This is an archive of past discussions about Jehovah's Witnesses. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Arianism

You 're welcome Duffer. Perhaps you could check for yourself your favourite version, with previous translations and the original text. I 've noticed you deleted the phrase "(compare with Arianism)" after the phrase (JW) "teach that Jesus Christ is God's first creation rather than God Himself" commenting "So what if JWs have ONLY ONE thing in common with Arius' teachings". I thought it didn't mean that JW are Arians but it was an encyclopedical reference. Do you think it could be rephrased more properly? You might want to check also Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 2.MATIA 01:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "compare with Arianism" is highly relevant, in that the main Arian statement that was contested was that "there was a time when the Son of God was not" meaning that Jesus was created at some point, rather than being coeternal with the Father. Since the JW's share the same belief, this similarity is highly relevant, and belongs in the article. I tried to state it neutrally, but if you have a better way to phrase it, please do. 64.253.98.238 03:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how it is "highly relevent," as there are alot of beliefs about Jehovah's Witnesses that are unique in comparison to traditional views of Christendom, but were previously held by small and/or unique groups in the centuries previous. Their specific belief has no other reason to be discussed in this main article; perhaps in a comparative article. - CobaltBlueTony June 28, 2005 03:43 (UTC)

Arians also believed that Jesus was the Messiah, though I wouldn't go to the main "Christianity" wiki and write something like: "Christianity believes Jesus is the Messiah (compare: Arianism)". That is precisely akin to what I removed from the Jehovah's Witness wiki. Should I go to the main Christianity wiki and write: "Orthodox Christians believe Hell is an place of eternal, conscious, torture (compare: Paganism)." Duffer 28 June 2005 06:25 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony, a comparative article seems like a good idea. Duffer, the worst torture for somebody in eternal hell will be the condemnation to exist away from God and His love, for ever.

Anyway, let's get back to the topic. As the anonymous editor pointed, Arianism had some main doctrines, some beliefs, and there are some similarities with some JW views. I dislike the phrase "compare: arianism" and I certainly wouldn't want to discuss Arianism in the JW wiki, but I think a link with a phrase like "see also Arianism" is more apropriate. I understand that JW dont believe in Holy Trinity and there is a link to that wiki, don't you agree? MATIA

I strongly object. The extent of their Christological similarities begin and end with the belief that at one point in time, Jesus did not exist. Arianism teaches that Jesus was created "out of nothing" and not "begotten" of the same substance as the Father, thus making their relationship a form of adoption rather than a natural Son. Contrary to this view, Jehovah's Witnesses hold that Jehovah God is the Father, or Life-Giver, to the pre-human Jesus as his firstborn Son. They teach that Jesus is "preeminently and uniquely the Christ, the spirit Son of the living God." Thus the percieved correlation between Arian and Jehovah's Witness theology is so tangential it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Duffer 28 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)

I understand why "it shouldn't be mentioned at all" from your point of view. You are right that, the idea that the Son at one time did not exist, is just about all that Arianism has in common with Jehovah's Witnesses - but that's all the similarity that really matters to those who are making the comparison. They aren't looking for orthodox versions of the heresy. They are looking for the point of departure from "orthodoxy", and all other matters blend into the background. That's their perspective. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses also say that, the Logos is the one "through whom all things were made, and apart from whom nothing has been made that was made"? This is a second similarity to Arianism, that stands out when people make the comparison. Mkmcconn (Talk) 28 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

I grudgingly agree with you on your first point, which is why I did not remove the reference to Arianism the second time, though I still object to it. Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses believe of the Word: "through whom all things were made, and apart from whom nothing has been made that was made". I was not aware that Arianism believed similarly. I looked at several resources but found only one (http://arius.biography.ms/) that speaks directly to the issue of Jesus' role in creation:

Arius formulated the following doctrines about Jesus Christ:

that the Logos and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was - Arius refused to use such terms as cronos or aion - when He did not exist.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that he was the creator, or even a co-creator. Insight on the Scriptures, heading "Jesus Christ" states:

"The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.—Mt 19:4-6; see CREATION."

If the 'biography' website is literall in it's meaning that "He was the creator of the worlds", then their belief system would by 'ambiguously' similar, though not similar at all when positions are clearly defined. But of course this is only one source that I have found that speaks to this issue. Duffer 28 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)

You raise a very important point which is that, Arianism is not a modern belief. The Catholic Encyclopedia on Arianism also says that, just this way:

     It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore 
     will appear strange in modern eyes.

This is just what you are pointing out (if it's alright for me to be bold in the comparison). JWs are a modern belief - that is, they persist in modern times. Arians are extinct. So, when you say that the Word is the instrumentality of creation, and not a co-creator, I can follow your meaning as you distinguish the view from that of Arianism. But, it is a distinction that doesn't make a lot of difference in relation to the orthodoxy of trinitarianism. I am confident that, in the end, wherever Wikipedia touches on this issue the articles can be made to reflect both points of view, with justice. Mkmcconn (Talk) 28 June 2005 22:41 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record, but please keep in mind that this is not a comparative article; rather, this main article is an expository, meant to explain the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as they stand, and not in comparison to other belief structures, modern or extinct. - CobaltBlueTony June 29, 2005 15:59 (UTC)

To trinitarians, who are engaged in describing what Jehovah's Witnesses are, the differences in JW and Arian Christology are superficial and irrelevant, in that they differ from trinitarianism in a very comparable way: resulting in them being labelled, persistently, meaningfully and accurately (according to the intent of the label - but otherwise misleadingly), Arianism. We don't mean that they conform to all or nearly all particulars of the Arian Christology. In fact, we do not assume that they do; Arianism is extinct. And the point is, your belief that the comparison to Arianism is irrelevant is your point of view. Regardless of your efforts here, out in the meat and bones world, the comparison will never go away, until or unless JWs change their Christology. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Your point was not challeneged; only the inclusion of such comparisons in this expository. Your statement suggests to me that all trinitarians retain immediate comparative viewpoints with extinct religious groups. I doubt that this is the case. I meet people frequently who do not accept the Trinity doctrine, regardless of their affiliation with churches that maintain the doctrine as official dogma. I also know of several churches that do not teach the Trinity, but teach something similar to Witness beliefs. Perspectives are radically different just a few degrees outside of your own experiences, so it woulsd stand that either every comparison known to man should be included in this article for every JW teaching, expanding its size to near impossible dimensions... OR, we state simply and directly the beliefs of JWs alone, and leave the comparisons to the ancillary articles. - CobaltBlueTony June 29, 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Believe me that, as a rule it is true that "trinitarians retain immediate comparative viewpoints with extinct religious groups" (viewpoints of comparison between modern and extinct religious groups), yes. This is how Trinitarians attempt to preserve themselves against error while also not necessitating a retrial of the same issues. Timmy: What's a Jehovah Witness daddy? Daddy: Well son, he's someone who believes that Jesus is not the same God as the Father is. Timmy: You mean, they believe in two Gods? Daddy: Not quite son; let me explain it by comparing what they believe to the Arians. The Athanasian creed was written a long time ago, to combat the same sort of unbelief as the Jehovah's Witnesses profess about Jesus now ... time passes ... Timmy: so the Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians? Daddy: they espouse the same kind of unbelief as the Arians did, a long time ago. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)

" ... Timmy's eyes glaze over; drool pouring down his twitching chin." Sarcasm aside, allow me to point out that comparisons are only useful teaching aids if they allow someone to more easily understand an unknown by its comparison to something known and/or familiar. If both items are unknown or unfamiliar then comparisons are useless or worse, confusing. (For the record I am a teacher by profession and have taught children ages 6 to adults both in the classroom and privately for nearly a decade.) --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 03:44 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that, Timmy enjoys reading encyclopedias ;-) The point of course, is that what is familiar has encountered the different doctrine before; it has met it many times. The comparison to Arianism implies a comparison to trinitarianism: that is the frame of reference. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Whoa, that is totally unclear! The second sentence in your explanation above seems to be confusing things with people!?! Also, in what way does an "implied" comparison of an unknown thing with a known thing help someone understand something they are unfamiliar with? Finally, you might want to consider that not everyone that reads this WP article is a trinitarian. Hindus, Muslims, and even athiests might be reading this. We should be framing the article in a way that will be understandable to the general reader. If they want to know more about Arianism then they can follow the Wikilink and read about how that is different then the Trinity. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying what you're not selling. :) --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so unhelpful. Readers don't have to be trinitarians to be interested in understanding why Jehovah's Witnesses are so often (and it is often), and so persistently labelled "Arians". The reason comes from the Trinitarian frame of reference. They are called "Arians" because, in terms of the Trinitarian formulations, which were developed in part as a rejection of Arianism, Arianism is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. If that isn't of interest for an NPOV article that is written for a general audience, or understandable, I don't know why that should be so: such a stance certainly makes it seem strange that the issue continuously reappears in the Talk page of this article, and always will do so. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 06:35 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, Because we do not believe in the Trinity, some claim that Jehovah's Witnesses practice "a form of Arianism." But the fact that we are not Trinitarians does not make us Arians. That just isn't logical.

In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H. M. Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: "The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself." Jehovah's Witnesses worship neither the "incomprehensible" God of the Trinitarians (see the Athanasian Creed, Lines 9 and 12 of English Translation) nor the "unknown God" of Arius. Rather, we believe as Jesus said that "We worship what we know." (John 4:22) Similarly, we agree with the apostle Paul when he wrote: "There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are." (1 Corinthians 8:6) Something that makes God very real to Jehovah's Witnesses is their knowledge and regular use of his personal name, Jehovah¹. (Psalm 83:18) --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 15:08 (UTC)

¹ Jehovah is the conventional English form of God's name, just as Jesus is the conventional form of the Hebrew Ye·shu´a` or the Greek I·e·sous´. In his over 600-page Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique, published by the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, Jesuit Professor Joüon writes: "In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French."

Additionally, Jehovah's Witnesses should not be accused of Arianism, inasmuch as they disagree with Arius' views in many respects. For example:

Arius denied that the Son could really know the Father. The Bible teaches that the Son 'fully knows' the Father and that the Son is "the one that has explained him." (Matthew 11:27; John 1:14, 18)
Arius claimed that the Word became God's Son "by adoption" because of his virtue or moral integrity. The Bible says that he was created by Jehovah as his "only-begotten son." (John 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14)
Arius taught that Christians could hope to become equal to Christ, whereas the Bible states that God gave him "the name that is above every other name." (Philippians 2:9-11)

Perhaps the points you wish to make, Mkmcconn, would be more appropriately discussed on the WP Trinity, Arianism and related pages. Something to think about! --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

DannyMuse, the Arianism of Arius is extinct. Please don't confuse what I'm doing with an argument for the correctness of this terminology for the purposes of an NPOV definition: I will not argue that this article should say "Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians". If there is such a thing as "orthodox Arianism", they are not it (thank you for the details above, by the way). But the fact that won't go away (and I assume that we should deal with facts), is that this terminology is used by people for a descriptive (not a derogatory) purpose. It is not like calling someone "nigger". Rather, it draws attention to the particular way in which Jehovah's Witnesses depart from trinitarian orthodoxy: the way in which they depart is the same as Arianism, for all practical purposes, and for that reason they will always be called Arians by people who use trinitarian orthodoxy as a frame of reference. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, perhaps the term is used by people for a descriptive purpose, but it is inaccurate. You're right, we should deal with facts. We should also be accurate. --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 16:04 (UTC)

DannyMuse, it's inaccurate for some purposes, and accurate for other purposes. The "other purposes" might not be interesting to you, but they happen to be one of the reasons that this Talk page is edited almost as heavily as the article. People who happen by this article notice that it is missing what they happen to think is the most helpful bit of information about this group, which is that (as their priest or Sunday School teacher told them), "they are Arians". The article doesn't address this issue, explicitly. And that is why they keep trying to reflect the reality in the article, but find themselves frustrated. And so it will go always, until each and every reader with this view is educated through the editing process, of the fact that the people who own this page believe that those folks are "wrong" to call JWs Arians, or even to report that people call them Arians and why. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 17:20 (UTC)

What can I say, your Sunday School teacher was wrong. It's apples and oranges. Although they are both fruit they are nevertheless quite different, which is why "apples and oranges" is used as the typical example of a bad comparison. You might as well say, "JWs are Jews" or "JWs are Muslims" because they believe in one God or that "They're Bahai" because they won't participate in military conflicts. In those examples JWs do have the point of comparison in common with the other religions; but it is absure to conclude that they are the same based on a single shared belief. Apples and oranges both have seeds but they are clearly not the same thing. --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)

I've been reading this page for years, now, and it's more obvious to me than ever before, why the name Arian is used of this group; and within that intent, it is not wrong. They are not apples and oranges. They are Macintosh and Golden Delicious from the perspective of how they depart from Trinitarian Christology. I do not want the page to say that Trinitarianism is right, simply that it exists among large numbers, and that it is in light of Trinitarian Christology that Jehovah's Witnesses are called Arians, because they similarly teach that Christ was brought into being prior to his incarnation, was the means by which Jehovah created everything else - "Which is a misleading discription, in that there are numerous basic differences. Arianism, as such, is extinct." Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 17:45 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, well that also ignores the fact that there is no historical connection between JWs and the extinct teachings of Arius. You might was well say that Trinitarians are Hindus because--from an Islamic perspective--they're both polytheistic religions. Hindu teachings were prevalent long before the Athanasian creed was written therefore .... blah, blah, blah ... --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 17:51 (UTC)

Clever, but not quite to the point. So, that's all I want to say on the subject. It's not as though I thought that I would make any headway. I just wanted to try to politely clarify once again, why this issue will not go away. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you feel the need to label JWs with a term that you yourself acknowledge is "extinct", has no historical connection with the development of the modern organization of JWs and is associated with so many differences of belief so as to be confusing? Why not simply state what JWs believe and then perhaps add how that is different from some common, current beliefs? Wouldn't that be more simple and more clear? --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)

If it is very common for trinitarian Christians to describe Jehovah's Witnesses as Arians, I don't see how it could possibly be irrelevant to this article. The whole argument here seems to be essentially a semantics game. Jehovah's Witnesses define the term "Arian" in a very narrow way to refer only to those accepting in full (or nearly in full) the actual beliefs espoused by Arius (I will note here, as I have at Talk:Arianism, that such a definition excludes not only the Jehovah's Witnesses, but most of the people of the 4th to 7th centuries who have normally been called Arians by historians). Nevertheless, this is a valid definition of Arianism. Those who call the Jehovah's Witnesses Arians define Arianism in a much broader sense to mean "those who believe that Christ is a created being, subordinate to God the Father, a heresy first espoused in the 4th century by Arius." This definition of Arianism is equally valid, in that it is widely used and has a long pedigree. Neither one is right - they are simply two different definitions. Obviously, JW does not fit the definition in the first sense, but it just as obviously does fit the second definition. As such, and given that this is a common claim made about Jehovah's Witnesses, the issue ought at least to be brought up in this article. john k 30 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)

John, in response I have two points taken directly from the Arianism article:

The very first sentence in the article begins: "Arianism was a Christological view held by followers of Arius ..." JWs are NOT followers of Arius.
There is a significant statement in the Parallels to later groups section which reads: "Trinitarians often use the term Arianism to draw parallels to some modern groups ... But, despite the frequency with which this name is used ... The groups so labelled do not hold beliefs identical to Arianism. For this reason, they reject the name for their self-description, even if they acknowledge that their beliefs are at points in agreement with, or in broad terms similar to, Arianism."

I maintain what I stated before that this article should simply state what JWs believe and then perhaps add how that is different from some common, current beliefs. That is both more simple and more clear. A link to the Arianism article would certainly be useful for those interested in further research on that subject. --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

First, the section on JW beliefs about Christ already included some comparisons with other Christian theologies before the bit about Arianism was added this time around. It is impossible to drop out all comparative references, unless you truly want to imply that JW's are the only Christians there are and ever were. There has to be at least a limited amount of 'compare and contrast' for this to be an informative encyclopedia article.

Second, it might help some of you to learn at least one way Arius is remembered today in the Orthodox Church. On days that St. Athanasius is commemorated, this hymn is often sung: O holy father Athanasius, // like a pillar of orthodoxy // you refuted the heretical nonsense of Arius // by insisting that the Father and the Son are equal in essence. // O venerable father, beg Christ our God to save our souls. So when some modern religion comes up with the idea that Jesus and God the Father are not equal in essence, or that Christ is not God, it is a very convenient shorthand to simply note that they are repeating the heretical nonsense of Arius. Arius is widely remembered. That the beliefs are heretical nonsense is of course POV, but it's a fact that JW's proudly assert the same basic claims that the Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, and many Protestant churches still recall Arius making. These traditions do study the old religions and the old errors so as not to fall into the same errors again. This is I think noteworthy for an encyclopedia.

Thirdly, it's worth noting that Arius was also well known for his familiarity with the Bible and his ability to quote Bible verses to support his position, as are the JW's. He and his followers also set forth his beliefs in catch melodies, which helps to account for their widespread popularity among the general populace for a period of time; I don't know whether JW's have any catch tunes or not. There are probably other more superficial comparisons that could be made, but they wouldn't matter either. Arianism was not condemned because it quoted scripture, or because of its music (aside from lyrical content), or because Athanasius didn't like it. It was condemned because the assembled bishops at the first two ecumenical councils agreed that it was different from the faith of their fathers. A lot of people today think that Arianism differs in essentially the same way. Wesley 3 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)

Wesley, frankly I'm surprised at you. Since you acknowledge that it "is of course POV" to refer to "the beliefs [of Arius as] ... heretical nonsense" why would you bring that condescending statement up and then in the same thought compare them to the beliefs of JWs? Are the beliefs of Jews and Muslims heretical nonsense? They don't believe that Jesus was God you know!

The Muslims in particular do fall into the same error, now that you mention it, in trying to honor Jesus as sent from God while denying His deity. The Jews are a bit different, as they generally don't honor Jesus at all, as far as I can tell, unless it's as a much misunderstood rabbi. But I bring it up not to propose its inclusion in the article, but to indicate that Arius is still remembered today, so mention of him is still relevant to today's readers, contrary to what I perceived you to be saying earlier. Wesley 5 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

I can't wait to hear what our Muslim contributors will have to say about your assessment of their religious beliefs. --DannyMuse 5 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

Your appeal to an historic reference is appreciated; your inclusion of spurious and demeaning rhetoric is not. Superficial comparisons are neither informative nor meaningful. To condemn something because it is different from your own beliefs is commonly known as prejudicial and intolerant behavior. I really surprised to hear such un-Wikipedian language coming from you. What's up with that?

Are you suggesting that to be a wikipedian, I need to be a religious pluralist?? That's tantamount to insisting that I convert to atheism. Besides, that rhetoric was specifically aimed at fourth century Arianism; if you really believe you have nothing in common with it, then there is no reason for you to take it personally. Wesley 5 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Wesley, I am suggesting nothing of the kind. If you will kindly re-read my statements above I think you will find that I clearly stated that it is the use of "spurious and demeaning rhetoric", "Superficial comparisons [that] are neither informative nor meaningful" and "prejudicial and intolerant behavior¹" that I termed as un-Wikipedian. --DannyMuse 5 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

¹ In particular I referred to your condemnation of beliefs different from your own; something which you continued with your remarks about the "error of the Muslims."

If you insist that I not condemn beliefs different from my own, then yes, you are insisting that I be a pluralist, someone who accepts conflicting beliefs as equally valid. This kind of pluralism is so irrational it quickly leads to what is effectively atheism; for all these views to be equally true, they must be equally untrue. I don't believe that you're being any more tolerant than I am. With regard to rhetoric, the JW claim in the article that the early church missed the boat or was overrun by paganism strikes me as being at least as offensive as my remarks which I have here limited to the article's Talk page. Wesley 6 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

I don't get it, when we try to say we (JWs) are part of a religious tradition extending back to Abel the detractors are quick to point out that JWs only have been around since the late 1800s. So how could we possibly have any connection to Arius!!!!! Which is it: are we an old or a new religion? --DannyMuse 5 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)

New religion, old error. Not that hard to figure out. On the other hand, if you want to be associated with Abel because of what you have in common with Abel, then you should be willing to be associated with others you have things in common with. I'm sure there are many other differences between today's JW's and Abel, in terms of religious belief, if we wanted to bother taking time to list them. Wesley 5 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

You are missing the significant point that JWs claim to believe the same things that Abel, Paul, etc. believed while we do not claim to believe as Arius taught. One thing in common while there are many things that are not is the point. As I also said before, we believe in one God, but we are not Jews or Muslims. Referring to a similarity may be helpful, calling us Arians is just wrong. --DannyMuse 5 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

Whether you claim the similarity or not is beside the point here; not claiming a similarity that does exist doesn't make the similarity go away, any more than claiming a nonexistent similarity makes it appear. I'm clearly not going to convince you that you're Arian, or even that you agree with the one Arian doctrine that was most condemned by the early Church. Wikipedia should clearly not try to resolve this dispute either way. What is clear for purposes of this article, is that there are a lot of Christians that think you are Arian, at least for the limited purpose of comparing your relationship with the rest of Christendom. It is an encyclopedic fact that this opinion is widespread, and is at least one factor behind the hostility to Jehovah's Witnesses. Wesley 6 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

And I'm definitely feeling the hostility. --DannyMuse 6 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

Let me assure you that it's nothing personal. I try to distinguish between ideas and people, but if I've failed to maintain that distinction, please forgive me if anything I've said came across as a personal attack. And just for the record in case there was any doubt, I do not condone any of the violence that has been committed against JW's. Regarding tolerance, I think I have been and continue to be very tolerant of many religious and anti-religious views that are directly critical of my own religious beliefs, in that I don't indiscriminately censor articles or sections I don't like or strongly disagree with. For instance, see [1], most of the Great Apostasy article, the idea of a distinct Pauline Christianity, Christianity and anti-Semitism, and a number of other similar articles. In these cases, I generally content myself with helping people keep their facts straight and sometimes offering additional material, and of course plain copyediting. Tolerance on Wikipedia is generally expressed by not censoring everything you disagree with. That's at least what I'm aiming for. On Talk pages like this, I try to be honest about where I'm coming from partly so that you and other editors can help me keep my actual article edits honest and NPOV. Wesley 6 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

It sounds to me like it is important to have some kind of reference to Arianism. We all agree that the most important descriptive term from the Nicene/Athanasian POV is that JWs are non-trinitarian. Let us keep that as the factual description. But let us also agree on a form for a comparison with Arianism. Would something like this work? "Comparison is often made in trinitarian circles between the Jehovah's Witnesses and the ancient Arians. The non-trinitarian beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are not Arian, but like the Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses reject trinitarianism in dividing the substance of the Father and the Son." (By the way, the same could be said of Mormons.) Tom Haws July 4, 2005 20:11 (UTC)

Something in that direction seems to me to be helpful. Compare to: "Trinitarians often compare the Jehovah's Witnesses' unbelief in the Trinity to that of the ancient Arians - not to indicate an equivalence of their beliefs, but to point out that the ancient councils of the catholic bishops, and the creeds produced by them to counteract the Arians, contradict the Jehovah's Witnesses on some of the same points of faith." This seems to me to be NPOV, informative, and even (from an anti-trinitarian perspective) supportive of their anti-clericism and their anti-traditionalism. What do you think? Mkmcconn (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Right direction, but on the wordy side. I'm not ready to work on exact wording until we (again) have some kind of consensus to keep the word in at all. Wesley 6 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

Books Critical of the Group

NOTE: Previous discussions under this section have been archived at: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 14. It contains only postings for this thread dating from 3 July 2005 to 21 July 2005. --DannyMuse 05:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I checked. User:Hawstom made only one group of edits on 18 June 2005 to the Jehovah's Witnesses article. He left the following Edit Summary: "NPOV-ization of recent edits. See previous edits too. Please Check!" These edits were ONLY to the Resources Critical of the Group section. User:Hawstom did not make any edits or any comments to the Books Critical of the Group. While it's true that that page at that time did contain the "extended descriptions", to suggest that User:Hawstom's silence is somehow approval of them is over-reaching. On the other hand, his July 7, 2005 comments on the matter quoted above are clear and explicit. --DannyMuse 05:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Central, would you clarify your recent claim that I "put such stupid and grossly inaccurate slanderous claims about the books in the [JW] main page"? What exactly in these current descriptions do you believe is "stupid", "grossly inaccurate" and/or "slanderous"? Be specific.

Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, a former Governing Body member of the Watchtower organization.
This book gives a detailed account of the authority structure and decision-making practices he experienced while serving on the Governing Body.
Raymond Franz gives a personal account of the inner conflict between loyalty to one's conscience versus loyalty to one's organization.
Publisher: Commentary Press. 420 pages, Hardback ISBN 0914675249. 4th edition (June 2002)

In Search of Christian Freedom by Raymond Franz. A follow up to the book Crisis of Conscience.
Publisher: Commentary Press. 736 pages, ISBN 0914675168 (October 1991, internally updated in 2002)

BTW, please recall that boche on 17 July 2005 (UTC), posted the description to the first book from information he found on Amazon.com. If you disagree with their description perhaps you might want take it up with them. --DannyMuse 05:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest we leave it as it stands, with very brief descriptions. The longer ones proposed by Central, while he may feel it is accurate, is very verbose, and sounds almost like a sales pitch. Even if the motive is to promote the books (which should be avoided in wikipedia), it probably serves a contrary goal in needlessly sensationalizing it. I would be open to a sentence or two descriptions of each of the books, but something concise and neutral, as is the current one for Crisis of Conscience. boche 22:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Can Anon user: 193.122.47.162 provide explanation of his/her edits? It appears to be a revert of prior edits. Some for partisan reasons (those over the critical books), other for no-readily understood reason (date rewordings and removal of links). boche 19:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi DannyMuse, and others, in looking at the publications section, I think it is ready for a cleanup, the watchtower publications section can be rewritten to be of a similar format as all the other publication listings (neutral and critical). For more details about the watchtower publications, there are specific articles created for them already (such as the Watchtower and Awake! magazines, NWT, etc.). For the one neutral book listed, I would suggest in the spirit of fairness that it be kept to a length similar to the critical books. As it stands now, I know it got edited down already, but I think it can be further trimmed, and made less promotional somehow. If there are no objections, or if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll make those changes. boche 21:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I took another whack at cutting down the description of the Holden book. It is now only two sentences as compared to the three for Crisis of Conscience. Feel free to review and revise it as well as the other title I've added. --DannyMuse 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, this is getting very nerdish, and rather pedantic. Does anyone really care if there are a few more words? They are not advertisements in a top newspaper, which are paid for by each character being charged at premium rate. Let's be a bit more sensible, surely, the point of word reduction is to say the same thing, or give the same information (not less information), but with fewer words, more concise, thus being more economical and less wordy. It should not be the motive to remove the descriptions so they become woolly and meaningless, or did I miss something?

Now, as for my points. Mr Danny, you said there was no "vandalism", but there clearly was. The two links you removed had been there for a long time untouched. The links were, 1. *Watchtower Observer, and 2. suggestive articles in their literature. The first link, you changed into a dead link, why was this done? The point of a link is so that it goes to a working page, not an old dead page. Surely, you checked the link before you changed it, and so why would you change a working link into a dead link, not once, but twice? The other link, was to a very large collection of relevant 1975 Watchtower quotes, with references so they can be checked for accuracy. This link had also been there for a long time, and was extremely relevant, as the whole paragraph is about that very subject, 1975. I do hope you are not trying to censor the public from seeing what was written, and for them to make their own minds up. I reinstated the link, 1. Because it was there for a long time, and 2. It was exceedingly relevant to the subject matter being described. I really don't know what your motive for wanting to hide this would be Mr Danny?

As for the books, I have read the tiresome and lengthy arguments with about this, and have to say, nothing was resolved or really gained. Your book descriptions #1 by Andrew Holden was 93 words when I posted; book #2 by Merlin Newton was 99 words, but is now 106. Crisis of Conscience description is 93 words (counted on MS Word). So, what is the argument? Does anyone care about a line here or there, or a word here or there? Your book descriptions are equal and more words respectively, so why are you hacking the Crisis book up, what is the real reason Danny? I doubt anyone would really think it were about pedantic word counting. If you disagree with a specific wording (not length) then please be honest, and discuss it. Don't just fragment descriptions up to smaller sizes so they become vague, and give no useful information, and then go and post your own books that are the same size and bigger than the Crisis original book you implied was "too long". We are all adults here, so lets act like adults, and be consistent, and fair. If you feel repulsion at a negative book getting publicity, you need to learn more tolerance for differing views, and not feel an unbridled urge to vandalize critical books, and then post your own at much larger lengths, and pretend it's all about word sizes, when we all know it's not about that at all from the previous arguments that have bombarded these pages. I have reverted the link vandalism, and the acceptable book lengths. I hope you will be honest, and realise why you are determined to attacks one book's description length and yet write you own longer ones with no reservations Mr Danny. Regards, AlanM

AlanM, Welcome to Wikipedia! My apologies for the delay in responding, I was out of town for a few days. You are no doubt aware that Wikipedia is the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And I can see that you're jumping right in. As a new user you may find the following References & Useful Links to be helpful:

For a new user, you seem strangely preoccupied with my edits in particular. But whatever! To really understand the controversy surrounding this section you should not only read the comments which are immediately above, but also those in the archived pages. You're absolutely right that the editing should not be about word count, but about content. Counting words is really missing the point; let's stay focused on the content! Again, if it's really that much of a concern to you, please read Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 14.

I'd like to address some of your other implied questions. First, my edit to the link for the "Watchtower Observer" was a mistake. Thank you for fixing it. Regarding the "quotes.watchtower.ca" link which is embedded in the text of the article, I do believe that it is inappropriate for that link to be there. As I explained in my Edit Summary, "Deleted inappropriate link. If you really want to cite your sources then perhaps you should list the original WT reference(s)." There is a link to that webpage later in the article in the Resources Critical of the Group section. Perhaps you disagree with my edits, but my reasons were explained clearly in the Edit Summaries.

You seem to have a strong sense of what you believe to be fair and right. As long as you will show the same application of those important qualities to your own editing to WP then I am confident that your contributions will be beneficial. That being said, I hope you will give thoughtful consideration to my response to you and I look forward to your helpful and balanced contributions to the work. Happy editing! --DannyMuse 07:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I've tried to equalize lengths, and cut down on adjectives and adverbs that can sound promotional, also cut down on some redudancies; and then tried to equalize some of the descriptions so that they sound more similar in style. Please take a look and see if this is an adequate compromise. Instead of further revert wars, I'd suggest we continue adding content, since there are books such as Faith on the March not listed. (though included in a webified version in the url section) boche 07:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The Great Crowd is perishable

Paul states, "I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: Death has been swallowed up in victory." - Melissadolbeer (unsigned)

According to JW beliefs, the "Great Crowd" is a group of people currently living that have the prospect of surviving the coming battle of Armageddon and living forever on a paradise earth. They won't need to be resurrected. The physical resurrection on earth will of humans that have died, but are not part of the "little flock" of "144,000 anointed" that will be resurrected to Heaven. The resurrection would be of humans from the time of Abel until now that have died. For more information see:

I believe the essence of these beliefs is already contained in the intro as it current reads. --DannyMuse 6 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Many vs. most regarding JWs as non-Christian (Part 1)

I cannot but conclude that saying "most Christians regard JWs as non-Christians" is accurate. That is the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and mainline Protestant view. One can disagree about how large a portion of Protestants think like this, but it's "most Christians" anyway; RCs and EOs comprise some 70 % of Christians. 82.181.158.247 9 July 2005 08:42 (UTC)

This is a dubious assumption, as while offical doctrine of each denomination may classify JWs as not Christian, inidividual believers may be educated enough to understand the basis of the classification and determine whether they believe this statement at face value. It usually only takes one or two discussions with JWs for open-minded people to gain a clearer understanding of what it means, in their own minds, to be a Christian, and if they themselves feel JWs fit that idea. To place a quantity of "most" suggests a huge assumption on the individual beliefs of the entire population of Catholics, Protestants, etc., etc. - CobaltBlueTony 16:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what extent most major Christian denominations even HAVE an "official" position on the classification of JWs. Can high ranking officials like, for example, Roman Catholic cardinals cite some documented position of the Church regarding JWs' status as Christians, or would it be more of an opinion, perhaps backed up by some other principle held by adherents to the faith? I'm skeptical to say the least... We certainly can't simply state that X religion believes Y religion isn't Christian simply because some (or many) of their beliefs and practices differ. That would be tantamount to saying all modern Roman Catholics believe Protestants aren't Christian because they do not believe in the divine authority of the Pope (though I'm sure many DO hold this position). While Catholics certainly hold the papacy as a core belief, it's certainly not true that they denounce the Christian status of all other religions because they do not share that very important belief. -- uberpenguin 18:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

To CobaltBlueTony & uberpenguin: There you go being reasonable. What makes you think that'll persuade anyone? (Tongue firmly planted in cheek) - --DannyMuse 04:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The classic distinction most denominations (though not all, e.g. Pentecostals, Baptists and Quakers) make when receiving converts is that those regarded as Christians are not received through baptism, those regarded as non-Christians are. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and almost all Protestant churches receive ex-JWs by baptism. Contrary to what was presumed above, it is an official stance of the RCC to regard the JW, Mormon and Oneness Pentecostal baptisms as invalid (because their respective doctrines of God are regarded as non-Christian) and therefore to regard JWs as non-Christians. This is a strongly traditional stance of church authorities, especially within the RCC (e.g. confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of faith). 128.214.157.247 10:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That is correct, Dear Anonymous User. The churches mentioned do not accept non-trinitarian baptisms, just as the non-trinitarians don't accept their baptisms. At Wikipedia we have hitherto chosen to denote this difference using the term triniarian and non-trinitarian. I think that for the question at hand, the correct wording would be "most Christian denominations do not include JWs in their mutual ecumenical gestures such as accepting each other's baptisms" or "most denominations view JWs as a new and emerging religious tradition distinct from the historic apostolic tradition of the Christian Church" I believe this is treated quite well for the Mormons at Mormonism and Christianity. Please consider this section as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity#Official_positions_on_Mormonism_by_traditional_Christian_denominations Tom Haws 14:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

But Mr. Tom Haws, doesn't that example partially dodge the issue of "Are they regarded as Christians"? For instance, the CDF is quoted as saying that Mormon baptism isn't accepted, but there is silence about the CDF saying non-Trinitarians are "not Christians, but pseudo-Christians". Likewise, reducing the acceptance of Mormon baptism from accepting them as Christians to a mere ecumenical "gesture" seems to downplay the issue. Am I paranoid, or is it just me? 82.181.158.247 18:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is significant and important to give some indication of the degree to which Christians exclude some groups. Likewise it would be important to examine why. Do we need a Jehovah's Witnesses in Christianity article? Or do you simply want the current article to mention that many denominations and individuals call Jehovah's Witnesses a non-Christian group? Tom Haws 19:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is only my opinion, but both matters are important. As for what is important for this specific article, the question "Are they regarded as Christians?" is of a more fundamental nature than e.g. "Is their baptism accepted?" or "Which ecumenical gestures are exchanged between them and other denominations?" and therefore it is the first thing to handle. As mentioned above, not all people agree with their denominations about the status of JWs. If one wants to handle both aspects of accuracy ("Most denominations think like this" can mean about any number of people and "Most Christians think like this" can be seen as saying everyone thinks like their church leadership), a wording such as "Most denominations think like this. Although most Christians are members of the denominations holding this view, individuals may differ in their personal opinion". But again, this is only my opinion. 82.181.158.247 19:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion and fair perspective. Do we have any references as to what are the positions of the major denominations? Also, for perspective, it would be good to mention something like "Churches A, B, C, and D, comprising two thirds of Christian adherents have issued opinions that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a branch of Christianity. Individual adherents of those churches may differe in their personal opinion." That would be both ironclad and fair, as long as we make certain that the opinions of the churches explicitly say what we report them to say (ie: avoiding reporting "not part of the historic Christian faith" as "not a branch of Christianity"). Could you put together something like that? (Let me re-state here my personal point of view that, while for the purposes of Wikipedia we must report such realities, claiming such exclusive trade on the name of Christ is carnal and counter to the peace that is in Christ. Let them say, "That's not my brand of Christianity". But let it humbly stop at that.) Tom Haws 20:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

For many of us, "is their baptism accepted?" is exactly the same thing as "are they Christians?": it's for that reason that the objective characteristics of their theology are examined. For others, examining their subjective personal profession is what matters - or else, a personal profession is for them what many of us would call a sacrament. In the latter case, they will be interested in the objective qualities of belief. In the former case, it would be the subjective characteristics that would matter, to determine whether they are "Christians". Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Above, a good point is raised. It is also true that although "not part of the historic Christian faith" is not necessarily equivalent to "non-Christian", both wordings about the status of JWs can be seen as important. Likewise, all statements of various denominations are not accessible without extensive labour, and mentioning just some of them can be misleading, too. Another option would be to include all the information available, focusing on baptism but explaining the often-viewed relation between baptism and Christianity: "Most Christian denominations, comprising most of Christian adherents, receive converts from Jehovah's Witnesses by baptism, an act which is usually viewed by these denominations as being performed when the new member has not been a Christian before converting. However, not all of these denominations have issued verbal statements claiming that Jehovah's Witnesses are non-Christians or outside the historical Christian faith, and individual members of these denominations may differ." The weak point of this approach is the lenght, but a new title could be created under the list describing JW beliefs. 82.181.158.247 06:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, would you mind clarifying something for me: what does a person's "personal profession" have to do with whether or not they are a Christian? Thanks. --DannyMuse 16:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think he means, "Is it what you profess personally to believe, or the church you adhere to that determines your classification?" In other words, is Jehovah's Witnesses is a non-Christian organization vs. is DannyMuse a Christian. Tom Haws 17:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

DannyMuse, Tom has it right. If it's helpful, I can add more though, to be sure that we're on the same page. I know you are aware, vanilla evangelicals have no mutually agreed upon documented orthodoxy, no agreed upon idea of the sacraments in common, no institutional connectionalism. The movement coheres through a kind of gestalt: a climate of familiar vocabulary and temperament, familiar passions, attitudes and opinions, things like that. One of the most externally important elements of this gestalt (if that's the best word) is the personal profession of faith. We're talking about a rather fuzzy idea here, so I trust that you know I'm going to over-simplify. Mkmcconn (Talk)

A credible evangelical Christian testimony amounts to a list of easy to understand principles that are shared and maintained by a very informal discipline. These mark a profession of genuinely "Christian" belief, and distinguish it from "false" Christian belief. "Jesus is the savior, but not God" or, "I don't pray to Jesus, I pray to Jehovah", would be one of those typical marks of a false Christian profession, and would cause the red flags to go up. The entire evangelical cult-watch industry is built on simple rules of thumb, like that. These comments would indicate that the speaker does not buy into the evangelical way of thinking and speaking about things, and that, he either has an exotic vocabulary, or he is denying the Christian faith. It doesn't matter what his church teaches; if he has the right marks he's "a believer", if he doesn't he's "in a cult" (or vice versa, with the wrong marks). Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations guys, maybe the coffee hadn't kicked in yet. When Mkmcconn wrote "profession" I was thinking as in "what kind of job" the individual had. Duh! I'm feeling much better now. --DannyMuse 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Many vs. most regarding JWs as non-Christian (Part 2)

I made a change from the words "consider themselves to be Christian" to simply calling it a Christian denomination. Polemics and being pedantic often result in tortured prose. If you look at the wikipedia entry for what a denomination is, JWs fit that catagory very easily. (For instance, they are closer to mainstream Christianity than Gnostics) To get into a debate of "what makes a person a true christian" is beyond the scope of this article, simply because there is no universally accepted standard of what that is. (which is why denominations exist in the first place) Other sections can explore how some denominations do not believe JWs to be Christian, and how JWs do not believe other denominations to be Christian. But there is no need to split hairs in the introductary section. The average reader will "get" what it means to be a Christian denomination (as opposed to a Buddhist, Moslem, Hindu, etc. denomination), and can decide for themselves what constitutes a "true Christian" and whether JWs fit that definition or not. boche 06:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No one denies that JW's are a denomination, but very many people (as stated in the article, most denominations, comprising most people considering themselves Christian) deny that they are Christian. Saying "they consider themselves Christian" states a simple, uncontroversial fact. It's neither splitting hairs nor getting into the debate about the nature of true Christianity. It's just refraining from taking a position on a highly controversial matter. The average reader will associate them with Christianity rather than with Moslems or Hindus from that clause, too. 82.181.158.247 10:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

If you look at other entries for other religions, there are plenty of "controversial" religions that nonetheless are simply referred to as Christian denominations even if there are disputes within the the world of all who claim to be Christian about who is truly Christian and who is not. Shall we then change all protestant religions to similarly say "who consider themselves Christian" simply because they are the ones who separated from the "one true and catholic faith"? There is no position being taken by referring it as a Christian denomination, since being one does not imply it is "true Christianity" depending on the various definitions that exist (again, you can read the wikipedia article on Christian denominations and find several that are disputed by one group or another as being truly Christian). If the concern is that people will miss the fact that there is controversy surrounding the group, then I think those fears can be put to rest by a cursory glance at any of the JW articles. boche 05:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"Shall we then change all protestant religions to similarly say "who consider themselves Christian" simply because they are the ones who separated from the "one true and catholic faith"? " No, because the Church of Rome does not claim that Protestants are not Christian, as far as I know (can you find a statement to the contrary?). A better question would be whether we should change all non-trinitarian religions to say "who consider themselves Christian"--while I think that would be too severe, I realize that there are a large number of people who have a stricter position than I do. And while I personally think JW are Christian, I am not sure that Mormons are, for example. After submitting this contribution to the discussion I will take a look at what is claimed in the Mormon article. --Bhuck 15:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is widely known as the "LDS Church" or the "Mormon Church". This is the largest and most well-known denomination within the Latter Day Saint movement, a form of Christian Restorationism. (....) Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves to be Christian, but do not claim to belong to either the Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant traditions. Rather, they believe the Church to be the restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ on earth. Some Christian churches do not consider the Church to be a Christian church at all (see Mormonism and Christianity)."

Looks like they "consider themselves to be Christian" and while they are defined as a "denomination" they are not a "Christian denomination" but a "denomination within the LDS movement". Maybe this is a good basis for a compromise?

--Bhuck 15:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed this as well. However, this probably stems from the same problem: people who object to Mormons as being "true Christians", and therefore want to use special language to avoid using that as an adjective to describe the religion. For instance, if you look at the Millerites, who definitely did influence Russell, you'll see that they too have unitarian beliefs. Adventists have decended from this movement as well, and similar are referred to as a christian denomination (see Seventh-day_Adventist_Church). It is certainly a form of restorationism, and if an objective observer asked "restoration of what?" it would be in a Christian context, restoration of "true Christianity." I'm not up to date on current Catholic positions, but at least historically, there was a time where protestants felt that Catholics are not truly Christian and visa versa. The point is that an NPOV is to not take sides in that controversy, and simply classify objectively. When viewed from the various world religious classifications point of view, I find it hard to classify JWs as anything but a Christian denomination (remember, "Christian" in the sense of religious catagorization, not whether or not they are "true Christians" or not), as opposed to Islamic, Buddhist, etc. Or something entirely novel, which I would find it hard to imagine someone could credibly argue given the belief system and the means by which it was arrived at. It is only when one doesn't have a NPOV and frets about whether they are "true Christians" that leads to reacting negatively to the classification. And again if we refer to the Christian_denominations section you'll see Arians, Gnostics, etc. encompassed in the definition of "Christian demonination." Also, if you read the nontrinitarian article, it is clearly within the context of the Christian religion. It makes no sense in any other religious context. NPOV-wise, the definition of Christian denomination is broad enough that classifying JWs as such is well within reason. This urge to limit the definition to "they consider themselves Christian" appears to descend from religious bias, and therefore is not NPOV. That is my opinion. boche 19:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

In the Christianity article, I find: "Christians believe in one God, furthermore that God is a unity in Trinity, that is to say that God is one being "subsisting" in three divine persons, namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son without beginning in time (sometimes called the "Logos", or "Second Person")." It would therefore be in the spirit of internal Wikipedia consistency to either 1) relativize the JW claim to Christianity in this article, or 2) change the article on Christianity. If you prefer to follow the second course of action, feel free to edit that article. Also, in the article "Christian denomination", there is a paragraph about denominationalism. I would suspect that JW could not be classified by that definition as denominationalists; thus, it is doubtful whether JW consider themselves to be a Christian denomination, since that would imply that they would have to view others outside their faith as also Christian denominations, which I don't think they do. --Bhuck 06:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Bhuck, I disagree. There isn't a consistency problem here. I didn't reference the Christianity article, I referenced the Christian denominations article. I hope that the difference is clear. There is no statement such as "Jehovah's Witnesses represent Christianity." (as an aside, the Christianity article mentions that some liberal Christians do not define the diety of Christ as an essential belief; and I'm sure there are people who say that they are not "Christian" either) Again, we shouldn't get into a debate on what is a "true Christian" and leave the religious wars out of the article. boche 21:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed a consistency problem here, but I agree with you that this article (JW) is not necessarily the best place to solve that problem (debates on what is a "true Christian" should take place in the article on Christianity). The article you referenced (Christian denomination) states that "Christianity, in modern times, exists under diverse names. These variously named groups, Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, etc. are called denominations." Thus, it implies that all Christian denominations are part of Christianity (and explicitly references the Christianity article). If there are claims in the Christianity article that non-trinitarians are not Christian, then Wikipedia is inconsistent, since both the Christianity article and the Christian denomination article are part of Wikipedia. Of course, one could argue that this whole issue would be better discussed on the Discussion page of those articles, but one could also ask if there are as many JW reading those discussion pages as there are reading this one, and whether that potential underrepresentation might mean that different viewpoints get expressed in different articles, which leads to the inconsistency I am pointing out. I think this discussion page is probably a good place for an audience sympathetic to my concerns to be found. :-) --Bhuck 09:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with this somewhat. I would like to engage more on the Christianity article, since I find it far to strict, but there are only so many hours in the day. :-) boche 02:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to participate lately. I think saying "they are Christian" doesn't convey the message "we are not taking a stand on the nature of true Christianity (if such exists) but only classifying them on the basis of what they consider themselves to be". Rather, it takes a stand on the question: Are they Christians or not? Nothing about "true Christianity" here, this is what it says even if the reader has a NPOV. But this is a controversial thing, not only from a religious point of view but also from a view of a humanistic science, namely comparative religion. It takes a stand on a controversial question, whether the reader has a NPOV or not.

There have been, and there are, some Protestant groups holding that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian at all. However, their number is and has always been very small - even Luther said the opposite although he called Catholic beliefs "abominations". The Roman Catholic Church has never officially regarded (trinitarian) Protestants as non-Christian. 85.188.50.234 19:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the point of view of protestants or catholics, etc. We aren't here to make judgement on whether they represent "Christianity". Based on the wikipedia entry for "Christian denomination" which makes no claim to determining "True Christianity," the term is NPOV. boche 06:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're saying exactly my point. We cannot make judgement on whether they represent Christianity (which is what saying "they are a Christian denomination" does). Please, don't revert it any more before we can come to agreement about this. The Christian denomination article does not give a definition that inevitably includes JWs; it only says that a denomination is an identifiable religious body (which includes JWs) and that Christianity exists under diverse groups, which are called denominations. This includes JWs only if you consider them Christian, which is exactly what we're talking about here. It is so controversial that saying "they are Christian" is simply NPOV, no matter what you mean by it. Adding explanations "well, some disagree about this" is dragging the opening paragraph to the state where it was some time ago, and it still doesn't solve the problem of the first sentence being NPOV (additionally, "some" is a gross understatement). 85.188.50.234 09:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"a Christian demonination" does not equal "representing Christianity". You are taking some logical leap here. The Christian Demonination article covers JWs under non-Mainstream. The point is not to make a claim on whether they are Christian or not, since that is point of view, but to simply describe denominations that stem from the Jesus movement in the first century without evaluating whether they "represent Christianity" or are "true Christians." Nor is the ariticle meant to describe Christianity as only that of orthodox Christianity. It even lists Gnostics, which are even more divergent than JWs from orthodox Christianity. I feel you are taking your view point that JWs are not Christian, and allowing it to infect the article. boche 06:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Non Christian

I have checked this article before and have finally decided to add to it. My inlaws are Jehovah's Witnesses and they do not consider themselves Christian. Indeed they seem to have little in common with mainstream christianity.

Added by Ben on 8/28/05:

Not sure who added the above. You seem confused, is it you or your in-laws who consider JW's non-Christian--if your in-laws are active Witnesses then they consider themselves Christian and all other "Christian" denominations (including the 'mainstream') non-Christian blasphemers and part of 'Christendom,' (used in a special sense by JW's), 'Babylon the Great,' 'the great harlot,' and 'the world empire of false religion.' If they did not they wouldn't last long as Witnesses. Your last sentence seems to indicate a certain amount of personal judgement and bias on this topic rather than simple conveyance of Witness views. FYI I am an inactive (lapsed) Witness with 3rd generation Witness roots.

--BEN

Disfellowshipping

I've been watching this article for some time (disclosure: I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses) and, not being an old hand at WP editing, didn't want to jump right in, but it seems to me that Elenap's edits are not NPOV. Specifically, the comments regarding 'additional reasons' for disfellowshipping and the paragraph on shunning and the Witnesses' "self-isolation". I'm not trying to debate the actual PoV here - Elenap is welcome to hold his own opinion - but these additions to me seem to violate the NPOV principle. Thoughts? -- Kyle Maxwell 2005-07-13

Kyle Maxwell, welcome. It's good to have you join us. Thanks for engaging in discussion before jumping into the fray. That being said, feel free to revise edits that are in violation of WP's NPOV policy are that are inaccurate. After all, this is "Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." And "anyone" most certainly does!

If your uncertain about how to proceed, you may want to peruse the following References & Useful Links:

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! --DannyMuse 17:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, Kyle! Elenap's edits were quite quickly removed because they were placed in the wrong section. They may have a place at Wikipedia, but we have to be careful we aren't degrading article quality when we edit. Tom Haws 17:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Distinctive Practices and Belief Summary

I was reading through the begining entries, and feel the bulleted list can be improved. Here are some suggestions.

Since this is a list of beliefs to be rendered in a NPOV, perhaps the first bullet can say: 'The sanctification and regular use of "Jehovah" as the name of God. (see Matt 6:9 "let your name be sanctified")'
In regards the neutral stand, this is correct, but perhaps more prevelant/distinctive is refusal for flag salute or military service. Perhaps this can be added here.
For prostelyzing, perhaps a better and more distinctive aspect of this is preaching "door-to-door" according to Acts 20:20.
The reference to "the little flock" may be too esoteric for someone unfamiliar with Biblical references. Perhaps simply saying that people going to heaven are limited to 144,000, and that the remainder will live forever on a paradise earth.
The point on the Lord's supper should be by itself. Two aspects to be noted: one is that it is annual, and the second is that only those with the heavenly hope will partake. This is distinctive from other religions.
For the soul, we should be consistent with phrasing for the trinity. "Rejection that the soul is immortal." JWs believe that the soul is the person, and not a separate "essence" that lives afterwards. At death, the soul dies, and the person can later be resurrected to either heaven or earth depending on their hope.
There should be some mention of rejection of "hell" as traditionally understood.
There should be some mention of believing Jesus died on a stake, rather than a cross.
There should be a mention of the faithful and discreet slave that is directing efforts.
There should be mention of this being the last days, starting with 1914.
The bullet on blood looks sufficient

There are of course, more things, but, I think this captures in a nutshell some more prevelant differences. Would anyone object at me taking a first stab at this? - boche 05:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

boche, You've got some good ideas there. One tendency I've noticed among many attempts at revising the opening section is that of forgetting that it's just an overview. Some editors try to cram too much in at the beginning. If you haven't already, you should read through the entire article to get a sense of what it contains. You'll find that, for example, the subject of Hell is discussed in the Beliefs and doctrines section. Also, the Neutrality discusses the flag salute and voting in more detail. The cross is referenced their, but it is in connection JW beliefs about idolatry rather than that Jesus died on a stake rather than a cross. Perhaps you could add that their or under the Beliefs About Jesus Christ sub-section.

You should also consider the suggestions on Layout & Structure discussed under: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. As is says, "The layout of an article is important. Good articles start with some introductory material and then present their information using a clear structure." I hope this helps! --DannyMuse 06:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Boche, I liked what you're going after in your recent edits. I followed up with a few minor changes myself based on several factors, knowing what has and hasn't lasted over the last few months as well as some rewording for (hopefully) clarity and accuracy. It's always a challenge to say enough without making it overly wordy. For example, the blurb on the human soul has seen tons of edits prior to settling on the existing text. That's why I restored the "soul ceases to exist at death" phrase and the part about the resurrection. BTW, I've noticed that some of the time you put comments in your edit summaries, but not always. If you could try to do that most, if not all, of the time it would be helpful to the rest of us.

I also appreciated that you put in a section of similarities. Yet I predict trouble here. We'll see!!! Thanks! --DannyMuse 20:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a first pass attempt, and it certainly needs improvement. One reason I wanted to not say what the JW belief was in regards to things like Hell and Soul, is that they actually require quite a bit of discussion, which I thought would be better not to get into. Therefore, only note that the traditional concepts of those things are rejected by JWs. Similar to how in the Trinity bullet there is no explaination of JW Christology, because a few words would not do it justice, and it's better to read in the JW Beliefs page a more detailed discussion. Also, I was trying to be more concise, since I'm adding points as well. Also, my sense is that a lot of conflict is a result of opposing sides worrying about the "impression" some words give (either negative or positive). As for the similarities, in the course of editing the differences, I was struck by the asymetry of not having similarities. (which may be an attempt to shine a negative light on JWs as being weird or different only) So, I included a few points for a fuller picture. boche 22:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I notice we keep going back and forth with trimming down "hell and soul" and then it being expanded upon, again. As well as citations of scripture. I'd like to propose that the list be an itemization, and refrain from trying to explain or justify. And save things such as scriptural references to the places where those items are discussed, else it may appear too much like a Bible tract. (not that there is anything wrong with bible tracts) Also, "Belief that Hell is the common grave of mankind and not a fiery place of torment" has several problems. One is that to a person not familiar with JWs, saying "the common grave of mankind" doesn't make much sense by itself. It requires some explaination, since it can open up a lot of questions. For instance, it can't be literal, since most people are not buried in common graves. So, it is figurative, but in what way? Also, JWs generally avoid saying "Hell" and prefer "Hades" and "Sheol." And are people conscious in Hell? No, so why would they be tormented? And in place of fire, what is there? It's sufficiently neutral and concise to simply say they disagree with traditional beliefs in those areas. (I hope no one thinks that noting disagreement with traditional beliefs is non-neutral) And have detailed discussion in the beliefs section. Comments? boche 07:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that 82.181.158.247 believes "but God's active force" is a piece of important information that needs to be listed in the section outlining the differences between Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs and the beliefs of other Christians. I am not sure that other Christians would disagree with the statement that the Holy Spirit is God's, nor with the statement that the Holy Spirit is active. The difference is only with regard to the question of whether the Holy Spirit is a person or a force. I will make a revision to reflect this, but I believe this revision to be a clumsier formulation than what was there before these two edits.

82.181.158.247 also argues that "Belief that Jesus Christ is not God but the first being created by God" is another important difference worth mentioning separately. Nearly all other Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the "first-born of all creation" (see for example Eucharistic Prayer B, p. 369, of the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church in the USA). While this might seem inconsistent with the Nicene Creed ("begotten not made") and the Athanasian Creed ("the Son uncreate"), it hardly seems that this is the appropriate place in the article to get into the details about what other Christians believe about the Trinity and how they reconcile these various statements (in fact, that might be done better in the article about the Trinity than in the article about Jehovah's Witnesses). Doesn't it suffice to say that Jehovah's Witnesses reject the doctrine of the Trinity, which we do just two lines further up? --Bhuck 11:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. Rejection of the doctrine of Trinity can mean just about anything, but its more precise meaning in this context (defined by at least these two beliefs) is what makes it distinctively a JW doctrine. 128.214.157.168 19:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is good to say more precisely what JW believe, but the present formulation has problems in its precision, since it implies that non-JW do not believe that Jesus Christ is the first-born of all creation, or that the Holy Spirit is active. How would you propose addressing this concern? --Bhuck 11:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're giving too much weight to such a non-dogmatic expression as "first-born of all creation". When it comes to dogmatic christology, trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is "the first being created by God" or a created being at all; they believe he is the same being as God and thus uncreated, period. The present formulation, (especially "while") gives the false impression that believing that Jesus is "the first being created by God" is something not distinctive to Jehovah's Witnesses and that only the last part of the sentence is disctinctively a JW doctrine. I'll try to reformulate it, please comment. 82.181.158.247 09:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the distinction between so-called "dogmatic expressions" and "non-dogmatic expressions" is particularly useful, but even if it is, surely you would agree that the line in the Nicene Creed "begotten, not made" is the relevant line for this discussion, and is a "dogmatic expression." If you were to ask a Trinitarian WHEN Jesus was begotten, you would get as an answer "Eternally begotten of the Father", meaning that he was not just begotten at the beginning of Mary's pregnancy, but that Jesus has existed from the beginning of time as the not yet incarnate Word. And I think JW agree with Trinitarians that "Through Him all things were made," don't they? So there is a lot of commonality here which I think is not yet obvious from the way the "distinction" is currently formulated. What is the precise difference between someone begotten and someone created? That the coming into existence of Christ is at the beginning of time is also a commonality. So "the first created being" is not a distinction as regards the bit about firstness, and the distinction between createdness and begottenness is difficult to summarize succinctly in an introductory paragraph, don't you think?--Bhuck 14:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess you're right. According to trinitarians, there is a huge difference between "created" and "made" (that's why it is in the creed), but this difference is quite hard to explain concisely enough in the JW article. But the current revision is most informative and well-formulated, in my opinion. Thank you. 82.181.158.247 21:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that this discussion basically proves my point. An attempt to "do justice" to the subject in the introduction is futile, since you must descend into esoteric aspects that a typical lay-person would not be able to follow. Yes, "rejection of the trinity" can mean multiple things. In order to find out in what way it is rejected, the reader should read the beliefs and practices section. I would prefer that the intro not attempt to define with precision the doctrines, but rather give the reader a high level overview, whereupon they can proceed to the different sections to learn more. Otherwise, what we have here is the problem where we are now worried about what this says about "non-JWs" which the original succinct bullet about rejecting the trinity doctrine would have avoided.

Similarly, I'd like to remove the scriptural references, and reserve them for the detailed discussions, since for most beliefs, there is more than a couple of scriptures used as support of a belief, and also there are other scriptures on the other hand that are used to disprove those beliefs. (I'm waiting for someone to add things like "They believe this, despite what Book Chapter:Verse says") Again, I think we want to avoid going down this path.

In actuality, the more I read the into section, the more dissatisfied it appears. Perhaps the attempt to itemize a few high level similarities and differences has triggered anxiety of wanting to be absolutely precise or trying to shine a particular light on the JW religion in one way or another. boche 22:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I also found an article already exists on Nontrinitarianism, and JWs are listed as one of the non-Trinitarian forms of Christianity. Also, if people want to understand what JWs believe the holy Spirit and Jesus precisely are in contrast with other beliefs, then they can read the section in the JWs Beliefs section or the JW Doctrines article. I think it's better to put the energy of edits in that section and clean it up. boche 22:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right, and it is overdue, to trim the "Similarities and Differences" from the Intro section. However, I think that is important enough to keep in the main article, rather than making people go to a separate article to learn that information. So I put it back in and made a (flimsy) reference to it in the intro. Further revision (but not deletion) is welcome. --Bhuck 09:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This is very good. I think this is progress. In fact, in the Beliefs section, the similarities and differences can be the whole section, and then we can discard all this duplicate stuff that is almost identical to the Doctrines article. In the Jehovah's Witnesses' Beliefs section, it should be a summary (where we can have a little bit of expansion that is greater than the intro), and then allow the reader to go into the Doctrines section to get fully described sections. In this case, I'm fine with some scriptural references, and also some more precise language other than "rejection" of certain doctrines. Just as long as we don't go into long explainations. Just state the facts as precisely and neutrally as possible, without trying to justify or refute or insert how people tend to justify or refute doctrines. boche 18:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

'''67.118.1.54''' I think I'm going to give up trying to provide value into this JW article. I certainly want to , but this is getting too silly. Having been a JW for 25+ years, I'd think that I could add a few comments that might stick, but they are all reversed.

Instead of saying what JW's DO believe, it is edited to say what we reject. We can't confuse the readers with those details... let's just position JW's as rejecting what is "traditional"...

With so much criticm against JW's that we don't believe in Jesus, or we so off because we don't believe he's God... a simple diffusing statement right up front that we consider ourselves Christian and view Jesus as the head of congregation is eliminated!?! We can't confuse readers with that detail now.

Also we can't confuse readers with simple scriptural reference, so let's eliminate those also. Or better yet, put them far down deep into the article......

JW's are viewed with so much contraversy and negativity by non-JW's and anti-JW, I'd think that the development of a basic article about what we believe might be allowed to be done BY JW's instead of being overly edited by non-JW's.

This seems pretty silly to me.... are these edits, eliminations, and reversals being done by Jehovah's Witnesses or non-Jehovah's Witnesses? 67.118.1.54

To the Anonymous User: I think it best not to have this type of agenda. I sympathize with wanting to debunk misconceptions, but an article isn't meant to do that. (that's what tracts and blogs are for) The article is meant to provide information in a neutral fashion. There is nothing wrong with quoting scripture per se of course. I never said that there was. The point is that it is redundant and opens up a scripture war. In fact, looking at all the JW related articles, I feel that the articles are generally poor due to the war of agendas.

As for JWs vs non-JWs, it would be best to avoid prejudicing submissions based on the person.(in fact, how does one know you are even a JW for 25 years?) Rather, the submissions should be judged on their own merits. Otherwise, every discussion will end up in the gutter with personal attacks. The spirit of the wikipedia is to allow for equal access, regardless of religious affiliation or non-affiliation. boche 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

To Boche: The intro has recently changed to an agreeable format, so this issue is of lesser importance now... However, for dicusssion, how does stating that "JW's consider Jesus Christ as the head of their congregation" not fit for a providing "information in a nuetral fashion"? It's just a fundamental fact of JW's beliefs that Jesus Christ is the head of our congregation. Also, I'm not sure who does the judging of what should/shouldn't be included? The first thing I noticed was comments that accurate reflect JW views, were being eliminated and being replaced with things like "they consider themselves Christain, but lots of people don't agree..." Ask any JW if they are Christian or if JC is the head of the congregation and they'll readily agree... Ask JW's if they would prefer posting a simple scriptural reference after each statement and they would also agree. In an article about JW's, why would a non-JW's opinion to take out scriptures take precident? Does this need to go for a vote? Anyways, much of the rest of the article is pretty good. I just feel that a fundamental statement like: "Jw's are known for the world wide preaching of God's Kingdom with reference to Matt 24:14" or "Jw's abstain from blood and don't take blood trasnfusions because of Acts 15:20" is informational and nuetral.... It just covers "what" and "why". And lastly, because I'm new here, I don't know how theses questions are resolved... Is this all by consenses? Does a JW poster have to make sure he gets agreement with non-JW's and anti-JW's about what to write in an article about Jehovah's Witnesses?

Thanks for the compliment, and also the comments. I hope I do not come off as dismissive of your point of view. I do sympathize and understand it. To clarify... I don't object to saying that Jesus is the head of our congregation is not NPOV. Nor was I making any statment about scriptures being there "wrong." No one will disagree that asking a JW any of those questions will yield a different answer. The issue is that there are many different things JWs are known for, and believe. And there are many scriptures supporting different beliefs (and many which are used as counter-proof-texts). The basic goal should be to give a very high-level and neutral description, without writing it from either a JW perspective, or an anti-JW perspective. I think that there are no easy answers, but hopefully what is there is somewhere acceptable to all parties. boche 05:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Use of "JW"

An editor has removed "JW" from the page, claiming that it is used by "apostates." I do not feel strongly that it needs to be in the article, but note Jehovah's Witnesses use it as an acronym without any negative connotation. Note: http://www.jw-media.org/ as run by the WT Society. boche 05:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with boche. I've been a JW for 21 years and don't find the abbreviation offensive the way it's been used here on WP. --DannyMuse 06:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no negative connotation, but it certainly is an informal acronym. -- uberpenguin 13:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Also no offense taken; however, its simplistic form does seem to necessitate the use of something akin to "Witness", with the capitalized "W". - CobaltBlueTony 21:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Reducing Length of Article

Has there been an attempt to reduce the overall length of the article? It seems that within the article there is a lot of information that is redundant. Also, there are sections that are nearly the same to related articles, such as Beliefs and Doctrines. For any subsection which also has a separate article, perhaps there should only be a one paragraph summary, and a link. For details, the reader can read the other article. If we for instance reduce the Beliefs and Doctrine sections, and the Eschatology section, we'd probably reduce the bulk of redundant information. Thoughts? boche 01:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I support the general principle of this approach. What I've often seen happen is that some article gets long, so it gets split out into a number of sub articles with short summaries and links in the main article, as you suggest. Then later, others come along and start expanding the summary articles because there's more to say about, for instance, Beliefs and Doctrines than the brief summary. And maybe, if we're lucky, a third phase happens and it gets trimmed back again. Not sure how to really keep this cycle from happening without discouraging people from editing boldly, but it is a recurring problem in a number of articles. Wesley 03:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I am going to put away the section Jehovah's Witnesses and Eschatology - It exists in the article Opposional Views on Jehovah's Witnesses. Summer Song 19:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Summer Song, what's up? Surprisingly, there is a WP article titled Opposional views on Jehovah's Witnesses even though "opposional" is not even a real English word!?! Regardless, could you please explain your edits? Thanks. --DannyMuse 06:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Grammar corrections have been done. Now, this article should be the one in which the escatology stuff should be discussed. Summer Song 17:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Summer song, I have reverted eschatology back to the main page. Eschatology has nothing whatsoever to do with "opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses". Eschatology is about signs, predictions, and biblical text about the keen interest Christians have about the coming of Christ's Kingdom. It is about the history of those looking towards that Kingdom, and signs that it may be imminent. It has nothing at all to do with "opposition", so I really don't know why you put it in that separate page that you created about "opposition". Kind regards, Elenap 3rd of August 2005

"In 1929 the second president of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph F. Rutherford, also called "Judge Rutherford", built a luxury villa in California called Beth Sarim for the claimed purpose of housing the prophets and godly men of old, who were expected to be physically resurrected after Armageddon to help with Christ's Millennial reign over the earth, even though they had failed to materialize as predicted in 1925. A local paper published a humorous interview with Rutherford about the villa in March 1930. Rutherford used the villa himself for many years until his death in 1942, and in 1948 the luxury villa was sold."

This is something I would consider to be critical. Likewise, the text regarding 1975 is generally written from a critical view. There are also links to various critical websites. Summer Song 17:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Summer and all others, can I make a few observations? Eschatology is not just about 1975, is about all the looking forward to dates expected for God, via Jesus, to act, and bring in His Kingdom. An article pointing out embarrassing information is not critical. It may not be flattering, but when are mistakes ever flattering when listed on paper or PC screens? Even if it were "critical" as you claim, that would not class it as "Opposition" in any way, but more embarrassing incidents, of which I'm sure we have all had at some time in our life. Listing mistakes is not a classification of "opposition", or even criticism, but more a historical overview of Eschatology, that's why it's called Eschatology, as all the dates were about the arrival of Jesus' Kingdom, none of which is opposition, or even criticism. AlanM 4 Aug 2005

I support the movement of this information to the Doctrines article, and reducing this section significantly to a 1 paragraph abstract of the details contained in the subsection of that article. I do not support an "Oppositional views" section, since that makes WP sound like a forum for points of view, which I would be very opposed to. Either something should be in WP or not, and having a bucket for POV is bad. I believe that as long as the wording is non-critical, it is fine to include information about the JW history, even if someone may find it "embarassing." I'd agree with Summer Song that the description of Beth Sarim needs some work to make it NPOV, and I think it can be better put in the Doctrines section under Eschatology. I would also suggest actually, that if we want a new article, we have one on JW History. This would fit better in there, since it isn't a current Doctrine, and then the Doctrines page can focus on only current doctrine, and only mention doctrinal development as context. boche 06:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Boche, you raise a lot of good points here. I won't address them all, but I do support the general concept that the Doctrine page should focus on current doctrines and beliefs of JWs. Historical changes should be included, but separately for those that are interested. Although certain editors feel the compelling need to highlight the historical changes in JW beliefs, putting them together with current beliefs would only be confusing to someone reading the article(s) for the first time. --DannyMuse 06:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

If the article reads that 'Rutherford built a luxury house which was used by himself' and that 'many people sold everything they owned before 1975', I would clearly say that it is written from a critical view. I am not saying that we should flatter over embarrasing things. But I would like to ask whether all these incidents are treated with accuracy. Critical claims like that should be treated in the article Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses.

It is true that they once claimed that some of the patriarchs should be resurrected before the end, but that is something which should rather be treated in the section about changes in the doctrines (See Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses). I would like to ask why such a long section about eschatology should be in the main article. Summer Song 12:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that the eschatology section needs trimming to the high level facts, and the details moved to doctines pages. As for history, I think indicating historical progression is fine. Whether there is an agenda to "embarass" is not relevant so long as the text does not skew things to make a point. Whether something is embarassing or not should be irrelevant. For instance, talking about Beth Sarim is fine. Also, that many did sell things off before 1975 is also fine. Those are simply facts. These are not critical claims. Something critical maybe claiming that the WTBS was wrong to allow people to sell things off before 1975. That sort of judgement should not be in the article. And I still do not see how "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses" is really a useful article if it is merely a place where anti-JWs put all the anti-JW material they want, and JWs encourage all "embarassing" facts to be moved to that page. It's sort of a weird politics makes strange bedfellows phenomenon, in my opinion. boche 08:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Such a long secton with references to JW litterature is not needed in this article. I made it short. Summer Song 16:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Links critical of the group exist in the the article opposition to JW. Therefore I believe that they should not be in this one. Instead I wrote an allusion in the section about opposition. Summer Song 16:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of NPOV, I would definitely want to include the proper wikilink to the accurate article title. What is the title? - CobaltBlueTony 20:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have done so now, and I think that is the best way of having it.Summer Song 22:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Leadership

In the comments accompanying my edit, I meant "improved," not "approved." Some section of this sort seems appropriate, since it also exists in articles like Anglicanism, for example. --Bhuck 12:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good start. Let's be sure to keep it brief, since there is already an organization Article, where more can be expanded upon there. I like it. In fact, we should really look at other articles on religions to get ideas, since it'll make the JW articles in general sound less like we just merged WTBS tracts and anti-JW literature into one article. boche 18:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the summary in this article for a bit more accuracy in thought and terminology, plus added a link to the main article Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. - CobaltBlueTony 19:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I would also suggest one thing as far as structure. I would suggest we create an Organzation section, with two subsections, membership and leadership. The link to the organization article can be at the very begining, and again, I think we'll need to continue to focus on making this section essentially an abstract of what the full article contains. boche 19:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Question concerning the use of the Council_of_Jerusalem. Is this single council the same as the JW view of the governing body as a perpetual body, available for more than one "session"? - CobaltBlueTony 13:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

JWs believe that it is an example of the first governing body in action. So, yes, JWs believe the council to have been a perpetual body, not merely a single session. boche 08:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of my asking is that the description of the Council of Jerusalem is that of a single meeting, and does not imply a perpetual body, so reference to it in the form it is in now does not accurately reflect our beliefs on this. - CobaltBlueTony 15:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

There has been continuing discussion whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian organization. This issue that has been brought up from time to time needs to be settled. This needs to go up for vote on Wikipedia to permanently settle it.

The issue to vote on: Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Christians? Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah, Mediator between God and Man, now Ruling King, and Jehovah’s only begotten Son. Jehovah’s Witness do not believe the Trinity doctrine is scriptural there for do not believe Jesus is 1/3 part of a Trinity or that Jesus is "God the Son." Please vote whether Jehovah’s Witnesses can rightly be called a “Christian” organization.

If you want to add or edit this please be free to do so to have a clear understand of this issue as it is posted for vote.--Saujad 04:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

100% of 6M+ Jehovahs Witnesses will all say "YES", we are Christians. Anti-JW's will say "NO", they can't be Christians because they don't believe in the Trinity and thus don't believe Jesus is Almight God. The vast majority of the rest of mankind, couldn't care less. My vote is to go with what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Otherwise, will we be left to take a vote on whether Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopaleans, etc. are Christian?

According the the WP article Christian: "... a Christian is a follower of and a believer in Jesus of Nazareth." According to that definition JWs are most certainly Christians. They engage in their very public ministry in obedience to their understanding of Christ's command to "go ... make disciples". - Matthew 28:19, 20. Beyond that it is easy to create a narrow definition of "a Christian" that includes what a certain group wants to include and excludes everything else. This issue is in fact discussed in some detail, and I submit more appropriately, on the WP Christian page. --DannyMuse 07:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that it could be accurately claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses and many Christians consider the Jehovah's Witnesses to be to be a Christian denomination, although there are some groups who disagree. I do feel that the disagreement is notable and relevant, but am not entirely sure how to word it in a manner that is also NPoV. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As the article itself states, most denominations considering themselves Christian, comprising most Christian adherents, do not regard JWs to be Christian - this being either explicit (in official statements) or implicit (in the policy of baptising ex-JW converts). Sure, there are 6 million JWs, but there are also over 2 billion Trinitarians. Sure, a Christian is defined as above, but it doesn't mean that JWs fit that description; only that they consider themselves fitting to it. "Some disagree" is a gross understatement. "Many agree and some disagree" is simply an untrue comparison. "Many agree and most disagree" is somewhat accurate.

BTW, Describing the doctrine of the Trinity with words such as "Jesus is 1/3 part of a Trinity" is inaccurate. The idea that God is divisible into parts is incompatible with the trinitarian doctrine.

Having said that, I concur that WP doesn't need to say whether JWs are Christians or not, because there is no unanimosity on the matter - whether you consider it from the point of view of theology or from that of comparative religion, it is a highly controversial issue. Why should WP promote either view (the minority view, in this instance), shouldn't it instead tell that people disagree about this? And then, it should state the uncontroversial fact that JWs are self-identified as Christian. Taking a stand on such a matter is POV, no matter what you think personally. 82.181.158.247 19:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the "self-identified" as above. I think "Christian Sect" is also a factually agreeable phrase, though perhaps the connotation is POV.

I hasten to add something: We should not have a vote between "WP should say that JWs are Christian" and "WP should say that JWs are not Christian" at all. Both are POV, because the matter is very controversial. Taking either stand means saying that a significant number of people are wrong in their views. The matter needs to be discussed, I think thorough argumentation hasn't yet been given. A way to say it from a NPOV is the current one: "They are self-identified as Christian." We should not vote between two POVs! We should present both, though it can be consistent to give only the JW view in the opening paragraph and the opposite view later. Both should be presented as views of people and institutions, not as objective facts.

P.S. Because trinitarians outnumber JWs so overwhelmingly, one could argue that the controversy is so unequal that the article should just say that JWs are not Christians. However, I think the group's self-understanding is of essential nature. It should not be the only possible standard of factual knowledge, but it should matter more than if it were just a minority view. This is why this controversy is important enough to prevent WP from simply stating the majority view. A whole different issue is that e.g. a very small number of Evangelicals disagree with Roman Catholics about the Christian status of the Roman Catholic Church: their opinion concerns a group other than their own. Therefore, it is of lesser importance than JWs' opinion about their own group. 82.181.158.247 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Basically, the question "are Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?" is the wrong question. As the article used to say, JWs are a "Christian Denomination", and it also specified that there are controversies, and that some "orthodox Christians" find their doctrines heretical. I think that is sufficient for NPOV. The convolution of "self-identified as Christian" or "claim to be Christian" or "think they are Christian" are all not NPOV since it implies that they are not Christian. Just as someone may say, "This person claims to be a mechanic" implies that somehow it's just self-delusion. As it stands anyone can look up in WP "Christian Denomination" which includes descriptions of non-trinitarian denominations (again, PLEASE LOOK IT UP). Again, whether they are "true Christians" is a subject matter that should be left out of WP. WP can only note that there exists a dispute, but not make a judgement. boche 05:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree in two points. Firstly, saying "They are a Christian denomination" is saying two things: 1) They are Christian, and 2) They are a denomination. The Christian denomination article does not say that JWs are a Christian denomination, it only describes them, just as it describes Unitarian Universalists without claiming this status to them either. Actually, it explicitly specifies that a Christian denomination is one of the groups under which Christianity exists, therefore binding the definitions together - a denomination cannot be a Christian denomination if it doesn't represent Christianity. The latter is controversial, therefore the former is too.

You can't just mince words so that in practice it looks to everyone that the article says they are Christian, even if you say that the wording doesn't actually mean it. It simply isn't NPOV, loads of people disagree that they are a Christian denomination. You're saying we should not tell people whether JWs are Christians or not, but that is exactly what calling them a Christian denomination would do.

Secondly, saying "they are self-identified as Christian" doesn't imply that they are not. It simply says that the JW opinion is that JWs are Christian. It does imply that the matter is controversial, which is a fact. Therefore, the wording is wholly accurate and NPOV. I agree that "claim" would sound POV, even though the dictionary defines it as "to assert in the face of possible contradiction" - not e.g. "to assert in the face of a contrary fact". But "self-identified" is completely neutral.

P.S. Your gave the example that "This person claims to be a mechanic" sound as if in reality, he were not. That is wholly true, but that is not the expression we're talking about. "This person is self-identified as American" doesn't sound like that - from a neutral viewpoint, the matter has quite few non-controversial objective standards, which is why people's subjective opinions count, too. 82.181.158.247 08:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved the part describing the disagreement about Witnesses' Christian status lower. That is where it should be, and it is better to describe that after describing their distinctive doctrines. 128.214.157.160 13:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, please read the Christian demoninations article. You are reading way to much into things. If JWs were not relevant to that article, they would be removed. It is not an article to define what is truly Christian. It is only a descriptor to indicate classification of belief systems. It's clear that they descend from Protestantism, and in particular, American Protestantism, then Adventism, and Restorationism, etc. You are free to hold whether they are truly Christian since they have "heretical" views, but that is insufficient justification for introducing a point of doctrinal contention into what is supposed to be a neutral forum. No one here is going to get into the business of saying what Christian denomination "represents Christianity." There is no statement of the sort. Even on the Christian denominations page, it specifies that many denominations will claim that others are not Christian. I think that you are letting your doctrinal views color your objectivity. You should propose then to remove Gnostics from that page, since they are even more heretical in their views than JWs. boche 00:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Another thing to consider. We are not to make judgements on whether they are true Christians. However, we are here to describe. In all the JW pages, inevitably the subject of "heresy" comes up. To the third party observer, that heresy only makes sense within a context. For we aren't talking about Islamic or Hindu Heresies. We are speaking of Chistian ones. There is in fact a book called "Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew" by Bart D. Ehrman where he coveres Ebionites and Gnostics. They are both heretical, but are only heretical in the Christian context. Same with Arianism. Many Christians would think them "false Christian" but that is only a POV. If we are classifying religions objectively, and speak of taxonomy, of the major monotheistic religions, JWs fall into this one. Now, we can distinguish from orthodox and non-orthodox. That too can be objectively classified. How about "unorthodox Christian denomination"? boche 01:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear boche, I have read the Christian denominations article several times. Every time I have read it, it has said "Christianity, in modern times, exists under diverse names. These variously named groups, Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, etc. are called denominations." You can't get around of what it says: If a group is a Christian denominations, then Christianity exists under that group. This is also what it says to a normal person; without giving qualifications, a normal reader doesn't interpret the expression "Christian denomination" with taxonomy in mind. He or she simply thinks they are both Christian (which is controversial) and a denomination (which is uncontroversial).

Now, there can be different opinions about what Christianity is and under which groups it exists, and they inevitably lead to different opinions about which groups are Christian denominations. As you said, this depends on the basis of classifications: for instance, doctrine (which groups are orthodox enough?) or history (which groups descend from Christian groups?) or self-understanding (which groups are self-identified as Christian?). But common descent doesn't mean that it is somehow contrary to the standard of objectivity to classify a group into a new religion. If that were the case, then Buddhists should be called a "Hindu denomination" and Christianity a "Jewish denomination". Mind you, Islam was once called a Christian heresy, but it isn't called that way any more. Why? Because it isn't considered Christian at all. It cannot be a Christian heresy if it isn't Christian. This stands even though their view are still heretical in the context of Christianity.

Neither does the Christian denomination article explicitly state that JWs are Christians - actually, it mentions Unitarian Universalists too, because of common descent, even though most of them don't even self-identify as Christian. The List of Christian denominations article even mentions that listing all denominations of Christian self-understanding is done for the sake of simplicity, and that articles should tell about the disagreements about each denomination's status. That is what we should do, we should tell people that they think they are a Christian denomination, but also that there is disagreement about the matter. The word "unorthodox" is POV if anything, it says out loud that JWs are wrong in their views. You don't want that either, do you?

That being said, I contend that we should not affirm or deny that JWs are a Christian denomination - otherwise we should change Joshua A. Norton to Emperor Norton I of United States and David Bawden as Pope Michael I. These matters were discussed, too, and it came clear that you can't just call someone (or some group) something because they opine that way, if countless people disagree. Separating "Christian" from "a Christian denomination" is just mincing of words. You want context for the word "denomination"? That's what "self-identified as Christian" gives, just as well as "a Christian denomination".

I think disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make me unobjective. 82.181.158.247 21:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this quotation from the Neutral point of view article represent what we should strive for:

Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

That being said, should we now move to proposing wordings about which we could agree on? I hope everyone could re-estimate the expression "Self-identified as Christian" in the light of that quotation. Thanks! 82.181.158.247 22:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To the question of if saying "unorthodox" is POV, I would disagree. Orthodoxy is simply determined by the majority or those in power. It says nothing about incorrectness or correctness. Another compromise could be "unorthodox Christian Denomination", which allows the people who believe them to be "false Christians" to feel satisfied since they'll read unorthodox to be equivalent of heretical, and JWs are happy, since they don't mind being called unorthodox, and to the casual observer, it is simply a reflection of what they are. Saying "self-identified as Christian" may be fine if all religions that self-identify themselves as Christian are described in that manner. It is interesting the examples put forth to advance the "self-proclaimed Christian" stance, such as that of David Bawden. The analogy breaks down by mere fact that popes are selected in a very well-defined manner. It is something conferred. Whereas in the study of religions, people are classifying things. If someone claims to be Christian, yet is clearly Buddhist (no bible, no christ, no father in heaven, etc.), then I would agree, let's put "self-proclaimed" and leave it at that. But, even to someone unfamiliar with the intracies and subtleties of doctrine will not fail to notice that christian flavor of the religion. Again, I am not proposing conferring upon JWs the title of "True Christians." I'm merely using "Christian denomination" as something descriptive to indicate what classification of the major monotheistic religions it falls under. And again, if the great fear here is that a casual reader might (God forbid) think they are "True Christians" an adjective such as "unorthodox" should allay those fears. boche 08:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear boche, you can put away your sarcasm. It is not going to help us in this discussion. Thanks for answering anyway. If I remember correctly, when you put "unorthodox" into the article, DannyMuse removed it because it was "awkward". Could he comment on this?

I disagree about orthodoxy being defined by what the majority of those in power believe. Orthodoxy simply means "correct doctrine" or "correct worship". In my opinion, that is not less POV than "true Christianity" or some other expression that does not belong to encyclopedic language.

You stated that if JWs are described as "self-identified as Christian", then all denominations self-identified as Christian should be described that way. But this analogy breaks down: The reason for using this wording is that the matter is highly controversial. If everyone, excepting very small minority, agrees that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, etc. are Christians, there is no reason to qualify that statement. But if churches representing a huge majority of self-identified Christians think some group is outside Christianity, then the statement does need to be qualified.

If I have perceived correctly, your main argument is that JWs are uncontroverially Christian if they are classified somehow "objectively" without doctrinal opinions involved. Then my questions is, Who determines the objective criteria for a Christian denomination, knowing that even comparative religionists disagree about this?

The same description follows if they are classified according to their origin or self-identification, just like in the List of Christian denominations article (actually, self-identification is the stronger criterion, since e.g. Islam has Christian roots, but it isn't included there). I agree with that, but I only need to ask: since a normal user doesn't have this kind of taxonomy automatically in mind when reading the word "Christian", why couldn't this classification at least be qualified? E.g. "By the standard of origin and self-identification, Jehovah's Witnesses are classified as Christian." On the other hand, the list itself says that disagreements are described at each denomination's own article, but it doesn't necesserily prevent this article from having the compromised wording I'm now proposing.

--Martin C. 17:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It is curious to see such avoidance of describing them as a Christian Denomination. It still has not been answered if they are more appropriately called an Islamic or Buddhist or other major religious denomination. Or is a unique religion all of its own? If the argument is that Russel had his ideas, and Rutherford etc had their ideas, and therefore those ideas are heretical and therefore, they are not Christian, and therefore one has to say they are "self-described as Christian" even though other denominations that claim a literalist interpretation of the Bible is not, it simply appears that POV is at work here.

The reason I proposed "unorthodox Christian denomination" (and yes, you finally noticed JWs are on the list of Christian Denominations, and yes, discussed in the article on...yes, Christian Denominations) is because of the dictionary definition of "orthodox": "conforming to established doctrine especially in religion" A synonym being "conventional" (See www.m-w.com).

We could say "unconventional" instead of "unorthodox" but that would probably water down the description, since it is a fact that they promote beliefs that is considered heretical by the establishment.

If your reason for calling them "Self-described Christians" is because they are controversial, then I fail to see why you haven't proposed "controversial Christian denomination." I would agree that that is a neutral expression as well.

boche 05:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to the upper comment: When a matter is highly controversial among the public, Wikipedia should not promote opinion over other (in this case, "They are Christian" vs. "They are not Christian". WP should simply tell who thinks what. It is not JWs' literalism that makes their status controversial, it is their nontrinitarianism. Other literalist denominations are mostly trinitarian and therefore mostly noncontroversial.

To boche: If I remember correctly, it wasn't me who removed the word "unorthodox"; I asked for comments from DannyMuse, but he hasn't responded. In Wikipedia, the word is defined as "correct theological or doctrinal observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body". Now, which body, or which establishment? This is not NPOV, as it looks to some institution as authority in matters of religion.

And as you noticed, the list of Christian denominations also says that self-identification is the norm of that list, but disagreements of statuses should be explained in each article. The Christian denomination article mentions JWs, but it does not explicitly say that they are Christian.

Using "controversial Christian denomination" would say that they are 1. controversial, and 2. Christian. It would not tell what the case really is: it is their Christianity (2) what is controversial (1).

What do you think of the current expression?

Martin C. 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Notes and references

I created a new section to the main article for footnotes and references. While this can be useful for many reasons, my immediated reason was to create a place for references to articles and source documents in keeping with WP's policy to cite your sources. Many editors are simply inserting links to external pages, the majority of which are not only highly-biased, but often don't even have the primary/original source(s) listed. One website claimed to contain, "all known Index entries regarding containing the word "1975" which deal specifically with the expectations and/or disappointment for that year." While that may or may not be true, it is hardly a helpful or encyclopedic way to reference material.

To get things started, I have created a footnote with a link to the article “How Are You Using Your Life?” from Our Kingdom Ministry, May 1974, WTB&TS. This is the correct, original source document from which the referenced quote is taken. This procedure is clearly encyclopedic and I strongly urge all editors to cite your sources according to the WP Policy. There are currently many links throughout the article that could/should be changed to this format. The assistance and cooperation of all editors to this article would be greatly appreciated. If any contributors are unsure about how to do this correctly, please read the WP cite your sources article. Thanks! --DannyMuse 17:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Danny your motives are clearly not about being more "encyclopaedic" as we have seen your methods time and time again. As the Wikipedia page says: ". . .You can quickly insert inline references to web pages by inserting a URL surrounded by single square brackets; this does not provide as much information to readers, but it is much better than not citing your sources at all" Interestingly, I see you have only attacked and vandalized the Quotes website, and none of the Watchtower's multiple links, no surprise there with your gross bias screaming from the rooftops. As for the links to Quotes websites, they are extremely encyclopaedic, and the 1975 page has no commentary, but lists all the printed material about 1975, so as to give fair and reasonable coverage, rather than just a few selective quotes. They are all given their source, publication, date and page numbers for proof and reference. Your apparent fear and terror that the public might actually read what the Watchtower organization has written is very revealing. You clearly have an agenda to vandalize and ban free speech when it doesn't suit your agenda, not dissimilar to your religious organisation. I suggest you look inside and see why now after many months, you feel the desperate need to hide accurate, comprehensive, dated, quotes, direct and unaltered that have been published by the Watch Tower Society? If you can give all the 1975 publications from the Watchtower's website, then I'm sure many here will be only to happy to list that link, but I think you will find they refuse to give any information to the public about their less than flattering publications, and that is where we all need to see a comprehensive and fully documented source like the excellent quotes site on 1975. You have failed to substantiate any of your claims about the quotes site; merely saying "it's not useful" is a deadpan POV with no basis but your own fear of reality, and your desperate urged to manipulate the public. Posted Central 5 August 2005

Danny, why have you decided to vandalize the page again, regardless of the Wikipedia quotes I gave saying that inserted links are ok? I have now moved all the links to a reference section for the sake of peace, where they will remain for now. I suggest you act in a fair and balanced manner and move all the Watchtower links, which there are very many, to the new section 'Notes, References and Sources'. I used the suffix C1 - 6 so you can insert your WT links in A and B etc. I hope you will stop being so destructive and act in a more mature way. Central posted 6 August 2005

Central, Thank you for making links from the text to the new section for that. Could you please use this or a similar format.

In-line tag: ^[2]
Notes and references section tag: * ^ REFERENCE TITLE/DESCRIPTION

Or you may wish to refer to the citing Web sites section of the cite your sources article for other suggestions on how to correctly format your references. As they are now the do not cite the source at all, but merely describe content. Also, they do not dynamically link to the text in the article to which they refer, which completely misses the purpose of this section. This will allow for format consistency and ease of editing. --DannyMuse 21:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have removed auto-numbering as this is currently discouraged in Wikipedia due to software limitations. --DannyMuse , 17:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Danny, I had a read of that Wikipedia page you just quoted, and I agree with the main points:

What are references good for?

Giving credit to a source for providing useful information.
Providing more information to curious readers.
Convincing skeptical readers that the article is accurate.
Helping other editors quickly verify facts, especially in cases of sneaky vandalism.
Preventing and resolving editorial disputes.
Establishing general credibility for Wikipedia.
Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty.
Avoiding the impression that you are making stuff up.

I have reverted that last change, as it did not give a link to the number on the Notes section. There is no point having numbering 1, 2, 3 etc., on the main pages if there is no corresponding link with the same number at the bottom of the page, as no one will know what they are reading and what it is referring to. There is also no point having 'auto' numbering on the main page if there were typed numbers in the notes section, as they would not match up if someone added a new number all the others below it would automatically change, and if the notes numbers did not (as they have to be hand typed), it would all be a confusing mess. I also noticed that the external link to a scanned page of the original Kingdom Ministry had been removed. Strange when that was the point of the reference, not just to say where it was from, but to give proof and verification that it had not been made up, or was dishonest etc. You say there is no reference to where the material is coming from, and I will amend that, but it's pretty obvious they are from on the Watch Tower Society on the Quotes site, or when there is a scanned page from the Watchtower magazine or a Watch Tower publication.

One question, why are there still loads of Watchtower library links all over the page? Are you not going to edit them all out? I do hope you are going to be consistent, and not one sided and biased, as if the Watchtower links are to stay in the main text (I have no problem with them actually), then all the Eschatology links should be reinstated to as they were before for many months giving their links. Regards Central. Posted 8 August 2005

Central, three things:

I did not say, "there is no reference to where the material is coming from ..." I did say regarding some of the links in question they "often don't even have the primary/original source(s) listed." This is a general statement. Regarding the quotes.watchtower.ca website I specifically said, "One website claimed to contain, "all known Index entries regarding containing the word "1975" which deal specifically with the expectations and/or disappointment for that year." While that may or may not be true, it is hardly a helpful or encyclopedic way to reference material." My point is that primary sources are preferrable to secondary sources. This is especially true when the secondary source is antagonistic to the primary one. My entire focus for this section is in keeping to the WP cite your sources Policy.
You asked, "why are there still loads of Watchtower library links all over the page?" I don't know, I didn't put them there.
Also, "Are you not going to edit them all out?" I have and will continue to fix some of them, but it is not the responsibility of any one editor, including myself, to take care of all the problems with this or any other article. As I wrote in the first entry to this Talk page section, "There are currently many links throughout the article that could/should be changed to this format. The assistance and cooperation of all editors to this article would be greatly appreciated."

I hope this addresses your points and answers your questions. --DannyMuse 20:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

DannyMuse said "My point is that primary sources are preferrable to secondary sources. This is especially true when the secondary source is antagonistic to the primary one." Question: Is a primary source available for this material? In this example, is the Watch Tower book "Life Everlasting In Freedom of the Sons of God" (which pointed to 1975) still made available by WTS? Or how about the "epoch making" book, "Millions Now Living Will Never Die!" (which pointed to 1925)??? If the primary source (WTS) makes them available (by reprinting them on watchtower.org) then by all means, use that primary source as a link and reference for more information. But in the total absence of a such a primary source, then a cataloged collection of fully referenced and cited quotes seems reasonable. Since when is a fully referenced, verifiable collection of quotes, which contains no additional editorial or commentary, "antagonistic"??? Indeed, *HOW* could it be antagonistic? IOW, how are Watchtower Quotes antagonistic to Watchtower? Isn't that a logical non-sequitor? IMO, you have made a remarkable admission: you feel that Watchtower's own words are "antagonistic" toward Wachtower. Nonetheless, unless you have a primary link to substitute (i.e. watchtower.org) with the relevant watchtower material, it seems reasonable, and fully in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, to *NOT* delete a secondary one, especially one that is accurate, verifiable, and free of non-Watchtower commentary. Sincerely, ~Quotes

I don't have an objection to having a reference to the secondary reference (unless there is a rule against it). However, I would say that that is more a convenience, rather than really a reference. The reference is the actual text, so we should note that the source of a claim is a specific publication. If a link exists, then that is fine to include in the notes. But, while I would agree that one cannot say that quotes cannot be antagonistic of the person saying them, one must agree that the quotes are selected for a particular purpose. Much like when critics of Paul quote what he said about women. The quoter obviously is questioning the credibility of the quoted. Nothing wrong with it, but it's good to say what they are. Does anyone object to what I say? boche 06:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarification regarding format and content

On 5 August 2005 I wrote above explaining my reasons for creating the new Notes and references section. Apparently there is some need of further clarification regarding formatting and content of this section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Danny, There is still a major problem with the Notes section you have added to, and that is there is no corresponding numbering to the article numbers you have put in with 'auto-numbering'. If someone clicks on say link '4', when they get directed to the Notes section, there is no corresponding number '4', so they have no information, except to guess which link/reference/note is relevant, and this destroys the whole consistency and ease of use with finding extra information. At least when the links were embedded in text, people could see the page they were directed to was about the text it came from. With this new method, there is no automatic numbering in the notes section (except that which I've manually added, but doesn’t seem to happen automatically). And with no numbering in the notes, it become a confusing mess, and defeats the whole purpose of re-ordering the page. What is the point if it just makes it harder to find links/references, or which link/reference is from which text section? You, or whoever edits links to notes, must put some kind of manual numbering or it’s meaningless to use this new method. At least my method 'C1 -6' is clear, and linked to the text. The automatic method is lacking, and as you have said, Wikipedia can't cope with auto links well, so why not just put them all in by hand, then at least that way they all correspond to the text they came from. What do you think? Central Posted 9 August 2005

Central, I understand your concern. First, I am NOT auto-numbering the links. In fact, on 8 August, 2005 I removed the numbering from the Notes and references section to help alleviate this problem (see my comment in the previous Talk page section). The current WP software auto-numbers all external web-links and apparently treats in-line links placed in the text the same way. I don't have an immediate solution to this problem. However, the advantage of the way it is now is that anyone reading the article can click on the link in the text and be directed to the appropriate reference in the "Notes and references" section. Then they can click on the link next to the reference and be returned to the exact spot in the text where they were. The way you have it does have reference numbers but do not return to the text. Also, the numbering must be manually updated. It's clearly not a perfect solution, but after thoroughly reading WP formatting and citation guidelines it seems to be the best way to handle it currently. It is the method used in many other articles, some of which are heavily edited and have large content. For example see the Intelligent design article. --DannyMuse 16:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Moderation

My opinion is that this page is in need of moderation. Thoughts? boche 01:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! It would be helpful if you could explain your reasons for this opinion. Then you (or collectively with the current contributors to this article) could take the necessary steps to move forward with that idea. --DannyMuse 21:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC) (Revised 8 August 2005)

I agree! Otherwise even when we get to agreement and look away, someone will simply revert it back without discussion. 82.181.158.247 22:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Boche, you might want to refer to the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes article in this regard. --DannyMuse 19:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

DannyMuse, have you got any advice to me, or do you feel I should change my behaviour? 82.181.158.247 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

82.181.158.247, my only advice to you is that you should become a registered user. It only takes a few minutes and provides many benefits. My comments above were specifically to Boche in response to his "opinion is that this page is in need of moderation". We're still waiting for his explanation of his your reasons for this opinion. --DannyMuse 20:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the advice! This is my username now. Martin C. 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking back at the history, it seems that there continues to be an aversion to acknowledging the Christian aspects of JWs, and to me it appears to be due to doctrinal disputes that should ideally not influence a document that is meant to objectively describe things. Since I don't have the desire to get into a revert war, I'll just leave it up to the reader to understand that JWs clearly are rooted in Christianity although they are at odds with orthodox/historical Christianity (i.e. the majority). However, a moderator who I would assume would be interested in keeping consistency across the wikipedia articles, would be helpful in determining what is more consistent with other articles in wikipedia.boche 08:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and the question of blood

On 12 August 2005 Amicuspublilius added the following text to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the question of blood section of the main article.

"However, in the event that two Witnesses have their child suffer traumatic injuries, they often do not object to the state acting in the child's interest, which in many cases is implicit consent to blood transfusions. This is a bioethical issue discussed with physicians in training. Acceptance of blood transfusions has led to documented cases of ostracism by the local Witness community."

This assertion is claiming situations "often" arise wherein JW parents compromise their beliefs regarding blood transfusions in the case of their (presumably minor) children. This is directly contrary to official JW beliefs and practices and to experiences published in JW publications. If situations like this are in fact true, evidence needs to be provided as proof of that. This is according to WP's policy of citing sources. Since Amicuspublilius did not cite his sources I moved his addition here to the Talk page for discussion. Before it can be restored, in whole or in part, reliable evidence and/or proper citations of the claimed "documentation" must be provided. There are four asserted claims that need to be addressed:

JW parents "often do not object to the state acting in the child's interest"
This is in fact "implicit consent to blood transfusions"
This is a bioethical issue discussed with physicians in training.
[Tacit] "Acceptance of blood transfusions [under the specific circumstances herein described] has led to documented cases of ostracism by the local Witness community"

It is very important that all editors properly cite their sources using reliable sources and providing all the information necessary to find the original source. This is particularly true when the edits are concerning controversial issues. Regarding unattributed material, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question." Thanks! --DannyMuse 02:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

My comment here is that I think we are getting too deep into details, when there is a practices article that is meant to do this. In this top level article, we should ideally strive to give an overview. This is what they believe. There is some controversy. For more details, read the fuller article. What I dislike is that in attempts to make a point or expand on some aspect, the proportion of time is skewed. The question is: what is the point? even assuming that a statement is factual, is it in the right place, and at the right level of detail. I would agree with DannyMuse also in that the statement "they often do not object" is something not provable, and is bound to be controversial, and should therefore be taken out. boche 08:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

POINT OF INTEREST

Sorry I can't contribute anymore, but I thought this would be of interest to those working on this article:

A New film on PBS is in the making about Jehovah's witnesses , heres what we know. This is a letter sent to me The aim of KNOCKING is to give a general, non-Jehovah's Witness audience a fair look at a religious group that has long been misunderstood and relegated to cartoonish stereotypes. KNOCKING uses the real life stories of real families to humanize Jehovah's Witnesses. But we don’t shy from criticism. Our aim is that everything is fair and accurate. We show both the ups and downs, including what it is like for Witnesses who have unbelieving or opposing family members, and how divided families can find common ground. For instance, the young man who undergoes a groundbreaking bloodless liver transplant has opposing family members who come to the hospital to see first-hand how the new bloodless technology works. KNOCKING will be educational and illuminating for a non-Jehovah's Witness audience. Extended family, neighbors, co-workers and classmates of Jehovah’s Witnesses will certainly be interested to take a look. Closer to time of broadcast, we will offer DVDs for home and school use. The DVD will be a feature-length version of the film (the broadcast on PBS will be shorter) and will include extras like expanded interviews. We’ll be sure to send more details on that later. As of Summer 2005, the film is being edited in San Francisco. Throughout the course of the project, we filmed in California, Georgia, Ohio, New York, Nevada, and Texas as well as Austria and Poland. We filmed in Kingdom Halls, conventions and in the door-to-door ministry. Keep in mind that every Jehovah's Witness who has contributed to this film, either on camera or behind the scenes, has done so by their own personal choice. There is no official connection to the Watchtower Society, though the Bethel organization in Brooklyn, Patterson and Wallkill, New York has been cooperative with the producers of this film. We interviewed Watchtower representatives on camera and filmed inside Bethel. Watchtower has no financial ties to this project, nor any editorial control. It is important to know that this project is independently produced for public television, using a combination of public, foundation and individual funds. No one on the production staff is a Jehovah's Witness. The director's mother, however, is a Witness. And we do have Jehovah's Witnesses who are serving as consultants for factual accuracy. We also have academic, historical and medical consultants who are experts in their field but not Jehovah's Witnesses. We intend to premiere KNOCKING at a prestigious film festival such as Sundance in early 2006. A national television broadcast on PBS will follow. And the film will be made available on DVD. We also hope to bring KNOCKING to cities throughout the United States in 2006 for special screenings. This will be a chance for you to see a sneak preview and perhaps meet some of the film's subjects in a live Q&A session. The KNOCKING web site and these newsletters will provide updated information about where and when the sneak previews will take place. If you are interested in volunteering to organize such a screening in your city, contact us directly at [email protected]. Please type “Volunteer” in the subject heading. We look forward to seeing the positive impact this film has in telling the untold stories of Jehovah's Witnesses.We hope you do, too. Thanks again for contacting us, and the KNOCKING staff will be sure to keep you up to date on the latest progress. Sincerely, Joel P. Engardio Producer/Director Heres the link http://www.knocking.org/

George 12:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

George, interesting that you bring this up. I've personally met Joel and have attended some of the filming sessions for his documentary. He is not actually associated with JWs nor is he affiliated with any of the various Watchtower organizations. He has family that are witnesses and has been around JWs for a long time, but is not one himself. While his documentary is definitely of interest, as of yet there really is nothing concrete that we can say about it here since the only one who knows what the final content and editing will be is Joel himself. -- uberpenguin 01:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Membership

I have revised the census data given for self-identification to read 1.38 rather than 1.8million in 1990 to match actual census data. This leaves the conclusion that U.S. membership declined over the 90-01 period in question. Further, although reported by the census bureau these numbers are the product of two separate academic studies conducted by parties other than the census under assumedly different methodologies. I would suggest (based on direct knowledge of local association in several U.S. locales over the period in question) that it is likely that a major fraction of U.S. increases are in areas of the population less likely to be accurately counted in this fashion (poor Spanish speaking) whereas the demographic areas of declines are not. Also, Witnesses may not self-identify as Witnesses in a survey when asked this question depending on the phrasing and context of the question (more likely to say Christian or refuse to answer than most groups). Also, the conclusion drawn that publisher count represents a major fraction of the self-identifying population is erroneous and should be removed or edited since it compares census numbers for the adult population with JW-provided active publisher numbers which include large numbers of minors. My best guess is that the actual % of self-identified adults who are active is about 40-50% and that the census self-identification number is low for the reasons previously mentioned. Unlike the Western European areas mentioned which show declines in active membership the U.S. active membership shows slow gains over this period.

Ben

Added 8-27-2005: The 2001 academic study (telephone survey) which is the source of the U.S. self-identified data under membership has some interesting points which are in line with my above comments:

A) It is specifically noted that non-English speakers were not included and that this is prone to skew the numbers of small groups with a disproportionate membership of recent immigrants. Per the JW-media site 75 of 227 U.S. JW conventions this year(2005) will be held exclusively in languages other than English (14 other languages), typically in the same facilities as English conventions on different weekends so this is a reasonable approximation of non-English speaking membership (33%), of course some of these Witnesses ARE bilingual (the 2000 census says that 26% of those adults speaking other languages than English speak English "not at all" or "not well"), of course some bilingual Witnesses attend English services so this should be seen as a lower bound. This would adjust Witness numbers upward by at least 13% in 2001--although some smaller adjustment would be called for in 1990 as well.

B)JW percentage of black membership is the highest among the 22 largest religious groups identified (37%)-- census 2000 showed that 6.5% of black households didn't have phones while only 1.8% of white households did not. While the study adjusted for multiple phone lines based on survey response, no mention of adjustment for no phone line is made. Weighting was done for demographic composition of respondents for certain key demographics but race is not mentioned as one of them. Blacks are three times as likely to be JW as the average American and more than three times as likely as whites not to have a phone line. It is possible this was adjusted for and simply not mentioned specifically in the undetailed methodology appendix. If not this would be about a 1.5% adjustment upward in 2001. Again a lesser adjustment upward would be needed in 1990. http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/aris_index.htm

--BEN

Hi, I had a question about the membership section. I'm curious if the analysis being done in article is original research. boche 06:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You might say that (although I wouldn't call it research it's either simple data analysis of published numbers or personal knowledge) of some of the stuff I put up on the talk page, but anything which made it to the article is from either the CUNY studies or published Witness numbers.

--BEN Based on this data and analysis I believe that the "membership" section needs a substantial edit.

Ben, I think that the analysis may or may not be valid, but I think that what the guidelines mean by "original research" is basically this type of analysis. I don't know if others agree or not. I think that at the very least, this may be too much detail or requires a separate article. Just my opinion. (also, to sign your name, you might want to use the tilde markup) boche 07:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that my talk page info would fit this criteria but disagree about my article input. As far as length, I will consider condensing, although this section is shorter than when I made my first edit of it. --BEN

Eschatology section and references

I was looking at the eschatology section and noticed the references. I think the references are useful in order to ensure things are factual. One thing I'd suggest however is to fix the references to refer to the actual publications, and have the links as additional info (in case the reader will not have access to them). The problem here is that those sites are in general polemical, and have a clear anti-JW agenda. As it stands, in order to find out what the actual sources are, persons must go to those websites. boche 06:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Boche, this is exactly right. Where have you been? You might want to refer to the "Notes and references" section of this Talk page above where the subject of how to annotate references was discussed at length. Your suggestion is right on the money. Just be prepared for resistance! --DannyMuse 01:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear user AlanM2, you may disagree with my edits, but I would appreciate some discussion. I beg to differ that what I had were vandalisms. I think that it is a bit insulting. If you would like to discuss the changes, please do so here, or if you want to add back some information, I'm open to it, but I would suggest that the article in general is way too focused on 1975. It is relevant, of course, so it deserves attention (maybe an entire article can be written on it alone), but I think further expansion would be better in doctrines and practices articles. You can refer to the wikipedia guidlines that I am following in order to make the edits, and if I'm violating them, please point them out. thanks boche 06:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Boche, I have to comment here about what I've seen going on. I noticed you have only altered the article so that it gives an extremely biased view on the Watch Tower's history and especially 1975. There were well over 50 Watch Tower articles pointing to '75 as Armageddon/beginning of Christ millennia reign, and only a very few that were cautionary. Guess what your edit does? Yes, it harps on about the minor few and removed the majority views given. How can this be neutral? If 95% of articles say yes to '75, and 5% say cautionary to '75, then why is an article hacked up by you, now making out 95% say cautionary to 75? Your misnamed "edits" are not packing in the same information into in less words, or in a more concise way, they are just hacking out large sections of text that don't suit your religious bias, and you don't want the public to get any idea about. You are opposing Wikipedia's purpose, not adding to it.

Your information removal is just a thinly cloaked attempt to distort the reality and the impact of the Watch Tower's date settings. I also notice you have tried to remove many of the historical dates in the beginning of the article, and heavily dumbed it down to by a minor irrelevant blip, instead of the foundation doctrines that they were at the time—yet, another of your biased edits. You really need to take a look at your own motives, as you are not being honest with yourself, or with the readers of your edits. Also, these articles have been like that for months now; if you had had any valid complaints, you would have made them long ago. The only reason you do it now is the fact that you realise the public have access to information that you do not want them to have. If your religion were about informed consent and putting all the cards on the table for new recruits, it would give links on its site to all the old literature and all the teachings in detail. What did Jesus say about building your house on sand? Most JWs and the public haven't a clue about the foundations Jehovah’s Witnesses' religion is built on and you appear to want them to stay that way—you are not being fair, honest or accurate in your so called "edits". Central. Posted 31 Aug 2005

Hi Central. I do not see a JW bias in what I wrote. What I attempted to do is to follow the guidelines of wikipedia and also generally make things more concise. For instance, you can view my last edit, which is an edit to a single paragraph of the original edit. I removed things like "50 years blah blah" since, it's redundant and rambling with info already present. The key point is that 1799 and 1874 were dropped in favor of a new understanding of 1914. The reason I drop the Bible quote is because I don't think it's necessary to get into scriptural analysis of the sort: "This is how JWs interpret this scripture" where said scripture is a proof text used in perpetual debates between evangelicals and JWs. Should JWs then start doing the same on other denomination pages on doctrinal things? It's just a bad precedence to get into these scripture wars. (and by the way, if you'd notice, I'm also against the "tractification" of wikipedia as well.) The rest of the personal attacks I won't address since it's clear you don't know me. And I have no agenda such as yourself to "save the JWs" from whatever perils you are describing. Nor am I interested in hiding anything from the public. Expectations of 1914 and 1975 were incorrect as a matter of fact, but there's no reason to harp on it or be verbose about it. Some JWs aren't bothered by that statement, some are. Not my concern. State the facts and move on. That is my philosophy. I think we have to be careful also of devoting too much time to one aspect of the religion. The article is long as it is, and are other aspects of the religion being sacrificed? For example, if you really wanted to discuss eschatology, we could have more on the current understanding of chronology, which would take more paragraphs than is currently there to explain; yet, we don't even mention things like "the seven times," the interpretation of the "trumpet blasts," signs of the last days, the interpretation of the "beasts" in revelations, etc. All, which figure more prominently in the JW religion than 1975. (and I'm not advocating not talking about 1975, or covering it up. It's just a matter of significance) From your point of view, you seem to be saying that JWs are decieved about 1975 and it is our duty to open their eyes. I think that this is not the purpose of wikipedia. (btw, you indicated that my edit was vandalism, and also that your edit was minor. I respectfully disagree with those two claims.) boche 07:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Boche, thank you for your reply. Just a few points. The "50 years thing. ." is relevant, as it demonstrates how long these cornerstone doctrines were in existence, and the obvious influence they would have had on members expectations. In the same way the "last generation 1914" doctrine was also used for around the same time length, before being dropped due to the humiliating fact that Armageddon hadn't arrived by 1994.

As for your comments on scriptures being involved, I totally agree with you. Danny Muse has the habit (and he's done even more recently) of inserting umpteen scriptures after every JW claim, as if he's giving a JW indoctrination session. I agree with you, these scriptures should not be there, as their interpretation is highly POV, and most scholars don't agree with the way JWs use them (or misuse in this case). I will seek to remove some of them, and I'm sure Danny Muse, who added mountains of them, can do his bit and cut them out as they are not relevant, as a belief can be clearly stated without them, as they (according to most scholars) don't back up the Watch Tower's doctrines anyway, as has been proven.

As for '75 I'm sure it can be more concise, but care must be taken not to remove information, at the expense of truth. Many of the other JW sections are ramblingly page fillers and are no more than publicity seeking tool for over zealous JWs. This is demonstrated with the excessive amount of other Wiki pages linked to the main one that are yet more and more Pro-JW, or sympathy seeking articles written by Watch Tower apologists. All these excessive JW based Wikepedia pages need removing. The reason the '75 article is so prominent is due to the massive effect it had on Witnesses at the time. A large exodus estimated to be from 500,000 to 1,000,000 leaving the organisation from 1974 - 1979 is not a small number, and has never been repeated, and was never seen before, and was one of the worst false predictions (attributed to God by the Watch Tower) that has ever occurred in the religion.

As for your last statement about ". . .it is our duty to open their eyes. I think that this is not the purpose of wikipedia" I have to strongly disagree with you. Historical truth is one of the most important things one can seek to achieve and protect. When history is altered, it distorts and alters the future and the foundation of all of us, and also destroys the objective perception of reality. Many corrupt religions, as well as dictators, and politicians etc., are guilty of misleading the masses based on a deceitful picture of the past to manipulate those alive in the present, and to manipulate their perceptions and mentality—none of which is a good thing, unless of course you are a false religion trying to get new converts, or a corrupt politician/activist. Truth must not be sacrificed because it may cause 'offence' or to just be nice to a particular group. Reality is reality, warts and all, and it must never be hidden, especially if it's to done so by the very ones who are guilty of all the shameful history in the first place. Regards, Central. Posted 1 Sept 2005 (PS. If you want to see the fanciful interpretations of the 'Seven Trumpet Blasts' the JWs have taught, then read some of these. As for the "beast" there are plenty of amusing articles here. You can see why they have chosen not to humiliate themselves even more by having these on the main page)

Interesting to note how Central seems to have a bias, and quotes from the 'quotes.watchtower' site. Something that is infringing on copyrights its self and in a legal dispute with the Watchtower Organization. Not suprisingly, the author of that website is no longer a JW, IIRC.

Notice this interesting discussion on former members of any religion who leave:

Contrary to public opinion, the overwhelming majority of defections from new religious movements are a matter of voluntary apostasy. Moreover, the clear majority of those who leave of their own free will speak positively of certain aspects of their past experience. While readily acknowledging the ways a given religious movement failed to meet their personal expectations and spiritual needs, many voluntary defectors have found ways of salvaging some redeeming values from their previous religious associations and activities.

But there are some voluntary apostates from new religious movements who leave deeply embittered and harshly critical of their former religious associations and activities. Their dynamics of separation from a once-loved religious group is analogous to an embittered marital separation and divorce. Both marriage and religion require a significant degree of commitment. The greater the involvement, the more traumatic the break-up. The longer the commitment, the more urgent the need to blame the other for the failed relationship. Long-term and heavily involved members of new religious movements who over time become disenchanted with their religion often throw all of the blame on their former religious associations and activities. They magnify small flaws into huge evils. They turn personal disappointments into malicious betrayals. They even will tell incredible falsehoods to harm their former religion.

Hi Central, my point in not giving sentences restating the elapsed time is because hopefully readers know how to add. I'm aiming to make the article less redundant. Also, there is a timeline of doctrines already in another JW article. I don't doubt that 1975 was significant in the history of JWs, that is why I do not advocate eliminiating discussion of it. But, I think trying to humiliate or attempt humor is not a goal of wikipedia. I don't have a problem with the facts. But, just as I don't think this should turn into a JW tract, I don't think embarrasement should be a goal. Facts should be chosen on their significance, not their embarrassment factor. It's one reason I feel that the Rutherford interview is perhaps something more suited to the article on Rutherford, rather than belonging in the JW article. I don't feel compelled to hide its existence. I feel this way because relative to other aspects of the religion, it's significance is minor. Again, I don't object to facts, but rather I object to an agenda to show that they are a "false religion trying to get new converts." Whatever your feelings about the JWs, it's probably best left at the door. Also, to clarify a point about scriptures. I don't object to scriptures being included, since how scriptures are interpreted is something to be covered. However, there is a fine line between this and using it to promote a belief, or conversely trying to rebut a belief. boche 05:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear user AlanM2, I have suggested use of the talk page rather than an edit war regarding the clarification of the nature of the Governing Body. I didn't change it back this time, I assume boche did. The highest level of any of the Witness corporate legal instruments is the Board of Director's of that corporation. The Governing Body is not a part of any corporate organization. Even when the Board of Director's of the primary U.S. corporations was identical to the membership of the Governing Body that was true. It's even more true now that this is not the case. This is a VERY big deal to a Witness. You need to figure out a better way to phrase this or simply wikify the term. The jw-media site refers to the GB as an 'ecclesiastical' body. --BEN (Anon 155.13.48.8)

Ben, are you aware that you are arguing about a straw man? No one—at any point—has said the "Governing Body is a corporation" from what's been written on the article. The Watch Tower organisation is a corporation, and that is what the text says, and AlanM stated this in his edits on the edit history page, so why are you trawling this red-herring in, when you know it was never an issue, or a claim, in the first place? Jehovah's Witnesses organization is the Watch Tower Society, which is a legal corporation, why is that hard to understand? Regards, Central. Posted 31 Aug 2005

Central: Nor have I accused him of saying what you apparently think I have. What Alan may have intended to say, what he said, and what you perceive him to have said are not necessarily the same thing. What he said was that 'the GB was the highest level of the JW corporate organization.' This is not true and it is a point JW's find important. The GB is outside of any corporate organization and is the highest (at least earthly) ecclesiastical leadership of the religious group--the organizational structure of various legal corporate entities used to accomplish the ends of that group is a different point entirely. Even when the same men served in these roles they were wearing different hats, so to speak.

Beliefs and doctrines

This section is very interesting. I think we are letting POV creep in here big time. Not all protestants for instance agree that premarital sex is a sin, or that the Bible is inerrant and should be interpreted literally. (some scientists who are protestant might take offense that they are being misrepresented). Also, don't understand this: "The view is incompatible with many Protestant denominations, but is not incompatible with Catholicism and the theological strain of Thomism." What view? And what does Catholicism have to do with the section, since it is talking about a comparison with protestantism? I've made an attempt to cleanup, but just as when it was at the begining of the article, it really looks like a mishmash of competing opinions, rather than something truly informative to the reader. boche 07:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)