but their appropriateness as authoritative sources in light of Wikipedia's policies: What counts as a reputable publication and Self-published sources. It would be akin to me citing Greg Stafford as an authoritative source on the New World Translation (regardless of how comprehensive his arguments may be). (I'm not speaking about Penton in this, as he is a peer-reviewed historian from what I hear) Duffer 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't consider this rude (as I'm not trying to be) but seeing as you don't want to read his books, and that is your prerogative, then I don't think you're really qualified to comment on its usebility as a source. I'm sure you can appreciate that stand. Ultimately it being self-published is not the only criterion upon which it should be judged.

The qualifier... sigh. I think I have a reasonable compromise. I think you can have your qualifier for the "apostate" label. I don't think the source, however, can sustain a qualifier around being disfellowshipped any more than "potentially" would allow. joshbuddy 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just another note on that page for policies "In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Franz's books have met this criterion. Penton references then quite a bit. Penton is a credible third-party publication. joshbuddy 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I will desist, though I must note my disagreement. "Potentially" does accomplish the basics of our doctrine, though I personally feel that the word alone does not fully temper the point. Re: Franz: If Penton corroborates Franz on a point then I likely won't protest, but if he merely parrots something that Franz says, then I'd scrutinize the claim more closely, if Franz alone is cited as a source then I will likely question the edit (if it's an edit that is questionable in nature). Duffer 23:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Duffer, these points are also included in Penton's "Apocalypse Delayed" and thst is from the University of Toronto Press. Dtbrown 14:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But which points? What does Penton say? Does it bring forth anything regarding what I have said about the 1980 Letter?Duffer 16:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read "Apocalypse Delayed"? Its excellent. Actually, I would almost say recommended reading for writing articles on JWs. (After all, Penton himself has written many of the encylopedia articles on JW's in dead tree versions) joshbuddy 17:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not read his work, nor do I plan to. He is an ex-Witness. As for this dispute, if there is to be further dispute regarding the two things I have added dispute tags to can we please stop RVing and talk it out first? And Central, please stop removing the dispute tags, per WP:V guidelines I not only have the right to add a dispute tag, but to remove the disputed section from the page entirely (by moving it to the talk page for discussion) while consensus is being reached. I don't want to do that (which is why I havn't), I just want consensus. Also, comments on what I have said about the 1980 letters are most welcome, am I wrong in what I have said? Duffer 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference to where the letter is cited by Penton. Duffer, I understand your reasons for not reading Penton's book. However, you might enjoy reading White's _A People For His Name_, who was not an ex-Witness. Dtbrown 19:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If I get around to it I'll look it up, I've heard of (James?) White before, specifically his debate with Greg Stafford, though I've never actually read any of his arguments. Duffer 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a different White. Timothy White was a pseudonym for Anthony Wills who was a Witness (I believe he's deceased now). He had been an English professor at Stanford before writing the book. It's hard to obtain but is easily available through inter-library loan. Dtbrown 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• The solution seems simple take out, "disagree on" and put in "Advocate" or "promote different"... Reference:"Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" P.629Johanneum 08:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • While I agree with Duffer a change should be made it seems that what has been proposed by him is cumbersome. The issue is not per say “beliefs” but what they do with these beliefs/doctrines. It is promoting, advocating, teaching, declaring, preaching, etc. those Ideas while at the same time claiming to represent the same organization that is at stake. Another words, not the “belief” but the advocating of it which can cause division. See Footnote: #54 Questions From Readers, The Watchtower 1 April, 1986 pp. 30-31. There you will find the following: Gal 1:8,9 is highlighted that says, if someone, DECLARES...other words. Then again “TEACHING dissident or divergent views” Then again reference is made to 2 Tim 2:17,18, “their WORD will SPREAD” and again “SAYING” the resurrection has already happened. In addition, it dealt with, “what they were TEACHING” Finally, reference is made to 2 John 7,10, 11 where one Brings their Teaching to others. They conclude by basically saying, ‘if a member unrepentantly promotes(divergent, dissident) teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregations see Titus 3:10, 11. Of course, if a person just has doubts or is uninformed on a point then qualified ministers will help.’ I move we adopt a similar rendering ourselves. The “Proclaimers Book” is even more clear on Page 629. This is in specific reference to “prominent“ members around 1980. Thus Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that those who ADVOCATE other views while still being a member -then have the POTENTIAL of being disfellowshipped. A person that believes differently is encouraged ‘to be patient and wait on Jehovah for changes’-See Watchtower 2000 September 1st page 11 “Show a waiting Attitude” Johanneum 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The belief has to be expressed but I think it's an overstatement to say one would have to be promoting the belief. I've known individuals who simply expressed their disagreement on certain subjects (one was about the resurrection of the "anointed" in 1918, and the other was about Christ being mediator) and they were disfellowshipped. They said they would not discuss this with others but it was decided to disfellowship them anyway. So, I think we should leave what we have as is. Dtbrown 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hear say or Facts. As Editors we go for established facts. I nor you know all the details surrounding any particular judicial case. However, there is clear direction from Witness publications that indicate it is “advocating” not just believing. Again the Watchtower I referenced encourages members that have difficulties accepting certain believes to be patient. We have clear direction here. Lets do the right thing. So what will it be- hear say or authoritative material directly from the Watchtower Society? Johanneum 07:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Franz and Penton document similar cases. I believe that for this statement to be sustained, these citations should be added. I would ask for a "hang on" for 24 hours for these citations to be added. joshbuddy^talk 07:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. However, even if/when some documented cases are given, the real issue is what is their stated policy. ( JV 629) What is in writing for the judicial committees to act on. Any exceptions to what is taught and published are just that out of the ordinary. We open up a whole can of worms going in that direction. Johanneum 07:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you feel about the 1980 letter referenced above? joshbuddy^talk 07:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Johanneum, I did not propose those situations I was aware of as "evidence." But, they did happen. The directives to elders include more things than are normally available to everyone. The 1980 letter that is referenced in the article and cited by Penton and Franz is among those. Dtbrown 14:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand and also do not deny they did happen.Johanneum 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• At a minimal it seems we should add a qualifier (adverb) so that it reads “ Baptized members who adamantly disagree on any doctrine can potentially be disfellowshipped for apostasy” Johanneum 12:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues needs to go away, help required

The article Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues needs to go away. There may be information that is useful here. If anyone has a moment, if they could just pick up the good bits (which are few and far between) or rewritten the poorly written bits into better bits for JW articles and merge them, then we can get this POV page deleted sooner instead of later.

I think most of the points would fit into:

• 607 - should go to Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Blood - should go to Jehovah's Witnesses and blood
• UN stuff - should go to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments
• Rand Cam Engine Corp - should probably go to Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses as balancing points
• Jimmy Swaggart and Sales Tax - should probably go to Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses as balancing points
• Sex abuse stuff - should go to Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse

I'll do what I can to sort it out, hopefully I'll have some more time to sort it out soon, but if anyone else feels like moving stuff, grab a shovel, enjoy. joshbuddy 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be useful to preserve that article as a sort of central reference of things about JW that have seen some controversy. I suggest merging into the articles you note, but refraining from deleting what's currently there.

The article could also benefit from a healthy dose of WP:NPOV. Pointing out the existence of controversies, and citing references where they have been described elsewhere in reputable sources, is very different from grinding an ax. ikkyu2 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Though keeping a laundry list of controversial JW issues would be useful, it would really just amount to a bunch of links to other articles that deal with the controversy in such a way as to give it context and equal disucssion to both sides. However, this cannot be done until the article gets its contents merged appropriately into its many new homes. joshbuddy 23:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, although I can't see how a list about controversial things could be a laundry list. Laundry is non-controversial.

However, let's look at it from the other point of view - that of the person whose primary interest in Jehovah's Witnesses is the controversy surrounding them. Let us say that that person's perspective is that of an opponent of Jehovah's Witnesses. That person might say, "Look, parting out the controversy surrounding Jehovah's Witnesses into 6 separate articles makes it impossible for the casual reader to get a fair overview of just how much controversy this church has generated. Therefore, dividing the articles up that way is an editorial decision that doesn't respect my point of view."

I kind of feel that way myself, actually. But I believe it's important to preserve NPOV, and the current article isn't particularly neutral. I believe it could be more neutral, though, and provide an overview of controversies that could be discussed, neutrally, in more detail elsewhere. Glad to learn your opinion on the matter, especially if you can think of a 3rd alternative that might be acceptable to all sides. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think the colloquial expression "laundry list" carried the implication of being merely conventional. What I envision is a very brief summary of different controversial issues that would open up to the more detailed sections in the side articles. Currently the side articles are incomplete, and need filling out. Its happening, but it takes time. joshbuddy 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, these sorts of things are best done carefully, which means they can be tortuously slow to do. Good luck with your efforts! -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article?

Has this article ever became "Featured article"? Or at least marked as a "good article"?

I think that it deserves it - it is a great example of citing sources, NPOV and good formatting ad illustration.--Amir E. Aharoni 12:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My ambition is to get this under peer review and a feature article. There are a number of things that still need to be done, but believe me, I'm keeping it in mind. joshbuddy 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Doctrines & Practices...

I've finished my merger of these two sections. According to Konrad, this is according the wikiproject plan for jws. Please verify what I've done. I hope its to everyones satisfactions. I think many of the redundancies present before have been cleared up. I look forward to your critiques and help with what I've written. joshbuddy 03:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Apocalypse Delayed is critical?

I don't really agree with this edit. This book has a very neutral tone. Perhaps we need to eliminate these arbitrary categories altogether? joshbuddy^talk 05:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the alphabetical order idea! Dtbrown 06:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You certainly can not put Penton's first book on par with his second book, namely neutral. There is a vast difference!Johanneum 08:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, even Professor Penton mentioned in the forward of “Apocalypse Delayed” why his second book was so different than his first. But whatever the case, Please do not change it all because of my opinion. There are definite advantages of having different headings of those that are in support/ favor and those that are critical/against JW’s beliefs. Keeping the headings will harmonize with the external links on the same page.Johanneum 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

His first book, Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada was vastly different from his second book. In Apocalypse Delayed, he took a critical view of the witnesses. Critical is a funny word, because in this sense, it doesn't mean a disapproving nature, but rather, an analytical approach. The ambiguity of the header made this section confusing already.

The web links are confusing too mind you. Take a look at [1]. Is this supportive? neutral? critical? Why is it categorized the way it is? I'm thinking maybe its better just to alphabetize both lists and be done with it. Let the reader decide what sort of resource it is, and its merits themselves. From the witness perspective of not wanting to visit apostate sites, I can't see that being a serious concern. After all, most witnesses would not come to wikipedia to learn about their own religion. joshbuddy^talk 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying (and I like the way the books look now) but I'd say let's keep the separate lists for resources the time being. What say the JW editors? Dtbrown 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now. Nice job. Johanneum 13:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New section proposal

Taking some cues from other religion articles, I have an idea I'd like to share. I think it would be great to seperate out the critical views of witness beliefs and make that into a new section. So now where we have Beliefs and Practices, which mixes official beliefs and critical views, we would have two seperate sections. Official Beliefs and Practices (or just Beliefs and Practices) and Critical View of Beliefs and Practices. Within the critical section very brief versions of arguments and counter-arguments could be included.

How does this idea strike everyone? joshbuddy^talk 18:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! Johanneum 20:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've wanted this for some time now... Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the proposal. In the Beliefs and Practices section on the main page there is very little critical information, except perhaps in the section on disfellowshipping. Otherwise, what is presented in that section is what Witnesses believe in a rather straightforward manner. Or, am I missing something? Dtbrown 23:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I should have been more clear. As it stands now, there is little to no critical information. That information would be presented here (very briefly) and would expand into a larger article. I think there is a reasonable amount of critical information about disfellowshipping, eschatology, basis of authority, blood, and perhaps others that could be presented. Basically, I would just take a look at other sources, and try and sum up their arguments very briefly. I would also include any counter-arguments from the Society itself. I know how critical real-estate is on the front article, so perhaps I would need to trim back the beliefs and practices a bit more too, make it a little more concise. It's just an idea in my head, and I wondered how it would strike everyone. joshbuddy^talk 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Here is an outline of what I'm talking about. User:Joshbuddy/Alt Belief Copy. Its not complete, just to answer a few questions about what exactly I'm refering too. Let me know what you think, and feel free to edit this page as you see fit. joshbuddy^talk 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Central's accusations of bias

There appears a clear grossly biased pro-JW agenda going on here in the same way the JW Fundamentalist sock puppet Retcon|Missionary was doing. I imagine he is quite possibly involved posting under a new log on name[s]. The JW aim unmistakably emerging to be is: (1) Mess up all non-pro Watchtower material mixing it with opposite material, (2) Then remove all such material to new pages, (3) Then remove the new pages at a later date, and bingo! An entirely grossly pro-JW set of propaganda articles are left. If anything remotely balanced is still in existence, it is so hard to find the public coming here will give up. It does not take a brain surgeon to see this corrupt biased and manipulative goal unfolding here, and it's certainly not hidden with all the less than covert smaller steps towards that Pro-Watchtower propaganda end. Central 11:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm. Can you please comment on the issue at hand? Is the sectioning proposal good or bad? Incidently, the discussion to merge lists can be found above. It has to do with what "critical" means. Does it mean analytical or merely disparaging? joshbuddy^talk 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Giving balance is not "disparaging". Would you be in favour of changing the words "positive resources" to religious propaganda/brainwashing? I doubt it. I believe this arguing over the word 'critical' is a subterfuge and red herring. There are far more articles out there on Jehovah's Witnesses that are giving critiques than are positive. To hide information and debate, or worse, deny it even exists is not only unethical, it's blatantly fraudulent and manipulatively deceitful, and that is not supposed to be the purpose of any kind of reputable encyclopaedia. Mixing them all up into one long list does nothing but destroy the availability of the information in the first place. The purpose of any category is for ease of access to information, not to jumble it all up, so no one knows where to find direction, clarification or subject matter. How reasonable would it be to merge all the sub headings on the main page, i.e., "blood", "governments", "eschatology" and "beliefs" etc., into one massive mixed up long paragraph? It would make no sense at all! So why do that to the additional resources section? I find it interesting how neutral or pro-JWs material seems to be mushrooming into an infinite amount of new specialised pages, but the very opposite is happing with anything that is remotely non-flattering, like the controversial page, books, and web-resources trying to be broken up and then presumably censored out of existence. This blatant bias must be attended to and stopped immediately, because it's clear that non-flattering material is undoubtedly trying to be dissolved into oblivion or obscurity, and definitely moved off the main page where the public might dare to read it. While all else seems to be mushrooming out of control with its own new promo page, mimicking more and more each day the Watchtower's own website. Central 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Central, those are quite some charges to make. Do you have any evidence? Dtbrown 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want evidence go thorough the past history for the last 18 months on the main page and Talk pages. There was even a resources section page which kept changing name linked to the main page entitled last year "Critical information on Jehovah's Witnesses", previously to that any critiques or even remotely non-flattering information was immediately removed from the main page by zealous JWs who seem to think they own this site, or believe it's a subsidiary of the Watch Tower Society. This separate critical resources links page rapidly got deleted also (by a fanatical JW campaign), and here we are back at the same situation. JWs trying to squeeze out any balance, remove it to a distant location, and then put the bullet in the head out of public sight by removing it altogether, and hoping no one will notice while they surreptitiously try and turn the whole of Wikipedia into a new clone of the Watchtower's site Central 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an examples of what you're talking about, or will you continue to shotgun spray everyone with accusations? joshbuddy^talk 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You suggested above that someone is using a sockpuppet for this "pro-JW agenda" you described. Yet, the bulk of the editing lately has been joshbuddy and myself. Did you mean one of us? Dtbrown 21:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

1976-Present - changed year. actual re-organization took effect on jan 1 1976

It was on December 4, 1974 that the Governing Body was reorganized. The Six committes were formed and then on Janurary 1, 1976 they went into operation. "power of the presidency passed on to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses." ??? more on that later. Johanneum 06:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant to type December 4, 1975, instead of 1974. Yes, the six committees went into operation on January 1, 1976. Before then, the president of the WT Society held the real power...though a transition can be seen from 1971 to 1975. This is covered in detail in Ray Franz's "Crisis of Conscience." Dtbrown 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Typo Just seems that September 6, 1971 is significant since that is when the Chairmanship of the Governing Body began to rotate. Feel free to drop this sub-heading to clear up this page if you wish. Johanneum 06:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Things began to change then. However, as Franz points out in "Crisis of Conscience" top decisions were still made by Knorr (unless he relegated authority to the Governing Body to handle something). For example, the Governing Body did not take over editing the publications until after the re-organization in 1976. Dtbrown 06:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding JW-ism

Just a note, that colloquial expressions unique to JW's should be avoided. joshbuddy^talk 06:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just knew the expression "time report" is/was inaccurate. "Field service report" is the proper terminolgy, but could create promblems. Johanneum 06:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Practices, Humanatarian Efforts part of Doctrines/Practices

Hey summersong. I notice you changed the heading level on various sections. The intent was to make these items part of doctrines and practices, to finally unite those two sections per jwproject. joshbuddy^talk 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

JW Template

I think its about time we got our own navigational template for JW pages. I've created one and put it on the front page. I will propogate it to all the JW articles listed there.

This is a first attempt, I'm sure lots of useful articles are missing, the design of the template is evil, and I've done several other things wrong. Not to despair! Let's just fix it and make it very functional for navigating around the morass of JW articles that have been built. joshbuddy^talk 21:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Duffer 23:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Duffer. The "See Also" links should be put into the template instead. joshbuddy^talk 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge of links and books

There is a fair bit of overlap between books and weblinks (seeing as some of the books are available online) It appears that the prefered style on wikipedia is to amalagamate these two sections, and to have only one section for further reading. Further Reading is the preferred term as its more inclusive and broad. I've merged them together, hopefully we can have a useful conversation about what should go where, how they should be sorted, and how many links and books we really need. joshbuddy^talk 23:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, one more note. According to Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Further_reading.2Fexternal_links this section should NOT include references to publications already referenced in the article. We should follow this. I'm giving this as warning about the removal that is going to take place later. joshbuddy^talk 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This change bothers me. Why should we not give information about Marley Cole's Jehovah's Witnesses: The New World Society or A People For His Name? I think the quality of the article has taken a major hit by removing these and the other links we had. It may be a Wikipedia policy but I think it's a bad one. Dtbrown 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think following that guideline alone will go a long way in cleaning up the external resources section. Duffer 23:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This change bothers me too. I'm going to look for some insight into this policy, try and understand the reasoning behind it. joshbuddy^talk 00:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Central has reverted some titles and I've reverted the rest. I think this is something we can discuss further. I would think the editors here can decide to follow that particular policy or not. Dtbrown 14:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the previous listing of "further reading" before the references. I think it flows better to have it that way. I've been thinking about this issue and I think that a rule that would work better for this page would be that if the main text of the article refers to a resource then it should not be in the "further reading" section. To remove a valuable resource from the "further reading" section just because it appears in a footnote which most people probably will not read seems punitive. (Why include Cole's Triumphant Kingdom but not his more notable Jehovah's Witnesses: The New World Society?) Any other thoughts? Dtbrown 03:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Issues / Critical Views

Is it necessary to have one article for the Critical views on the Beliefs and Practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses and another on Controversial Issues? I can see that it has been suggested before that the article for Controversial Issues be deleted altogether but I have another suggestion.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses religion is controversial and for research purposes I think that it is important to have a central point of reference for these controversies. The current article is grossly POV but could be repaired.

What if we had the article Controversial Issues containing a brief outline on the controversy surrounding the blood issue and a link to the main article, an outline on the sexual abuse controversy and a link to the main article and an outline on the UN issue and a link to the main article? We could also include the critical views of the beliefs and practices in this section also. It will be hard work to maintain the article to NPOV standards – anyone game? Lucille S 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Currently Critical views on the Beliefs and Practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses doesn't exist. Listing controversial issues is different from reporting on critical views of beliefs and practices I think.

The controversial issues article, as I see it, needs to become defined by other articles content, that is, it should hold onto no unique content of its own, but simply link over to other articles with brief summaries.

I don't have a really good answer for this. I imagine that once beliefs & practices is merged together, it will be much easier to see how the overall structure will go. I'm going to make an attempt at this later this week. joshbuddy^talk 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Field Service

This paragraph:

Dedicated Jehovah's Witnesses must be house-to-house preachers. Raymond Franz contends the phrase "house-to-house" (gr. kat' oikon) found at Acts 2:46, 5:42, 20:20 does not support the sense of preaching from one house to the next in sequential order. The footnote in Acts 20:20 for "house to house" states or "and in private houses". Jehovah's Witnesses feel that preaching from house to house is "too humiliating for such self-important ones" who do not agree that there is a need to do so.

Is rife with equivocation.

• "Dedicated Jehovah's Witnesses must be house-to-house preachers". This is not true. A baptised Witness must witness according to ones own personal circumstances (be it door-to-door, phone witnessing, informal witnessing, etc..). Organized pg. 104:

"Congregation publishers are encouraged likewise to put Kingdom interests first and exert themselves in the ministry to accomplish all that they can in the field according to their individual circumstances."

• Raymond Franz - can contend all he want, Acts 20:20 is not the only reason the WT cites to visit individual homes. So his criticism, here, is rather impotent. Insight Preaching - "From House to House" (pg. 673/4):

Jesus went right to the people with the Kingdom message, teaching them publicly and in their homes. (Mt 5:1; 9:10, 28, 35) When he sent out his early disciples to preach, he directed them: “Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving.” (Mt 10:7, 11-14) Such ‘searching out’ would reasonably include going to the people’s homes, where “deserving” persons would heed the message and the disciples would find lodging for the night.—Lu 9:1-6. On a later occasion Jesus “designated seventy others and sent them forth by twos in advance of him into every city and place to which he himself was going to come.” These were not just to preach in public places but were also to contact people at their homes. Jesus instructed them: “Wherever you enter into a house say first, ‘May this house have peace.’”—Lu 10:1-7.

• "...who do not agree that there is a need to do so". This is not a proper English sentence, however, it's implication is clear. The article is talking about losing fear of Jehovah and turning spiritual things into mere empty formalities. The WT Dec 1, '87 pg. 20:

It is unclear why you have picked on the grammar; those whom the Society labels "self-important ones" are those who do not agree that there is a need to go preaching door-to-door. The grammar is intact with the rest of the sentence, and there is no doubt as to the meaning. The article in question tries to label those who disagree with the need for 'field service' as unappreciative, and completely ignores the fact that many leave the organization because of genuine doctrinal concerns. Regardless of the intent of the article, many of such ones indeed "disagree" with the need for house-to-house preaching. The article simply employs an emotional ploy to guilt any who may be finding 'field service' boring into thinking that may must lack love for God.--Jeffro77 22:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Maintain Proper Fear of God:

17 For those who fail to respect and fear Jehovah, worship and service become a burden. Jehovah said to the Israelites: “You men are profaning me by your saying, ‘The table of Jehovah is something polluted, and its fruit is something to be despised, its food.’ And you have said, ‘Look! What a weariness!’” (Malachi 1:12, 13) The same can be true in modern times. For those who lose the fear of Jehovah, meetings, field service, and other Christian activities could become a burden.

18 Notice how such ones were described in The Watchtower of January 1, 1937: “To those unfaithful ones the privilege of serving God by bringing the fruits of the kingdom before others, as the Lord has commanded, has become only a tiresome ceremony and formality, which offers them no opportunity to shine in the eyes of men. The carrying of the kingdom message from house to house in printed form, and presenting this to the people, is too humiliating for such self-important ones. They find no joy in it . . . Therefore they have said, and continue to say: ‘This carrying books about is merely a book-selling scheme. What a wearisome task that is!’” Even today there are those who, from time to time, find the field service a drudgery and attending meetings tedious. This is what can happen when we lose our fear of Jehovah and, along with it, our love for him."

It is far more than an issue of disagreement (contrary to the assertion made in the contested paragraph), it is about allowing sacred privileges to become mundane tasks through loss of fear of the true God. Also to say what "Jehovah's Witnesses feel" is inappropriate. At the very least such an instance should be presented as: "The Watchtower has stated...".

I think my review thoroughly dispels the myths surrounding this "critical view". Had there been any salveagable, accurate, criticism I would have offered an alternate. Duffer 10:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're disputing here. This *is* the argument Ray Franz makes. The Watchtower reference provided does say "must". Though Acts 20:20 is not the only reference used, it does use the identical greek wording as the other two citations in the NWT, and for the Acts 20:20 one, the footnote says that. The 1937 Watchotwer is critical of those two don't want to fo in field service. I will look for a better reference for use here. Again though, not sure what you're disputing. Are you saying that Ray Franz isn't making this argument? joshbuddy^talk 14:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It claims that Witnesses MUST be door-to-door preachers. That is not true, baptized Witnesses "MUST" witness in any form they can, individual circumstances permiting (see Organized quote). I'm not disputing Franzs' claim, I'm disputing the setup. To even start to be fair the first line would have to read something like: "Raymond Franz criticizes one of the Watchtowers' reasons given for the house-to-house preaching work." This eliminates the erroneous straw man that is the current first sentence while allowing place for Franzs' critique. As for the other cititations Luke 10:1-7 does contain "house-to-house" but in a different sense than that used in the other citations ("do not be transferring from house to house").

The final sentence states: "Jehovah's Witnesses feel that preaching from house to house is "too humiliating for such self-important ones" who do not agree that there is a need to do so." This makes no sense, and is likewise erroneous as explained above. This sentence attributes the contexts surrounding "self-important ones" to a mere disagreement when the article (quoted above) makes it clear that there is far more involved than a disagreement. To be clear, it is true that the '37 article is critical, but it is critical for specific reasons that extend beyond disagreement; and really "disagree" isn't even mentioned in the article, it specically states: "For those who fail to respect and fear Jehovah, worship and service become a burden". I think this sentence should be deleted unless a concise alternative can be made that contains truth. Does this make sense? I can try to clarify further. Please don't hesitate to ask. Duffer 20:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good points Duffer. I've modified it. Please review. As for the ending piece, please feel free to fix it to more accurately represent the reference. joshbuddy^talk 20:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not take this the wrong way Josh, but I feel that the new paragraph creates more problems than it resolves:

Raymond Franz argues that leadership commands Jehovah's Witnesses to be house-to-house preachers.[137] Further, he states that the phrase "house-to-house" (gr. kat' oikon) found at Acts 2:46, 5:42, 20:20 does not support the sense of preaching from one house to the next in sequential order. The footnote in Acts 20:20 for "house to house" states or "and in private houses". Jehovah's Witnesses feel that preaching from house to house is "too humiliating for such self-important ones" who do not agree that there is a need to do so.[138][139]

"Raymond Franz argues..": Raymond Franz alleges despite verifiable evidence that his allegations are false (see Organized quote in previous reply). If his allegations are false then why would we include them in this article? It would have to read something like: "Raymond Franz alleges that leadership commands Jehovah's Witnesses to be house-to-house preachers despite evidence to the contrary." Should demonstrably false criticisms be given any hearing on Wikipedia?

You suggest: "As for the ending piece, please feel free to fix it to more accurately represent the reference", I admire your want to salvage references. In this case, however, salvaging it would exclude it from this criticism as it (in proper context) is not talking about disagreement or house-to-house evangelism. As seen above it is refering to: "..those who fail to respect and fear Jehovah, worship and service become a burden" and mentions the 'house-to-house' evangelism as an example of what one burden might be to one who has lost respect and fear of Jehovah. It goes far beyond disagreement (something the article doesn't mention anyways) to the point where respect and fear of Jehovah is lost, and an individual's worship is a burden, empty of spiritual sustenance. If Franzs' criticisms were focusing on this premise then this would be a salvageable quote, but that's not the case here, and I think we should delete it along with the rest of the paragraph. If we were to keep it and conform the paragraph to accuracy we would end up with no valuable information (ironically how it is already...):

"Raymond Franz alleges that leadership commands Jehovah's Witnesses to be house-to-house preachers despite insurmountable evidence refuting his claim. He goes on to criticise one of the reasons Witnesses give as evidence of the need (according to Jehovah's Witnesses) for 'house-to-house' preaching, despite the fact that he is a self-published entity with no scholarship in the fields of biblical interpretation or Koine Greek he states: the phrase "house-to-house" (gr. kat' oikon) found at Acts 2:46, 5:42, 20:20 does not support the sense of preaching from one house to the next in sequential order. Jehovah's Witnesses are admonished to do their upmost to guard themselves from apathy, or worse: loss of fear and respect for Jehovah God. Such loss of fear and respect, according to Witnesses, can lead to empty and burdensome tasks void of spiritual sustenance; or further, can lead to outright refusal to carry out sacred services like the door-to-door ministry."

I think the whole paragraph should be deleted. Duffer 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire for accuracy in this matter. My intent in including this information is to present a variety of views, and especially to balance the JW view with a critical view. I have a few questions.

1. Are JWs commanded to go house-to-house or not? To be counted as a JW, one must engage in the ministry. The house-to-house ministry is considered the foremost method of preaching. Any citation would be useful.
2. In the entry on house-to-house, he had a chart from roughly 20 translations, and their renderings of those three versus, as well as quotes from a couple of different sources, including Franz senior. Do you want me to include MORE from the book to support these statements? I don't mind including more detail, but I was really hoping to save that for a more specific article about JW beliefs.

All I was trying to do was present the other side in a brief, concise way. I think you'll agree I've been very fair about presenting witness beliefs accurately, and I've worked very hard to get this article as NPOV as possible. I've eliminated "bang you over the head" contradictions in JW beliefs and instead presented the statements and left the reader to make up their mind. Seeing as you haven't read the book, and choose not to, I don't you should pass judgment on the quality of the source. With regard to presenting a critical view of JW beliefs, I think you're going to have to give a little.

To quote from WP:NPOV. "The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints" "we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone" "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible" I think the section "Writing for the "enemy" POV" is especially relevant here. I've been writing JW views with a straight face, attempting to eliminate judgments around the beliefs. I can do this because I'm not writing about my beliefs, but someone elses. I can do the say thing with Raymond Franz. Just on a side note, I don't personally agree with Raymond Franz on many many points. But its irrevelant to me. I just want to make this article the best damn article it can be. This means I have to write about other people's beliefs, attribute statements to them, regardless of my viewpoint on them.

Imagine the writing style of your above paragraph applied to the whole article. How would that look? Would you be happy with the result? Do you think it would contribute to edit wars?

I promise I will correct that reference to more accurately reflect whats in the book. (perhaps someone can do this if they have the reference handy.. i'm looking at dtbrown right now) Please think about what I've said. Our concern here should not be with the logicalness of either JW's position or Ray Franz's position, simply that we give them due weight and accurately convey them. :) joshbuddy^talk 02:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have done a great job Josh. On your first point, I think Dtbrown has already adequately answered this. On your second point: I was not aware that Franz had citations, perhaps add Franzs' claim as suggested by Dtbrown, or perhaps: "Raymond Franz criticizes one reason Witnesses give to support their belief in house-to-house ministry. He states: "add specific quote here". He cites "add a couple citations here" in support of his criticism (or: "External sources here" affirm his criticism). I think it would be good to emphasise how important the door-to-door ministry is. Every "active" Jehovah's Witness is a minister at least 1 hour a month, I'd guess that nearly all of those attain that one hour in the door-to-door service, though several other methods of Witnessing count as well. But again, that's "active" Witnesses, it is still possible, and common, to be "inactive" but still very much be a Jehovah's Witness. What do you think of my view of the last sentence in the disputed paragraph? I honestly do not see how it relates to Franzs' criticism. Duffer 07:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this. The chapter in Franz's book actually starts out saying: "If the question were put to the headquarters organization of the Watch Tower Society whether each member (if physically able) must do house-to-house witnessing to be a true Witness, in fact to be a true Christian, the answer would probably be that this is not an absolute requirement." (ISOCF, p. 207) Perhaps something like this: "Raymond Franz criticizes the meaning given to "from house to house" in Acts 5:42; 20:20 and claims its primary meaning is `in private homes.'" (ISOC pp. 207-236) ?? Dtbrown 05:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Is it possible to frame that within the context of the importance witnesses place upon house-to-house witnessing? Seems like a bit of an orphan otherwise. I would say go ahead with the change though. Its an improvement on whats there. joshbuddy^talk 06:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I've completely re-written this section. I took a little more time at it, to try and capture his arguments a bit better, and remove the parts you found objectionable. Just on a side note, I've attempted to avoid direct quotes as much as possible on the main JW article, as they take up precious space and can usually be summarized more succinctly. Its always such a battle for space on here. Oh well.

Please review duffer. I'm removing your disputed tag, seeing as this truly is completely different. Feel free to re-add the tag if you still find something disputable about it, but I really do hope I've got it right this time . Cheers. joshbuddy^talk 08:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Duffer 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

History Articles Merged

I've merged the history articles together trying to keep most of the points while cutting down the size somewhat since there was some overlap. Hope this meets everyone's approval. Dtbrown 05:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks fabulous to me. Very dense and meaty paragraphs. I like em. joshbuddy^talk 05:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Allowable percentage of whole blood

The statement that fractions are allowable does not mean much without the factual context of the percentage of the whole which the allowable fractions comprise. I added the factual context in the appropriate place and sourced the statement from a peer-reviewed and medically reviewed article that appeared in Baylor Univerity's publication Journal of Church and State. The statement is about as NPOV as you can get, it is a medical fact.

I added the statement again in the context of critical views because it is a very compelling point when considering whether there is actually even a real prohibition against blood if 97% of whole blood can be used. I will be happy to add this also to the primary blood doctrine pages, but I would like an explanation of the reasons first, if someone believes this should be removed. Stating that something doesn't belong is no explanation, it is now sourced so an explanation is due prior to removal. Respectfully, Evident 03:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Johanneum, in violation of the guidelines you have removed a sourced reference without discussion. Explain yourself here, please. The same reference can appear in the same article if the same point is being referenced in two separate sections, in two separate contexts, with two separate objectives. I consider your removal without discussion of a sourced NPOV statement of fact to be rude and disdainful. Restore it or demonstrate why you removed it. --Evident 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I restored it already because you violated guidelines by removing a sourced medical fact without discussion. If you think it shouldn't be there, discuss why first then delete. Unsourced comments can be deleted at will, but not sourced comments. I expressed amazement to the person who warned me of a possible edit war over this. This is as NPOV as it gets, documented MEDICAL FACT about the constituent makeup of blood, why are you fussing about this comment? What possible objection can there be to stating an undisputed medical fact? Unless you are in fact disputing it with basis that you haven't shown. --Evident 03:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your point would be more effective if it were framed from the point of view of the critic, in this case, the journal. The statement, "Despite beingallowed to accept 97% of whole blood in the form of various available blood fractions, Jehovah's Witnesses remain silent on what God finds objectionable about the remaining 3%." appears to be a bit of a logical gotcha against JWs. I don't think these sorts of statements are helpful. I would suggest soemthing along the lines of:

According to Journal of Church and State in a recent peer-reviewed article, Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to accept 97% of whole blood in the form of various available blood fractions. There has been no official response to this article.

That might be a little nicer, and perceived as less hostile. Just an idea. What do you think? joshbuddy^talk 04:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Joshbuddy. I will make that change right now. Respectfully, Evident 04:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Evident. Looks much nicer. I wasn't aware that it was a "medically reviewed article". I have the issue at home, I would have to check it. Thanks. joshbuddy^talk 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard a rumor that it was medically reveiwed and confirmed that with the Editor, Derek Davis. He confirmed that since the article was produced by a student (since graduated) it was put through much more extensive rigors prior to publication than would be required for a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court, for instance, including independent review of the medical facts presented within. Respectfully, Evident 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice suggestion Joshbuddy.

Evident, I called on you to discuss it before restoring it, which you went ahead and did anyways. You yourself said it is a, “very compelling point when considering whether there is actually even a real prohibition against blood if 97% of whole blood can be used.” That dear friend is a source of controversy. A statement like that may appear under, “ Critical Views on Beliefs and Practices” But I question the need under, “Blood” The paragraph it is in is one sided. I would suggest something such as below. 2)Kerry Louderback-Wood, a Former JW being a quoted source could be debatable. She is wrong in some of her assumptions. For example she writes: “if the Society’s indoctrination literature contains misrepresentations of secular facts, the foundation of each Witnesses’ belief based upon such misrepresentation is flawed” However, JW do not base their belief on secular facts. They are only used as supportive evidence!!! 3) “allow”- that to a degree misrepresents what JW believe that it is an individual and conscience decision based on whether they personally think it is Blood. The leaders are silent, allow could seem to indicate differently. They neither advocate nor discourage.

• Suggestion: Many members carry carefully prepared durable power of attorney documents indicating personal health choices such as whether they will accept fractions derived from blood. One such option is, “'I may be willing to accept some minor blood fractions, but details will have to be discussed with me if I am conscious or with my patient advocate in case of my incapacity.” The conscience of some Witnesses still does not permit the use of fractions derived from blood and these might use non-blood alternatives with varying degrees of success. Johanneum 05:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out a couple of things. This is a touchy issue, so lets not impute wrong motives. (I think thats actually a 93 Watchtower:) ) It is also very bad to draw conclusions for the reader. Unless the source you're quoting from draws that conclusion, then you shouldn't be drawing it. Ever.

This comment above:

2)Kerry Louderback-Wood, a Former JW being a quoted source could be debatable. She is wrong in some of her assumptions. For example she writes: “if the Society’s indoctrination literature contains misrepresentations of secular facts, the foundation of each Witnesses’ belief based upon such misrepresentation is flawed” However, JW do not base their belief on secular facts. They are only used as supportive evidence!!!

Could be very constructively included in the JW article. State her quote. Then find a good source for Johanneum's assertion that JW's do not base their beliefs on secular evidence alone. Problem solved. Both sides are represented. This is exactly the kind of thing I would like to see in the critical section. Some of this back and forth from reputable good sources. Johanneum, is it possible you can phrase "JW do not base their belief on secular facts. They are only used as supportive evidence!!!" in a better way and cite it properly for the article? I would personally appreciate it. joshbuddy^talk 05:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Johanneum, whether or not JW's allow a certain percentage of blood without censure is completely separate from discussion of the doctrine itself. It is a medical fact that 97% of whole blood may be viewed as acceptable by any given JW (without censure from the congregation) in the form of available fractions. A secular fact is irrespective of and unconcerned with matters of doctrine and dogma and was added as a 100% NPOV detail about the ambiguous referenced "fractions" under discussion in the context.

The religious affiliation of the author of a source should have no bearing whatever on the factuality of secular statements they may make (or in this case, pie charts they may include) which have been independently reviewed and verified. How could we hope for an NPOV article if only active JWs or those who have never been JWs are allowed as sources?

Unless you can show why this neutral fact is in dispute, I invite you to explain why such a fact should not be candidly expressed sans commentary of any kind in the Blood section. It is quite bad form to argue that a pertinent fact should be omitted from an encyclopedia article because of what people reading the fact might think as a result. The fact that I believe people might think as a result of reading this simple fact is an extremely good reason for its inclusion.

It appears that you are arguing against the statement of a medical fact in the doctrine section because that fact doesn't affect the doctrine. If so, maybe you aren't understanding why I put it in that section. Facts inform, and the doctrine (as expressed) wasn't very clear on how much of the blood can be used without censure. A fraction can be any amount less than the whole. In the case of blood fractions did the article mean .001% of the whole blood or 99.99% of the whole blood? The term use could mean anything between those ranges. So, I included another fact that more clearly expressed what the doctrine was permitting. While I can understand any active JW not liking the uncouched inclusion of that fact, that it is a secular fact remains—this is an encyclopedia after all.

Joshbuddy, I would be happy to help flesh out the Critical area with some give and take, but if I am going to have to fight over whether secular facts can be added to clarify an encyclopedia article I would appreciate a heads up on that before I commit a lot of time to this project. I am amazed that this discussion is even necessary over a one-sentence addition of a fact that is verifiable. Respectfully, Evident 07:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not take this personally, but I think it would have not gotten so much attention had the argument been attributed and stated in a more NPOV way. The last sentence of your initial edit (which you have kindly changed) had a disparaging tone. I understand the wackiness of being told you can eat the lettuce, tomato and bacon seperately, but don't eat the BLT. (I think that is ajwbr's position iirc) But it is not helpful to the purposes of the wikipedia to attack a belief, even subtly. I know you want your position to be heard. *I* want your position to be heard. But we all have to play by the rules given, and above all, show kindness and consideration. You have so far been very considerate, and I appreciate that quite a bit. joshbuddy^talk 07:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not take this the wrong way Evident, but I believe you misrepresent Louderback-Wood in claiming the article is neutral. It is highly biased, and demonstrably incorrect, and misleading in certain ways. It's not the source that is questionable, it is the highly disputed content.

This lawyer posits the notion that if the Watchtower bases its' Blood doctrine on secular evidence, then subsequently misrepresents the secular evidence, it constitutes liability if a person dies as a result. In an attempt to obscure the line between what the Watchtower bases it's Blood doctrine on (the Bible), and what the Watchtower musters in support of said doctrine (secular resources and early "Church Father" writings) Louderback-Wood misrepresents Watchtower teachings, secular fact, and early church writers. (Ironically despite the fact that she acknowledges that the Blood doctrine is based on biblical interpretation, protected by the first amendment, and that secular resources are cited "to bolster its no-blood position" (Journal of Church and State - Louderback-Wood pg.784/5)). Duffer 07:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel it appropriate to temper my criticism of her work with expressions of sorrow I feel for her loss (regardless if this is the proper forum for such expressions). In her essay (Journal of Church and State - Louderback-Wood pg. 783 ft. 1) Wood describes the motivations "impetus" for writing the essay:

"Her mother faced the blood issue twice. In the first instance, a doctor administered platelets to stop post-partum hemorrhaging. Years later, doctors warned her mother that she was at great risk for heart failure because of her severe anemia and low blood pressure, and recommended a blood transfusion. Her mother refused, and she suffered a fatal heart attack within 48 hours of that warning. The doctors, hospital, relatives, and visiting members from the local congregation were not aware that the Society allowed followers to accept blood-derived hemoglobin, and, thus, did not offer it."

Wood's loss is tragic; she claims it is the "impetus" for the article, and perhaps was also (i'm guessing) the reason why she became a lawyer in the first place, if so, than we will all likely hear from her again. Perceived injustice can be a powerful motivator for anyone. I pray she considers the possibility that her mother might have been aware that alternatives were allowed, yet still objected for whatever reason. An active Witness with severe anemia, on top of having "faced the blood issue" already, would likely be very knowledgable about the intricacies of the doctrine. Duffer 08:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Although you are much mistaken about the article itself and the review it endured prior to publication, I don't think the reference has to be challenged to the extent of debating review processes of various Universities and institutions. I cited this publication at a specific place to support one specific statement. Do you dispute the factuality of the statement? If so, on what basis? If not, why argue over it?

Frankly, Duffer, I cannot see what bearing any of the things you mentioned has on whether 97% of whole blood is permissable without censure or reprisal for medical use by Jehovah's Witnesses. Unless one of you who are arguing with me over this issue would like to dispute that singular medical (secular) fact I would appreciate one of you explaining why you see the need to pursue the issue. Duffer, would the congregation take any action to correct a JW who chose to take 97% of whole blood in the form of various fractions derived from whole blood for the purpose of saving their life? Johanneum, what say you?

As it stands, I was first told I needed to source this medical fact before adding it back in. I did so. Then I was told we needed to discuss the inclusion of this medical fact before adding it back in, which is preposterous. You fellows need to show cause (at this point) for the exclusion of this sourced fact, not the other way around. I'll be waiting for your discussion in opposition to the statement "97% of whole blood is permitted by JW policy for medical use in the form of various fractions of the whole." Unless you wish to discuss that point with some cause for removing the statement, I see no reason to continue hashing this out.

If you have grievances with the article I cited, I suggest you write an email to Derek Davis, who was rather heavily involved in that article's rigors, so that you can address your concerns and grievances over any errors you found in Ms. Louderback-Wood's article. You might discover that he is quite well versed in the source materials she worked with. I am certain he could shed light on the extent to which the article was put through its paces. However, it might be advisable to refrain from publicly putting in writing that you think he lied or was less than professional in his handling of an article submission without proof. Just a suggestion. They have students galore at Baylor who would happily give a liver for an opportunity to clerk for free for Derek Davis.

You wrote, "perhaps was also (i'm guessing) the reason why she became a lawyer in the first place" and it was a reasonable but incorrect guess. However, you are correct about the reasons for the author of the article being extremely well versed in this particular doctrine—which lends weight to instead of detracting from the liklihood of her article manifesting razor-sharp accuracy. You simply misapplied the effect of keen attentiveness to details regarding it to her mother instead of to her. I appreciate you pointing it out.

I would have otherwise. Her mother, unfortunately, had one phrase drilled into her head regarding blood, "No Blood." Seems she got the idea from a card she carried in a readily available see-through plastic card holder in her purse. She apparently died without understanding that she could have chosen to take 97% of the whole blood. As can be seen from this discussion, JWs don't really want anyone to know that fact. --Evident 08:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking about the 97%, I was speaking of your claim of Louderback-Wood being "neutral". You are right, I was off-topic. As a side note before I get back on topic, most of the first link I provided discusses the full article, the second link discusses nothing but the full article. Through discussion (on the above linked to forum) her work has been found to contain with misdirection, inaccuracy, and pervasive bias. That's not to say that her article doesn't contain substantial, accurate, criticisms (which I believe it does). Back on topic, Louderback-Wood has a pie chart displaying the components of blood, her source for the chart is AJWRB, scroll down on that cite and you'll see the chart. AJWRB does not source the chart or the information it used to make the chart. It looks right, I know that blood is predominately water, but nobody sources an ACTUAL medical journal. Just citing the most convenient source here, the wikipedia Blood article states that Blood Plasma constitutes 55% of whole blood, with water weighing in at 96% of the plasma (making water roughly only 48% of whole blood contrary to the pie charts claim of 79.2%). This information is in direct contradiction to that of AJWRB. Unfortunately, like AJWRB, the wiki blood article does not cite its sources. In light of this I don't think we should be expected to accept "97%" as a verified fact. Duffer 12:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review (I keep forgeting I own Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite and Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2004), I'm afraid I have accidently mixed my apples with my oranges, Wikipedia is talking about blood composition, while AJWRB is talking about blood "WEIGHT" :

• Wikipedia's Blood article claim:

Blood is composed of several kinds of corpuscles; these formed elements of the blood constitute about 45% of whole blood. The other 55% is blood plasma...Blood plasma is essentially an aqueous solution containing 96% water..

Britannica:

• Supports Wikipedia's claim of "roughly 45% of whole blood", this does not deny AJWRBs claim - (article "Blood", heading "Properties") - "The red cells constitute about 45 percent of the volume of the blood, and the remaining cells (white cells and platelets) less than 1 percent. The fluid portion, plasma, is a clear, slightly sticky, yellowish liquid."
• Cannot verify Wikipedia's claim of plasma containing 96% water, this does not deny AJWRBs claim of 72% water WEIGHT (not composition) - (article "Blood", heading "Plasma") - "The liquid portion of the blood, the plasma, is a complex solution containing more than 90 percent water."

Encarta:

• Supports Wikipedia's claim of "55% .. blood plasma", this does not deny AJWRBs claim - (article "Blood", heading "Composition of Blood") - "About 55 percent of the blood is composed of a liquid known as plasma."

None of this denies AJWRB (contrary to what I had previously confused myself into believing), but it does bring to light a new objection that should be addressed. You claim she states 97%, actually she states (pg. 815):

• Surprisingly, the Society today allows its followers to accept ALL blood fractions (aka “fractions” or “components”) without church sanction, provided a follower’s decision is well considered.162 Currently, the Society depicts the allowed fractions as “minute” and omits pointing out the fact that the allowed fractions would, if added together, total the entire volume of blood they came from.163 In 1990, a time when fractions were allowed, the Society declared that Witnesses abstain from blood in any form.164 Because the Society depicts the fractions as minute and prescribes that Witnesses abstain from blood in any form, one might anticipate that today’s Witnesses would be confused if they were aware of an actual equivalence between whole blood and allowed blood fractions. If one adds the fractions together, they total a unit of whole blood.."

It does appear that Louderback-Wood's criticism (here) is correct, though I'm not sure how you came to 97% instead of the clearly stated 100%, unless I missed something.. again (hehe). Duffer 13:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Duffer, Regardless of the percent (although it should be medically accurate) Evident's point seems valid. That when the whole blood is broken down the minor fractions of that, can be used. However, if half of blood is water then do they make fractions out of that 50%? Or would the fractions come out of the other 50%. Certainly JW's drink water even though that is a high Percent of "blood". The point being is once a object is broken down so far, the question is, is it "blood"? For example, as Josh illustrated, A Witness would avoid the BLT and the bacon, lettuce, and tomato, however fractions would go a step further such as the high percent of water in Tomato. Is that "water" tomato? (0f course water is for illustrative purposes) This is what the WT calls a "grey area". Regardless it can be highlighted that the real issue is not blood, but the respect and obedience for blood. That is why JW can eat meat that has some of the 100% blood left, no issues, debates, or questions. Johanneum 13:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that his point is valid, however, the sources we cite here need to be represented accurately. I cannot find where Louderback-Wood mentions 97% in her article. Duffer 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find this point either. I'm going to adjust it to reflect the source. joshbuddy^talk 20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm not going to weigh in on the whole blood issue, but if Evident is simply quoting from this journal, showing its dissenting opinion on the JW blood policy, I think you'll have to allow it. Is it, afaik, a peer reviewed journal, and a notable source. The quote about 97% comes from the article, right? Those words are attributed to the article? So unless you're disputing thats what the article says, than I think thats all there is to say about it. I'm sure you don't agree with the conclusions the article draws, but well, that should come as no surprise. My only concern is in seeing a NPOV edit here. joshbuddy^talk 09:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My real issue was, should it appear twice(also in "Blood" under "Beliefs and Practices") or only once under "controversy"? I would suggest we change the first paragraph it appeared in, to something such as what follows below. 1)You will note the date of the document is 11/ 04. It is always good to stay with the latest change. This is not as slanted to one side,"many" "accept all fractions" the "many" carry the document to show their personal decisions. Who knows if the greater percent accept or decline fractions. I apologize about any confusion other wise caused.

• Suggestion: Many members carry carefully prepared durable power of attorney documents indicating personal health choices such as whether they will accept fractions derived from blood. One such option is, “'I may be willing to accept some minor blood fractions, but details will have to be discussed with me if I am conscious or with my patient advocate in case of my incapacity.” The conscience of some Witnesses still does not permit the use of fractions derived from blood and these might use non-blood alternatives with varying degrees of success. Johanneum 12:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Johanneum, I agree with your suggestion. The 97% statistic should appear in the critical views section, not the the current jw belief section. By putting that statistic in the current views section, it creates a rather disparaging view of current jw blood doctrine in a section that is supposed to outline their current beliefs. That sort of criticism is much better suited in the actual section on criticism. I see no problem if this is also under the controversial views section, but I would question it from a stylistic direction. I would need to see its inclusion though, and give it some though. joshbuddy^talk 17:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've edited this section. The critical views part needs citations, and I think could do with some good ol' spit and polish. My rationale for the deletion is that JW views need to be presented with a straight face. Critical views needs to be presented with a straight face. My opinion on the blood issue is pointless, I'm just attempting to convey the Watchtower view as accurately as possible. My opinion on the critical view is pointless, I just want to convey what it is as well as possible. On a side note, please feel free to add in more "critical views" if you have good sources for them. My first attempt at it was really just an attempt. Its far from complete. joshbuddy^talk 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Discipline criticism section is "weasel words"

I would like to remove these "weasel words". I will make an attempt at it later, but if anyone gets a moment, it would be great if they could look at improving this. joshbuddy^talk 08:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It might help us to understand the concept of "weasel words." Thanks! Dtbrown 14:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Sorry. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words The usage here is "Critics say..." In this case, it would probably read better as "Raymond Franz and James Penton have both documented cases where..." joshbuddy^talk 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, well, [embarassed laugh] er, I will hit the books then, and come up with some pertinent quotes. Evident 17:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

JW in the Soviet Union

The subject not mentioned in the article. Xx236 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add some content. joshbuddy^talk 18:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed on blood section

Currently, the blood section under beliefs has this:

Though blood can save lives, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been know to highlight the potential dangers of blood transfusions. For example, according to "The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service" [3] in the United States alone, around 500 deaths a year are caused by what is estimated “to be the third most common cause of death related to blood transfusion.”[4] Because of the potential dangers doctors can not guarantee that blood transfusions will save a child’s life or any life. [5] The Serious Hazards of Transfusion(SHOT)

Even though this paragraph has the lead in "though blood can save lives," it needs further clarification, IMO. I've checked out the SHOT page and I don't see any statement that supports the last sentence. At the very least, this paragraph needs to clearly state that there are some situations where blood, despite its risks, is the only treatment that will work. Dtbrown 08:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a very good addition in my opinion. Please feel free to clean it up. (I will later if no one else gets to it) joshbuddy^talk 09:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the article can say that Witnesses point out transfusion dangers. That would qualify as a JW belief. To say no doctor can guarantee (as if doctors ever guarantee anything!) blood will save a life because of these dangers moves beyond JW belief. At the moment, I'm not sure how to fix the problem but as it stands this misrepresents the medical position, which often will use non-blood treatments but does not reject it in all situations. Dtbrown 09:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concern. I need to think about this one. I agree with the Last sentence being removed. However a person should be informed that blood even though rare, can have adverse effects including that which it is should have prevented, death. The statement could be balanced, if the number of succesful transfussion were highlighted??????? still thinking13:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

People should be informed that a medical procedure can go awry? I believe the only context that this should be brought up should be with regards to witnesses being taught that blood transfusions are risky. Just looking at Dtbrown's edits, I think he has been respectful to bot sides of the debate. Good work Dtbrown! joshbuddy^talk 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing Article?!!??!

Does anyone know what happened to the article Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. I can't seem to find where it has disappeared to... There is nothing in it's edit history or on the talk page to explain it. Have I completely lost the plot or has it really gone AWOL... Lucille S 23:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If you click on "Start the Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse article" you'll see the text and everything for the article in an edit box, no idea why it doesn't show as a normal article though.. the same thing happens to me when I try to access the discussion page of the Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses article. I dunno what's going on. Duffer 00:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There it is! Thank you!!! Guess Wikipedia had a little hiccup... hopefully the content will stay put this time. At least I am not going insane… had me worried for a little while there. Lucille S 02:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1916-1942 - the "eviction" happened before July 17th according to Macmillan and Penton

First, thanks for your recent edits DTbrown. Next, Houston it appears we have a problem. The "proclaimers book" mentions that on August 8th they left the Bethel Family. P. 68. No time now to look further though. Johanneum 20:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC) One other thing, the 4 directors were at "bethel" on July 17 and took part in a five hour controversy.Johanneum 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I see how the way the paragraph is worded is confusing. Re: the police incident. This is my understanding. The four directors needed a fifth person to make the quorum. They wanted Macmillan to join them but he did not want to give them the quorum. (Rutherford was away). They came to the offices where Macmillan was working (they worked elsewhere) and tried to force a meeting with Macmillan in attendance. Rutherford had advised Macmillan not to allow the 4 members to change anything and if needed, call the police to get them out. The eviction was only from the offices where Macmillan was working...not from Bethel itself. I'm going to research it a bit more and try to adjust the paragraph so the confusion is gone. Dtbrown 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks dtbrown. I knew it looked funny but did not know how to fix it. Nice Job!Johanneum 00:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted this section after doing further research. See Rutherford's booklet "Harvest Siftings" and the four directors' booklet "Light After Darkness" which are now referenced in the article. I think I've got all the facts right but feel free to adjust the article further if needed if I've missed something. Dtbrown 03:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs and Practices

Hello all. Sorry I've been on a been bit of a break from these articles working on other wikipedia matters.

I've taken the content from Beliefs and Practices and put it in its own article clearing the way for a further expansion of that content, and a reduction of content on the main article. I will take a stab at the reduction later, hopefully it will be to everyone's satisfaction, and when we're happy with the Beliefs and Practices article, we can do away with the seperate articles.

What do you all think? joshbuddy^talk 20:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Web links..

There was a recent addition of a web link, [2]. I would like draw everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources. How do you think we're doing with this article and our web sources? joshbuddy^talk 21:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I converted the link to a reference since it seemed out of place in the text. On second thought, it's probably out of place as a reference too. I'll remove it. Dtbrown 08:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Concern

I was doing some research when I stumbled acroos a site called "The Free Dictionary". All of the content was far too familiar. Having a look through the articles for Jehovah's Witnesses, nearly all of them are direct copies of the articles from this website with only minor changes. For example

• Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse and Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse
• Jehovah's Witnesses and governments and Jehovah's Witnesses and governments
• Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Faithful and Discreet Slave and Faithful and Discreet Slave
• Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus and Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus

This is by no means a complete list.

The site does have a copyright notice which reads in part: The site contains copyrighted material, trademarks, and other proprietary information. You may use the content of up to 10 articles from the site without an express permission from the publisher provided a clear reference to the source of information is given. If the information is placed on a web site, a link to the source or home page is required. Some articles are distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.

I would say that the number of articles that we have "borrowed" content from is more than ten. As far as I can see, there is not even a link to the free dictionary site let alone a "clear reference to the source of information" I cannot tell which articles are distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License. Do we have a problem??? Lucille S 06:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you keep reading, at the bottom of the articles you'll see:

"This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License."

I know Wikipedia is comprised of nothing but GNU articles, but to wholesale plagiarize Wikipedia for the promotion of a subscription to, ironically, a different encyclopaedia (Hutchinson Encyclopedia) is not only morally bankrupt but also, legally questionable. Duffer 06:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is legal and quite common. Wikipedia knowingly licenses its publication under GNU, and explicitly warns all editors that, if they don't want their work copied frely for personal AND commercial use, then they shouldn't edit here. Those are the terms under which we have accepted to operate here.

Several months ago I emailed Wikipedia about copyright laws and Watchtower publications, and i received this reply:

Thank you for your mail.

Even those Watchtower publications for which distribution is tightly controlled are available to the public for viewing from lawful sources that have obtained copies from former Jehovah's Witnesses. The right of first sale in U.S. case law regarding copyright provides for the unencumbered transfer of materials that were lawfully published. U.S. copyright law does not limit library-like activities that involve neither copying nor publication.

Since these materials are the best available references, and since Wikipedia as a matter of policy prefers primary source references, they are used as references in our articles.

Copyright applies to creative expression, not to ideas themselves. Accordingly, articles that describe the doctrine, discipline, theology, rituals, or procedures of any faith are generally not in violation of copyright unless they quote extensively from copyrighted source materials; even then, there are fair use exemptions.

Wikipedia does take copyright matters seriously and if there is a Watchtower publication (or a significantly large excerpt from one) being distributed as part of a Wikipedia article, I would encourage you to bring it to our attention so that it can be reviewed and, if we determine it to be a copyright violation, removed.

I also draw your attention to the fact that Wikipedia treats other organizations that endeavor to maintain secrecy, notably the LDS church, other Mormon groups, and the Freemasons, in a similar fashion. Watchtower is in no way singled out for such treatment.

I think our best approach to usage of sources we know are "tightly controlled" is to challenge erroneous and suspiciously defamatory interpretations from other editors by expository rebuttal referencing the context from which detractors' cut-and-paste "proof" comes. The context is essential to prove the Watchtower Society is not this 'evil empire' they try to portray.

- CobaltBlueTony 14:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No way! I did not even see that tiny little notice at the bottom - well spotted. I didn't even consider that THEY may have copied Wikipedia and not the other way around (sigh of relief). I guess if nothing else it confirms that the hard work everyone has been doing to keep these articles up to professional standards has been recognised. You know what they say about imitation and flattery... Lucille S 02:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Someone just tried to register user:DufferI to my e-mail address, this person IS an imposter. I havn't been around very much lately so be weary. Duffer 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's "wary", but it'll make you weary nonetheless. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 17:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blanking it Tony, I wasn't really sure what to do. I left a message on WikiAdmin David Gerard's talk page. I'm glad the imposter made the critical mistake of trying to register the account with MY personal e-mail address (which automatically sent me an e-mail) I wouldn't have known of it's existance otherwise. I requested a checkuser to see if the IP can be identified, I want to know who's behind this. Just to be clear, I am "Duffer" (Matt McGhee) registered as user:Duffer1 (DufferONE) the imposter is registered as user:DufferI (DufferEYE). Duffer 19:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Semantics

Duffer, I noticed that regarding my change, you said: "i see what you're saying, i think it's a given that individual witnesses are known as the same,.. theocratically". That's true, but there is an ambiguity in Jehovah's Witnesses' naming that is not present in many other religions. For example, Catholics are members of the Catholic Church, Scientologists are members of the Church of Scientology, Mormons are members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints... but Jehovah's Witnesses are members of Jehovah's Witnesses. (I'm not saying that any of the other religions are better or worse than Witnesses, nor am I saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are unique in their naming convention.) I therefore thought that it was relevant to indicate the name is used for both the organisation, and for its members. (Further to that, since the Watchtower Society changed to the system of saying that Witness publications are published by Jehovah's Witnesses in 2001, the ambiguity has worsened. Now Jehovah's Witnesses publish material for Jehovah's Witnesses which they 'publish' from door-to-door.)--Jeffro77 23:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it could use explication, but what you had down didn't sound right, I tried adding an equivelant but it didn't sound right either. I just added something but I think it sounds odd in the opening sentence let me know what you think. As for "theocratically"/"hierarchically" the Encarta dictionary defines them as such:

• Theocratically: 1. government by god: government by a god or by priests 2. community governed by god: a community governed by a god or priests
• Hierarchically: 1. rigidly graded in order: relating to or arranged in a formally ranked order 2. administered by ranked clergy: administered by a hierarchy composed of members of the clergy

Jehovah's Witnesses are theocratically governed. The Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion (2005 Second Ed. pg. 4,820) states: "In matters of faith and practice, Jehovah’s Witnesses submit to the theocratic authority of the Watchtower Society." I think "theocratically" is more than appropriate. Duffer 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What I had was grammatically correct, but the parenthetical may have sounded odd because it was contrasting a collective noun functioning as singular with a plural. I would rather put back what I had than what is there now, as it doesn't read well. If I think of a better way to word it, I'll change it.

There is no actual proof that Jehovah's Witnesses are actually governed by God in any demonstrable way. In accord with the encyclopedia you have quoted, theocratic direction is a 'matter of faith', and it is therefore only valid to state that 'theocratic' direction is a belief. Though Witnesses do not have a paid 'clergy' class as such, the Governing Body, along with its Elder and Overseer structure, functions in a similar capacity, and hierarchically governs as per the dictionary definition you have provided.--Jeffro77 03:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Community governed by god: a community governed by a god or priests". The theocracy Wiki has some interesting things to say. Either way, I'm sorry you disagree, but "theocracy" is formally sourced by another encyclopedia. Duffer 05:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading the 'theocracy' Wikipedia article, it seems even less appropriate to use the term outside of the 'beliefs' section. Perhaps ecclesiocracy would be appropriate. The Governing Body does not claim to receive actual direct revelation from God analogous to that traditionally claimed by Moses. Additionally, it claims that Jesus serves as its priest rather than having a human priesthood. The Watchtower Society has no verifiability of direction from either God or their priest, nor does it even claim to receive direct communication therefrom. The term 'theocracy' cannot validly be applied to them apart from in reference to their beliefs. Even if it could be argued that the "Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia" you quoted correctly uses the term "theocratic", the Watchtower Society is simply a "legal instrument used by Jehovah's Witnesses", so the encyclopedia is wrong anyway.--Jeffro77 05:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Witnesses are governed on matters of faith theocratically by the Watchtower Society. To say WTS instead of Governing Body makes little difference as the WTS is directed by the Governing Body, the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia is quite correct. Priests/clergy/ministers are all synonyms, under the definition of theocracy, that comprise the governing body of a religious organization. You remove the label "priest" apply it to Jesus and claim the WTS has no governing body? That's nonsense regardless of what specific label we use for the "Governing Body" (Faithful and Discreet Slave) members be it priest, minister, etc.. It doesn't matter if you believe Lindsay Jones to be wrong or not, my edit "theocracy" is legitmately sourced. Please stop reverting. Duffer 07:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Jones is wrong. It doesn't matter what I believe. Indeed, the Witnesses believe that they are theocratic, and I have no problem with using the term in the Beliefs section. Since the Witnesses proclaim officially that they have no clergy class, they cannot be a theocracy in the 'priesthood' sense that you are claiming (which is not actually the sense in which the Witnesses officially claim to be a theocracy anyway). That only leaves the sense of being actually directed by God (which the Society does claim), which cannot be demonstrated and therefore cannot be presented as fact in the introduction of the article.--Jeffro77 08:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Jones isn't wrong. Witnesses have a religious governing body that dictates doctrine, that is the very definition of "theocracy" regardless if they are called "clergy", "priests", "ministers" etc... Though I believe Lindsay Jones is correct in the usage of "theocracy", and I believe you are adding a sense to the word "theocracy" that neither I nor the article is trying to convey, I recommend you read the very first line of WP:Verify. How can you say I'm trying to present it as claiming "direction by God" when the very line reads: "they are theocratically directed by a Governing Body." Though I would prefer an adjective in the sentence that conveys the thought of "theocracy" I will accept Jwfacts' removal of it and "hierarchical" for the sake of compromise. Duffer 08:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Governing Body claims direction by God (though not by direct communication), and it is specifically in this way that it claims to be a theocracy. This is not the same definition applied by Lindsay Jones, by which definition, almost any other religion could also claim that it is a theocracy. Jones' definition completely ignores the concept of theocracy as intended by the Witnesses. To accept Jones' definition is to contradict the Governing Body, and to accept the Governing Body's definition is only appropriate in the Beliefs section. If you want to accept Jones' definition, you would have to also concede that all other theist religions with any kind of clergy or other organized structure are also theocratic.--Jeffro77 15:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much a dead dog by now, but I must point out again that I havn't been arguing for the Witness sense of the word. Duffer 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If that were the case, then you should automatically recognize that it is inappropriate to use Jones' definition because it would easily be confused with the JW definition. So I'm glad we both agree that it shouldn't be there.--Jeffro77 00:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how Witnesses use it, I think using a sourced, accurate, definition of the word "theocracy" is very appropriate (like how I had it in my edit). In fact I said so above, but I'm willing to accept it not being there as a compromise. Duffer 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the compromise and I'm sorry that you disagree, but upon further research I have found another encyclopedia that agrees with me, (Lindsay Jones previously cited), and Encyclopaedia Briticannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite, article: Jehovah's Witnesses: "the democratic polity devised by Russell was replaced by a theocratic system directed from the society's headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y.". Duffer 08:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't followed how the first sentence got changed...but it looks extremely awkward. As to the word "theocratic." I don't know what kind of source Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia is but we need to be able to weigh the source also. "Theocratic" is a specialized word in the JW vocabulary and does not fit in an introductory paragraph, IMO. It could be argued that "hierarchial" could work (it's been used in various legal situations), but I'll grant it's normally offensive to JWs and ought to be avoided here. We need some other descriptive word (other than "theocratic" or "hierarchial"). And we need to have a simpler first sentence. Dtbrown 08:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree the first sentence does look awkward especially as an opener for the rest of the article. I know "theocratic" is commonly used amongst Witnesses but that doesn't make it a less valid adjective to describe our organizational structure, especially since it's definition is applicable to Witnesses, Witnesses themselves are familiar with it, and an independant non-biased encyclopedia uses it as well in the exact same context as what Jeffro keeps removing it from. I don't see the problem with it, though I will accept Jwfacts' removal of it (and hierarchical) as I'm not convinced that we even need any adjective their. Duffer 08:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not questioning whether the encyclopedia is biased, but simply stating that its application of the definition is technically incorrect, and is not compatible with the manner in which Jehovah's Witnesses belief themselves to be under a theocracy. The usage of the word you are trying to defend is not truly the usage employed by the Witnesses. If you ask a well-informed Witness what they regard 'theocracy' to be, they won't say it means they are ruled by a priesthood. That serves to demonstrate that because it is a special term as used by the Witnesses it should be avoided outside of a discussion of JW beliefs.--Jeffro77 09:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, rapidly losing interest, but reversion to "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international religious organization" technically leaves ambiguity as to the name of the organization to which these members belong. Believe it or not, there are people who have never heard of the Witnesses, so the suggestion that 'everyone knows what is meant' isn't necessarily the case.--Jeffro77 09:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Would this work: "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international religious organization..."? Dtbrown 09:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really, because 'Jehovah's Witnesses' as an organization is a collective noun functioning in the singular, so 'are' is not appropriate, and such phrasing ignores the contrast between the organization (which publishes literature) and the members (who distribute the literature).--Jeffro77 15:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Theocratic" in Intro paragraph

I disagree that "theocratic" is appropriate in the opening paragraphs. I don't think it matters if one can find citations in other sources using the term. We are talking about the opening paragraphs which use very general terminology. "Theocratic" is too specialized a term to use there, IMO. Dtbrown 09:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see above discussion between myself and Jeffro. Also:

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2006: Jehovah's Witness

"an adherent of a millennialist sect that began in the United States in the 19th century and has since spread over much of the world; the group is an outgrowth of the International Bible Students Association founded in Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell (q.v.).

The name Jehovah's Witnesses was adopted in 1931 by Russell's successor, Joseph Franklin Rutherford (Judge Rutherford; 1869–1942), who sought to reaffirm Jehovah (see Yahweh) as the true God and to identify those who witness in this name as God's specially accredited followers. Rutherford equipped members with portable phonographs to play his “sermonettes” on the front porches and in the living rooms of prospective converts. Under his leadership, the democratic polity devised by Russell was replaced by a theocratic system directed from the society's headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y."

Lindsay Jones Encyclopaedia of Religion (2005, pg. 4,820) Jehovah's Witnesses:

"JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES are one of the few religious movements that originated in the United States. Like other sectarian Protestant groups founded in the later nineteenth century, they claim to restore Christianity to its original doctrines and practices. The organization adopted the name Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1931 to emphasize the Wbelief that the most accurate translation of the personal name of God in the Hebrew Scriptures is “Jehovah” (Ps. 83:18), and that as believers they are his “witnesses” (Is. 43:10; Acts 1:8). They fulfill the responsibility to witness by distributing literature, leading Bible studies, attending congregational meetings, and maintaining separation from secular culture. In matters of faith and practice, Jehovah’s Witnesses submit to the theocratic authority of the Watchtower Society."

Lindsay Jones has it in the opening paragraph, Britannica has it in the second opening paragraph. I'm sorry you guys disagree, but it is the word that best defines the WTS's ecclesiastical governing arrangement, on top of being sourced by two independent encyclopaedias. Duffer 10:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of the works you quote use the term in its generic sense to describe the Witnesses as 'theocratic', and such a definition could be applied to almost all religions. Because the Witnesses specifically apply a different definition for the word, and explicitly state that other religions are NOT 'theocratic', it is inappropriate to use the term outside of the Beliefs section, in addition to the term being ambiguous with respect to its definition and use by the Witnesses. Would you be happy if I threw the word 'theocratic' into all of the other Wikipedia religion articles that comply with Jones' definition?--Jeffro77 11:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The generic sense of the word is exactly what would be conveyed in the Wiki sentence. "Headquartered in New York, they are theocratically directed by a Governing Body." That is directly synoymous with: "In matters of faith and practice, Jehovah's Witnesses submit to the theocratic authority of the Watchtower Society" and "the democratic polity devised by Russell was replaced by a theocratic system directed from the society's headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y." What would you have this sentence say if moved to the "Beliefs" section? "Witnesses believe they are theocratically directed by a Governing Body"? Are you saying "theocratic" was inappropriately used by the Lindsay Jones and Britannica Encyclopaedias? I really do not understand your objection to "theocratic". It doesn't matter if you believe Witnesses define "theocracy" differently than the dictionay, the context of the sentence only leaves one possible interpretation for the word. Witnesses are theocratically directed by a Governing Body. There is no better way to say it, and I think Lindsay Jones and Britannica would agree. We can incorporate more from those sources if you feel more nuance should be given to the word: "itnesses are theocratically directed in matters of faith and practice by a Governing Body." Duffer 13:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning might be sound if it were not for the fact that you (and Witnesses in general) have a bias in this regard. I doubt strongly that you can honestly say that you don't want the word 'theocratic' there largely and quite specifically because of the Watchtower Society's use of the term. If you were arguing purely for the generic sense of the term, you would not be championing its validity so strongly, and I am quite convinced that you would not argue for the word to be included in describing any other religion.--Jeffro77 09:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning is sound per the Lindsay Jones and Britannica Encyclopedias regardless of the fact that I am a Witness. I considered giving this up previously but decided not to after reading the Britannica article. I cannot allow such specious allusions to an imagined sense of the word to be the guiding reason to remove sourced information from the article. THAT is why I argue for it, believe what you will. The Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia 2005 (pg. 9,111 article:Theocracy heading Eschatological Theocracy) catagorizes several religions (Seekers, Quackers, Fifth Monarchists, Jehovah's Witnesses, even the Unification Church) as being "eschatological theocracies." Duffer 13:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The supposedly "specious allusions to an imagined sense of the word" come straight from the pages of the Watchtower (January 15, 1994, page 14 paragraph 20): "As time went by [after the apostles died], the number of those claiming to be Christians rose to the millions and then to the hundreds of millions. They developed different kinds of church government, such as hierarchical, presbyterian, and congregational. However, neither the conduct nor the beliefs of these churches reflected the rulership of Jehovah. They were not theocracies!" Here the Society subjectively states that all other Christian religions are not theocracies, and goes on to say that only it is. This view - the view officially taught by the Governing Body and held to by Witnesses - is completely incompatible with Jones' definition. Ask yourself honestly... do you really want the word in the article because Jones uses it? Or do you really want it because Witnesses believe themselves to be theocratic in the sense of the Watchtower's "specious allusions".--Jeffro77 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We've strayed into semantics. The Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia says this (pg. 9,109):

• "Theocracy has not become a rigorously defined concept in either social science or the history of religions, although the term is frequently used in historical writing. This is probably because it does not name a governmental system or structure, parallel to monarchy or democracy, but designates a certain kind of placement of the ultimate source of state authority, regardless of the form of government. In biblical studies, where the notion of theocracy has had its longest currency, it has probably also been used with the greatest consistency and fruitfulness. This article deals with the various meanings that the term theocracy may be usefully given, with examples relevant to each meaning: hierocracy, or rule by religious functionaries; royal theocracy, or rule by a sacred king; general theocracy, or rule in a more general sense by a divine will or law; and eschatological theocracy, or future rule by the divine."

It then outlines the four catagories of "Theocracy" (pg. 9,109 - 9,111):

• Hierocracy - "Theocracy has often been used as a term to describe societies where the clergy or priests rule, but this is not the exact denotation of the word, and another word, hierocracy, is available for such situations. Some have called this “pure” theocracy. Among such theocracies, a distinction can be made between those in which the religious functionaries who exercise rule are priestly in character and those in which they are more prophetic-charismatic." It cites examples of this form of theocracy: Moses/Aaron, "early years of the Latter-Day Saints", "the early years of Islam", and Tibetan Buddhism.

• Royal Theocracy - "Rule by a king thought to possess divine status or power, or to be entrusted by God with authority over the earth, is a second kind of theocracy." Some examples given: Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, Traditional Japan, Byzantine and Russian orthodox Christianity.

• General Theocracy - "A third type of theocracy, by far the most common, is that more general type wherein ultimate authority is considered to be vested in a divine law or revelation, mediated through a variety of structures or polities." .... "Theocracy in this third sense has been quite common as a conception in such universalizing religions as Christianity and Islam, where there has often been a thrust toward bringing the whole human sphere under the aegis of the divine will". Some examples given: "In Christianity, the two most commonly cited examples of this kind of theocracy have been medieval Roman Catholicism and some of the Calvinist societies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." Also Islam and Tibetan Buddhism.

• Eschatological Theocracy - "A fourth kind of theocracy is eschatological, centering on visions of an ideal future in which God will rule. Restoration eschatology and messianic ideas in ancient Israel were of this type." Some examples given of this type are Jehovah's Witnesses, Seekers, Quakers, Fifth Monarchists, and even Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.

The WT article specifically defines theocracy in the preceeding paragraph of the article you cited (January 15, 1994, page 14 paragraph 19):

• "How, though, did the new theocracy function? Well, there was a King, Jesus Christ, representing the Great Theocrat, Jehovah God. (Colossians 1:13) Although the King was invisible in the heavens, his rule was real to his subjects, and his words governed their lives. As for visible oversight, spiritually qualified older men were appointed. In Jerusalem a group of such men functioned as a governing body. Representing that body were traveling elders, such as Paul, Timothy, and Titus. And each congregation was cared for by a body of older men, or elders. (Titus 1:5) When a difficult problem arose, the elders consulted the governing body or one of its representatives, such as Paul. (Compare Acts 15:2; 1 Corinthians 7:1; 8:1; 12:1.) Further, each member of the congregation played a part in upholding the theocracy. Each one was responsible before Jehovah to apply Scriptural principles in his life.—Romans 14:4, 12."

That WT paragraph specifically outlines a "general theocracy". They only claim those others are not true theocracies because: "neither the conduct nor the beliefs of these churches reflected the rulership of Jehovah." The WTS here not only implicitly acknowledges that other religions consider themselves "theocratic" but they also legitimately define "theocracy" in line with the above provided encyclopedias, the only difference is that the WTS believes those others aren't true theocracies because of their conduct. Since the WTS defines "theocracy" in the same manner as the encyclopedia, I hardly think you have a legitimate objection (regardless if the WTS believes other's aren't). The context of the word in our article (as I had it in my edit) does not stray beyond the context of being theologically led, in matters of theology, faith, and practice, by a governing body. This is rediculous, your objection is based on the fact that I'm a Jehovah's Witness even though you have already said my "reasoning might be sound", on top of the fact that TWO ENCYCLOPEDIAS use the term in direct address to the governing structure of Jehovah's Witnesses in the exact same context as my edit had. What's so wrong with my proposal: "Witnesses are theocratically directed in matters of faith and practice by a Governing Body."? I don't see how you can still accuse me of wanting it in their simply because i'm a Witness when I even offer a suggestion to nuance the sentence to be unequivocally clear on what sense of "theocracy" is trying to be portrayed. Duffer 15:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You have lied, and betrayed your true intentions. The paragraph does not outline a "general theocracy" at all. Though the other religions are definitely "theocracies" in the generic sense, the article specifically claims that the other religions are "not theocracies"; nothing about being "true" theocracies. Whether Witnesses believe the other religions' doctrines are in line with what they think God wants is irrelevant with regard to whether they comply with the general sense of the word "theocracy". If the general sense of the word were intended, a religion could have a priesthood that worships "Our Lord The Tooth Fairy" and still be a "true theocracy" in the generic sense. Additionally, if you were only arguing for the generic sense of the word, you would have no problem at all with using the word "hierarchically" instead. Further, you suggest that the paragraph implies that other religions claim to be theocracies. You have previously warned of the danger of inferring things from Watchtower publications that aren't actually stated. There are stronger implications in Watchtower publications that Armageddon was coming in 1975 than the stretch that you are claiming. Significantly, if other religions indeed "claim" to be theocracies, it must be that the word is intended beyond the generic sense.--Jeffro77 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is pure absurdity. The WT article you cite outlines the very structure of a "general" theocracy per Lindsay Jones: Jesus (representing Jehovah) - "spiritually qualified older men" (governing body) - "traveling elders" - elders of local congregations. Lindsay Jones: "..ultimate authority is considered to be vested in a divine law or revelation, mediated through a variety of structures or polities." This refutes your objections: 1 - "Because the Witnesses specifically apply a different definition for the word" 2 - "This view - the view officially taught by the Governing Body and held to by Witnesses - is completely incompatible with Jones' definition." Frankly, I am tired of your accusations, and your complete unwillingness to comment on my proposed sentence. Under WP:Verify you have NO right to remove the edit, and I have been more than forthcomming in addressing your rather biased and unwarranted objections. You have no right to make the claims you do in light of these facts and my offer of a solution that presents "theocracy" in such a way that there is no ambiguity over what is meant: "Jehovah's Witnesses are theocratically directed in matters of faith, theology, and practice by a Governing Body." Go object to Lindsay Jones and Britannica. Duffer 15:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Duffer, I only have a moment right now and will have more to say tonight. I could similarly source "hierarchial," which was formerly used in this paragraph and probably has a greater support. I thougth we were going to accept jwfacts compromise solution? Dtbrown 15:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the answer is rather simple. The main definition for "theocracy" is (from Websters):

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided 2 : a state governed by a theocracy

In an introductory paragraph in a non-specialized article "theocracy" or "theocratically" would not accurately convey the correct meaning to the average reader. In another section with an appropriate explanation I think it would be fine. Dtbrown 14:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dt, but I don't see how it can be said any better or accurately than: "Jehovah's Witnesses are theocratically directed in matters of faith, theology, and practice by a Governing Body." Duffer 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Before more assumptions of bad faith blossom into what we've already seen and don't want to happen again, let me offer this: regardless of our (JW) usage of the term, two secular, unbiased and verifiable sources use the term in application to Jehovah's Witnesses. The dictionary definition, while accurate, does not go into the depth that an encyclopedia can, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, dedicated to providing information by which readers can educate themselves. Thus, a more precise understanding and use of the term can expound on the concept and intellectually enlighten the reader. I personally did not know of the nuances, and learned something just by reading the quoted sources above. Since the sources for this are valid, can we not maintain the term in this paragraph, and direct readers to the main theocracy article, wherein they can learn the distinctions themselves?

The alternative would be to use hierocracy, which ironically redirects back to theocracy. It says regarding hierocracy, "this is a term coined by Max Weber for the institutional forms of authority within a religious community. Despite its appearance it does not in fact refer to a form of government." (Italics mine.) Nevertheless, eschatological theocracy more accurately defines Witnesses' structure since our faith is centrally defined by the "coming Messianic Kingdom," which is expected to be seated and directed from heaven by spirit beings, including Jesus Christ. Heirocracy does not define any future hope; only direction within a religious body. Witnesses' future hope for government and politics stems directly from Biblical Kingdom prophecies. - CobaltBlueTony 17:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider Hierarchy and Theocracy to be mutually exclusive terms. I'm not sure why there needs to be any discussion around using one instead of the other. joshbuddy^talk 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean hierocratic? Hierarchy is a very general term that is only historically more related to thocracy. Nevertheless, you edit seems quite acceptable to me. Thank you for stepping up. - CobaltBlueTony 17:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, joshbuddy. The edit looks good. Dtbrown 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism

Is there a simple way to revert vandalism? I see people refer to pop-ups when they do that. Thanks! Dtbrown 05:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure Dt. I'm concerned about the level of vandalism that we've received this past week. Duffer 05:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Me, too. I've found this page which helped me and made reverting simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert Dtbrown 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got to close for the night. Perhaps others can follow the instructions above to revert the re-curring vandalism. Thanks! Dtbrown 07:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'de like to thank whoever cleaned up the article. Before it seemed rather biased against Jehovah's Witnesses and was continually getting vandalised. I was actually thinking about putting a 'Disputed Neutrality' stamp on it. --216.45.139.148 16:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

With the reoccuring vandalism I'm beginning to think we need to do a semi-protect on the article. This is getting out of hand. Dtbrown 08:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)