Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 7

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 1

←

Archive 5

new intro is now the old intro, again!

I see that the "non-trinitarian Christians" phrase has once agained reared its head. What's with that?!? On 26 Oct 2004 Heiko Evermann removed it, replacing it with a proposed WIP intro:

Because I live in Japan, Buddhist country, and Buddhists and Shinto believers almost think that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian group. Only Christian groups except JW insist that JW are non-Christians. Then your introdution is incorrect. Rantaro 02:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I have reverted the change by 208.26.45.251 and reintroduced the sentence "(The non-acceptance is mutual: quite a number of non-JW Christians believe that it is the JWs who have departed from the truth.)". Reason: The mutual non-acceptance is a major point in the discussion about JWs. The sentence had replaced the original point of "non-trinitarian Christians". [See above entry for complete explanation]

I thought we were making some progress, but now were just back where we were a month ago. In fact, were even further behind as the current intro is devoid of a lot of useful, meaningful content that was there only a few weeks ago. Frankly, I'm beginning to become quite disillussioned with this process. It looks like much of the talk of NPOV is just a sham and a pretext on "editors" with an agenda and an ax to grind. --DannyMuse 18:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hang on; be patient. If the intro has been reverted (and it looks like it has, more or less), without adequate discussion here, let me suggest this. First, find a "good" version of the intro and put it back. Second, explain here on the Talk page why this version is better, and ask/insist that big changes from it be discussed here. I know we don't agree about everything, Danny, but that's part of why I'd hate to see you give up on this process. Wesley 19:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to add to my previous (see above) rant that I DO recognize that there are several contributors here (JW's and non-JW's) that are committed to producing a high quality document worthy of all that WP can and should be. You know who you are and my heartfelt commendations are to you.

Why say anything about the trinity in the introduction. We are what we believe not what we don’t believe. I think the following would suffice: “Since Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus’ life resulted from Jehovah’s first act of creation, making Jesus inferior to the Father, they worship only the Father (John 4:23-24) and accept Jesus Christ as the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5)”. If the readers can’t figure out that this means JW’s don’t believe in the trinity than shame on them. [Ray Newbie]

the theme of the bible

Whether in this aritlce or under the "doctrines of" article, I think that it would be proper to insert the Jehovah's witnesses assertion that the theme of the Bible is: "The sanctification of Jehovah’s name and the vindication of his sovereignty" w93 5/15 p. 11 Why Serve Jehovah? (And other quotes) george m

That sounds reasonable, assuming that that is the JW's belief concerning the theme of the Bible. It's certainly "central" enough to merit inclusion. Go ahead and put it in. Wesley 15:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I put this in "doctrines of" page under "bible".george m

New World Translation

A recent edit drastically changed the statement, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that true Christianity has gradually been rediscovered through their studying of the New World Translation (NWT) of the Bible" by adding the the reference to the NWT. However, this is a historically inaccurate statement as the NWT was not even released until the 1950s! (The first installment of the New World Translation was published in in 1950, and it was only of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The entire NWT--Hebrew and Greek Scriptures--was not released as a single volume until 1961.) Perhaps the edit in question was just a mistake by this anonymous editor. But it is true that some try to concentrate on trying to discredit the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, as if Jehovah's Witnesses were wholly dependent on it for support. The fact that this was an anonymous edit makes it all the more suspect.

As this article makes clear, JW's got their start in the late 1800s, long before the publication of the NWT. Both prior to and since the publication of the NWT, JW's have and continue to use many translations of the Bible. The Watchtower of August 15, 1990 says on page 16:

"For the best part of a century, the Witnesses used primarily the King James Version, the Roman Catholic Douay Version, or whatever versions were available in their language, to learn [what they believe to be] the truth about Jehovah and his purposes. And they used these older versions in proclaiming the truth about the condition of the dead, the relationship between God and his Son, and why only a little flock go to heaven. Informed persons are also aware that Jehovah's Witnesses continue to use many translations of the Bible in their worldwide evangelizing work." (Emphasis added)

For these reasons I have reverted this passage to the earlier reading. --DannyMuse 03:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The distinctive nature of JW-ism (or whatever is the proper term) does not derive from the NWT Bible. More the other way around is true, I think. Tom - Talk 14:55, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Organ Transplants

For those that are interested, the text of this discussion has been moved to a new archive: Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/archive 6.

The article content on this topic has been relocated to Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses: Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood upon the suggestion of anonymous editor 69.197.198.116.

There seemed to be little point in keeping it here as only a few contributors were posting on this subject and the thrust of those post were not helping move the article forward. --DannyMuse 08:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses

DannyMuse has lately given me some information (at User talk:Hawstom/Chalkboard) that makes me realize I need to read a little more before asking a lot more questions. Consequently, I've been perusing the Wikipedia. I found an article on Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I wonder why that organization is not featured prominently in this article. If I understand correctly, Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is now the officially worldwide JW ecclesiastical "church". Its president and officers are the ecclesiastical leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Tom - Talk 16:27, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Tom, I'm glad you've been doing some further research. Perhaps the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (CCJW) should be featured more prominently in this article. But that last bit of your above comments is not quite right.

1. As I mentioned on your Chalkboard, JWs understand the term "Church" to mean "a gathering of people" or "a group of worshipers." The CCJW is a legal entity. They are different things.

(Please, keep in mind that while this is how we understand the term "church" we use the word "congregation" instead.)

2. We believe that Jesus Christ is our leader; and the Governing Body (of Jehovah's Witnesses) is fulfilling its assignment to care for all his, the Master's, belongings and serving at his direction through Jehovah's holy spirit. - Matt. 23:10; 24:45-47.

3. The identity of the president and officers of the CCJW are not necessarily synonymous with the Governing Body, (see above referenced WP article). As the "Our Kingdom Ministry" stated (km 1/02 p.7), "Such entities or corporations are necessary to conform to local, state and national laws." What is significant is that this corporation will operate along with Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. at the direction of the Governing Body.

I hope this gives some needed clarity and perspective. Nevertheless, it further emphasizes the need for some direction regarding the overall organization of this and the related/linked articles. --DannyMuse 06:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have difficulty with this phrase "Jehovah's Witnesses has a worldwide practicing membership of more than...." If the "has" were changed to "have", that would fix the grammar, but I am also troubled by the idea of this "Jehovah's Witnesses" thing that "has" this membership. What is this thing? What is it's name, how does it count membership, and how is it organized (forgive me and have patience if I am being dense). Is there such an organization as the thing that is informally called "Jehovah's Witnesses" If so, is that it's formal name? If not, what is its formal name? Who on earth has prime authority to speak on its behalf? Tom - Talk 20:09, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Tom, see my edits and the

articles in reference to your questions. Specifically, read about the Presidents of the Watchtower Society in the Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses article and about the Governing Body in the Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses article. --DannyMuse 20:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Danny. Appreciated as always. Tom - Talk 23:10, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Controversial Topics of Dubious Merit

I have deleted the following text by anon user 12.32.223.206. This was shoehorned into the Beliefs and Doctrines sections of the article. While I have doubts about it's authenticity/accuracy, it certainly does not reflect the current beliefs of JWs (these "references" are from 1943). Therefore, if this type of commentary should be included at all, this section is NOT the place for it. There is a section on Changes in Doctrine on the Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses page. Perhaps a reference could go there if the authenticity of this "court transcript" could be verified. Wherever it goes, if at all, I believe it would need a separate section due to its length. Comments, suggestions?

Begin Excerpt:

Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge that God is the author of their publication, "The Watchtower" during the following court precedings:

In 1943, WT Vice President Frederick Franz, and President Nathan H. Knorr provided the following testimony under oath in a court of law that the content of The Watchtower comes directly from God.

Cross-examination of Frederick W. Franz in the case of Olin Moyle v. WTB&TS, 1943, Sections #2596-2597, p. 866.

Q. At any rate, Jehovah God is now the editor of the paper [The Watchtower], is that right?

A. He is today the editor of the paper.

Q. How long has He been editor of the paper?

A. Since its inception he has been guiding it.

Cross-examination of Nathan Homer Knorr in the case of Olin Moyle v. WTB&TS, 1943, Section #4421, p. 1474.

Q. In fact, it [The Watchtower] is set forth directly as God's Word, isn't it?

A. Yes, as His word.

Q. Without any qualification whatsoever?

A. That is right.

End Quote --DannyMuse 17:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this is probably inappropriate for the article. But it is helpful to me in trying to understand the beliefs of the JW's for the eventual purpose of crafting a fair article. Thank you for archiving it here. This is related to some difficulty I am having reconciling two conflicting messages I am getting about the JW's:

The JW's are a tightly led, tightly run, and distinctive organization. (One worldwide, in-house version of publications and bible. Monolithic organizational model. Distinctive practices and beliefs.)
The JW's have no human leadership. (No official "church". Nobody responsible editorially for the publications. No "The buck stops here" guy.)

There is a writing dept and members of the wt society serve as editors. Naturally the "annointed" serve as "The buck stops here" editors.

I am having a very difficult time reconciling these messages. My common human experience--my common sense--tells me the followoing things:

There are many wonderful, reverent believers all over the world who are not JW's. It is in fact most reasonable to assume that the JW's represent fine, but not unique or superior, discipleship and spirituality among humans.

JW's are not themselves superior and do not think they are. We do believe that our form of worship is the only correct one because throughout the Bible it is made clear that God only accepts a certain type of worship. It has always been orderly, organized and without influence from other faiths. It is also based on action, not just belief, otherwise it would be merely formalistic.

Jehovah made it clear in the scriptures that any "polluting" of His worship was an affront to him. It is easy for people to "love what is good" but they often do not "hate what is bad" in God's eyes. The Bible says we should do both.

The JW's are very unitedly distinctive in the manner of their worship. It is most reasonable to assume that this united uniqueness is attributable to a certain tradition. It is most reasonable to assume this tradition stemmed from a combination in some form of the following factors: A charismatic founder; good management; an dynamic, inspiring message; some degree of group cloistering/isolation.
Humans don't stay organized and united easily. The Jews are disinctive, but widely heterogeneous.

Yes it is surprising to see such widely diverse group be so united in their worship and beliefs. We believe this to be a mark of God's blessing on us as a group which pleases Him.-Zeph 3:9

Still trying to understand the reality of the JWs. Tom - Talk 17:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Tom, I will do my best to give you a concise answer/reply [moved above by Tom].

Best regards, user:george m

Thank you, george m. Unfortunately, your point-by-point answers aren't very satisfying. Believe me when I say that I as a Mormon identify with your sentiments and special feelings about your group. We Mormons tend to see things the same way: P shows God's favor us-ward, Q is a special sign of our "rightness", whereas miracles attributed to TV faith healers or the Virgin of Guadalupe are deceptions of the devil. That is the way we "spin" things, to use the current term. But the Wikipedia is a no-spin zone (to borrow Bill O'Reilly). We can't pretend here that Indian gurus don't claim to see God with just as much sincerity and validity as do our own holy ones. And we must allow others to examine our history and organization in good faith and understanding; yes, we must even do it ourselves. Can I get Danny's thoughts on this? Tom - Talk 21:09, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but my thoughts are preoccupied until after Finals Week is over!!! --DannyMuse 03:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tom! With regard to your "Still trying to understand the reality of the JWs. Tom - Talk 17:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)" may I suggest that you might like to personally contact Jehovah's Witnesses in your area? That will be the reality! And they will be very happy to help you understand anything you want to know about their beliefs, standards and practices. I think the very nature of any encylopedic reference to any group of people, religious or otherwise, must, by sheer limitations of the media form and of time and space, fall short of the reality! Best wishes. --JW-somewhere 17:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while I agree with you that that would be the reality of the local publishers, I am not sure why they would be more qualified to answer an interview for Wikipedia than would you, george m, or Danny Muse. I find that the JW editors here seem to be knowledgeable enough. And a distinct advantage of asking in print is the record of our conversations. Don't you agree? Tom - Talk 19:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Tom. Thanks for your response, Tom. I don't think I said or implied that local witnesses would be more qualified than us, its just that there is nothing like, after you've read the book, or seen the film, to meet the characters (as it were!). Also, it is much quicker to talk than to type (for me, anyway!), and a real live person-to-person conversation 'in the flesh' enables significantly more thorough communication. Also, by meeting a range of witness folks you will get a better understanding of what we are all about. This also avoids the potential danger of basing your understanding of a worldwide group of some 6 million by just reading the few words of three of them! However, if you really would prefer it all in written correspondence form, for whatever reason, I am sure we will be happy to oblige. --JW-somewhere 17:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editors out of control!!!

The anon user:12.32.223.251 has been very busy adding & changing information w/o any discussion. I tweaked some of the stuff that's been added. It contains some really unneccesary information as well as redundant links to Jehovah, Tetragrammaton and Yahweh all in the same sentence, which I took out. There also was some incorrect information about the Jewish calendar which I corrected. user:george m

Yeah, no kidding. A lot of these additions are incorrect, inaccurate and/or poorly worded to boot! And where it's good, it's in the wrong section, for example all that info on the Memorial doesn't make any sense in the Membership section. It just clutters the section. It should probably be its own section on the Practices ... or Doctrines page! The page is really a mess now. --DannyMuse 23:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, this has gotten out of control. In the last couple of days, several anon editors (12.32.221.58, 4.225.29.40, 12.32.223.251) have made over 70 sloppy, innaccurate and poorly worded, rambling, and sometimes even incoherent edits. At first I tried going behind fixing and revising (as did also user:george m), but frankly there were so many outright mistakes, incoherent and confusing entries that I just couldn't stand it anymore. Just one example of some of the ridiculous nonsense is this bit of weirdness:

"Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in mixed-couples dancing ..."

I can't imagine where anybody would get such a strange idea, but let me assure you as a JW for over 20 years, this is just wrong!!! I like to dance, my wife likes to dance, we like to dance together. I've been to plenty of gatherings where JW couples danced. So I reverted the entire article to the 13 Dec 2004, 20:36 UTC Revision.

Note to Anonymous editors:

Please, slow down and check your facts, write clearly using good grammar or risk merciless reversion. Ignore this warning at your own peril. --DannyMuse 07:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Umm, what do Jehovah's Witnesses believe regarding young singles dancing in opposite sex couples? Tom - Talk 22:34, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Tom, is that supposed to be funny? :O george 23:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. Sincere as always. Tom - Talk 05:43, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the patience and especially the good faith effort you two are making to digest the anon edits. Would an HTML comment in the page source help? We did that for some of the high-visibility Mormonism pages: This article is the result of ongoing compromise and effort by JW and other editors. Please do not edit this page without reading it all the way through at least. If you have significant concerns about the content, please discuss them using the Discussion tab above. Tom - Talk 16:40, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think that an html notice would be a great idea, I'm going to look up how to do it. user:george m

Tom, great suggestion, thanks. George, can you make it so? --DannyMuse 06:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have made it so.user:george m

In the spirit of Don't bite the newbies, I gave a hearty welcome to about six of the recent anons. I try to personally welcome every anon I see, even apparent vandals. I generally try to say nothing more severe than "Your experiment worked!" or "Your edits are unfortunately likely to be deleted by other editors because they do not meet our policy of bias avoidance. If you have any questions, feel free to talk to me. I hope to see more of you! Tom - Talk"

Memorial participation

Can you tell more about this in some article? Tom - Talk

"Of that Memorial attendance only 8,570 persons partook of the eating of the unleavened bread and the drinking of the wine that Jesus commanded his disciples to do in rememberance of his death. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that those 8,570 are the remaining remnant of Christians anointed by God. JW's believe these are the same as the 144,000 referenced at Revelation 14:1 that are going to heaven to serve with Jesus as co-rulers and priests in his Kingdom."

How does one of Jehovah's Witnesses receive the privilege of partaking of the Memorial? Any other pertinent information would also be nice. Thanks. Tom - Talk 18:41, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting question Tom, and a good one. No one decides if a person qualifies for this distinction. (Of course I mean no human;) A Person who feels they are of the annointed class would partake of the emblems.

w02 2/1 p. 20 Have You Received “the Spirit of the Truth”? par 7

"How do the anointed know that they have received the heavenly calling? They receive unmistakably the witness of the holy spirit. The apostle Paul wrote to such ones: “All who are led by God’s spirit, these are God’s sons. . . . The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children. If, then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.” (Romans 8:14-17) This witness of the spirit is so powerful that those who have the slightest doubt about having received the heavenly calling can reasonably conclude that they have not, and they will therefore refrain from partaking of the emblems at the Memorial."

Another interesting point is from an early WT article:

w58 8/1 p. 478 Questions from Readers

One of Jehovah’s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time?—R. J., United States.

We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge. The only thing that can be done in the cases of individuals like this is to view them as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones.

Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one’s accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ’s body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord’s Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself. His judgment begins at the house of God. It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along in the normal manner of letting each one have the opportunity to partake.

It is the last part I feel is most helpful in explaining the situation. Anyone may consider themselves of the anointed class. No one should question a person's feelings on this matter. People are not judged to be of greater worth simply because they are or may be of the anointed.

Hope these help. george 22:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Interesting indeed. Please explain in the article. Good job, guys. Tom - Talk 22:32, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

PS - Thanks Wesley for the personal encouragement. --DannyMuse 21:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We can see this in the introduction:

This non-acceptance is mutual; quite a number of non-Jehovah's Witness Christians believe that it is the Jehovah's Witnesses who have departed from the original faith.

Then, what is 'the original faith'? trinity? immortal soul? hell? Please explain, writer. Rantaro 00:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wesley answered here:User talk:Wesley#Original faith. Thank you, Wesley. Rantaro 05:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)