Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 50

Removal of text
"They do not accept the threat of death as sufficient to dissuade them from rejecting blood transfusions for themselves or their children."

This sentence is inaccurate. It is also slanted, which is especially obvious with its use of emotional charged words, such as "threat of death."

Witnesses refuse to receive blood transfusions, not because of "threat of death," or of disfellowshipping (which is discussed in the previous sentence and referenced to by this one), but rather because they believe it displeases Jehovah.

So, basically, the entire sentence is wrong.

Thanks,

Novellete (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about what you think is wrong. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It should be put back unless you can show that the source doesn't meet WP:RS guidelines. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence may be poorly worded, but is not inaccurate. The "threat of death" in this context refers to the threat of a patient dying, not to death as a form of punishment or threatened punishment, as you seem to be implying. Nor does the sentence have any connection to what is mentioned in the preceding sentence dealing with the threat of disfellowshipping.


 * Any ambiguity on that point can be avoided by simply creating a new paragraph for the sentence referring to the possibility of death. Or using one of the WTS's own publications that make much the same point: Showing Respect for Life and Blood ("They will accept other kinds of medical treatment, such as transfusion of nonblood products. They want to live, but they will not try to save their life by breaking God’s laws.", page 25), "A Godly View of Life" (What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood.", page 130), Reasoning From the Scriptures, ("‘What if a doctor says, “You will die without a blood transfusion”?’ You might reply: ‘If the situation is really that serious, can the doctor guarantee that the patient will not die if he is given blood?’")


 * All make the same point: the risk, or threat, of death without a transfusion would not persuade a Witness to abandon their stand. LTSally (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on its ambiguity. Because, when one reads this sentence after the previous one, it sounds very different than when it is take on its own merit. Also, despite that fact that its main problem ambiguity, its other problem is that its source is not very credible. Novellete (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you to whoever changed the sentence. I may have misread it, but it was very ambiguous. Thanks. Novellete (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As widely as Jehovah's Witnesses are known for not accepting blood transfusions, over the past 20 years, they are known equally for their advancement of bloodless medicine, in cooperation with the medical community. It would seem apparent that some on the panel here are making efforts to suppress any positive information about Jehovah's Witnesses or facts that support the position of Jehovah's Witnesses from staying on the Jehovah's Witness page. If criticisms, which are opinion based, are presented on this site, then supporting links and facts in relation to the points in question should also be present, to give both sides a fair opportunity to express to the public the facts in the case.

In the statement in the introductory paragraphs concerning blood transfusions,

"Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distribution of literature such as The Watchtower and Awake!, and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations."

It gives the impression that Jehovah's Witnesses are under some death wish, which is not the case. Jehovah's Witnesses vigorously pursue medical help with non-blood alternatives, bloodless surgery - please see the wikipedia page on that subject, and other forms of bloodless medicine. There is much evidence from the medical, rather than the Jehovah's Witness community, that it is effective, in fact, it is much safer and results in less mortality rate than the same operations with blood transfusions. If that statement isn't accepted here, then I will be glad to provide many references on that thought.

After the statement in the introduction concerning blood transfusions, as mentioned above, there should be a statement directly afterwards, with appropriate references regarding bloodless medicine and surgery, one sentence, with references.

There is no need to delete it, it is very necessary. Thanks. Any thoughts on that are welcome. 209.212.20.5 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology This is one professional (non-Jehovah's Witness) link. Thanks. http://www.noblood.org/

209.212.20.5 (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * There is no campaign to suppress positive information.


 * First, I dispute your claim that Witnesses are known equally for their "advancement of bloodless medicine" as they are for refusing blood transfusions. Many encyclopedias, books and newspaper articles make reference to the Witnesses' refusal to take blood, and there have been many media reports about Witnesses, childen particularly, dying because of that. How many times have you, after identifying yourself as a Witness, heard the response, "Ah, you're the people who won't have blood transfusions" or something similar. In comparison, how many books, media reports and members of the public mention that Witnesses are advancing techniques of bloodless medicine? Witnesses are proud of this claim, but few members of the public would be aware of those efforts. I might, however, be swayed if you can find some general interest reference sources that identify the "advancement of bloodless medicine" along with door-to-door magazine distribution, conscientious objection and refusal of transfusions as the main things for which they're known.


 * Second, you have added the line in the main body of the article, under the Blood transfusion section, "As a result of Jehovah's Witnesses stand on blood transfusions, advancements in bloodless surgery have made possible the performance of nearly all operations and procedures without blood." You provided two references for this claim. One was to the front page of Noblood.org, a rather messy website that describes itself as run by "a community of medical professionals and members of the public who are responding to the worldwide concern about the efficacy, cost and availability of donor blood". The site requires registration to access many of its resources and much of its content seems to be public forums. There is no support on the front page of the website for your claim. The second source you provided was to a video, for which you provided an inadequate link that doesn't allow it to be verified. I have removed both those sources because they fail to meet requirements of WP:RS or WP:V. I have left the statement in the text, with a request to provide a verifiable, reliable source. If none is provided, the statement will be removed.


 * Third, the fact that Witnesses accept non-blood substitutes is stated in the main body of the article. There is already criticism that the lead section of the article is too long and that fact does not warrant its inclusion in the introduction. The introduction serves as a concise summary, providing main points for a casual reader. The statement about non-blood alternatives is appropriately located. LTSally (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement above, " Many encyclopedias, books and newspaper articles make reference to the Witnesses' refusal to take blood, and there have been many media reports about Witnesses, childen particularly, dying because of that. How many times have you, after identifying yourself as a Witness, heard the response, "Ah, you're the people who won't have blood transfusions" or something similar." is an opinion. In part it is media and oppositionally-driven.

Englewood Hospital in Englewood, NJ has a bloodless center that was originally inspired through dealings with Jehovah's Witnesses. Many Jehovah's Witnesses get excellent treatment there. However, many persons who are not Jehovah's Witnesses also get treatment through bloodless medicine there also. This is a quote from the NJN News Healthwatch Report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcWD_q8cae0&feature=related

If one were to watch the video, then the information about bloodless surgery is easily verifiable, and therefore, it is a relavant link.

"Today, bloodless surgery is the norm at Englewood Hosptial and When it comes to bloodless medicine, Englewood Hospital is considered a world leader. For years, its bloodless approach has been used for everything from gastric procedures to cardiac bypass surgery promotes healing, reduces infection and saves lives. "The results that we have which is the lowest morbidity and mortality in cardiac surgery in the state, is associated again, with the lowest transfusion rates that have been published so far...," Dr. Arye Shander, executive medical director.

The lowest transfusion rates....nationally and internationally. 15,000 procedures a year, fully 95% bloodless. The blood is collected and recycled. Cell saver, it is cleaned and returned to the patient's abody. "Medical literature shows that about 60% of the time, patients recieve blood for no good reason...." Transfused blood can lead to..."Increased risk of death, increased heart attacks, strokes, increased ICU stay. " Sherri Ozawa, RN, director of bloodless medicine program, Englewood. It "doesn't really matter if it is your own blood or someone elses, once it comes back out of that fridge...it does not pick up oxygen very well, it does not drop off oxygen very well." The transcript above is located on this page: http://jehovahs-witnesses-headlines.net/Health.aspx 209.212.20.5 (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

There are several appropriate links for the text of the site as references.

Bloodless Medicine: http://www.watchtower.org/e/20000108/diagram_02.htm Jehovah's Witnesses Instrumental in Heart Surgery Advance: Jehovah's Witnesses Instrumental in Heart Surgery Advance

PBS documentary Knocking - Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood http://wiki.noblood.org/PBS_documentary_Knocking_-_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_Blood 209.212.20.5 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * The quotes from the hospital video provide information supporting bloodless surgery, and may well be appropriate in an article on that subject but they do not support the claim you added to the article, viz. "As a result of Jehovah's Witnesses stand on blood transfusions, advancements in bloodless surgery have made possible the performance of nearly all operations and procedures without blood." Please note the cautions about citing videos at WP:RS. LTSally (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Links on Christmas Easter, birthdays and pagan origins
Some few links had been posted to the sentence, and they do not observe celebrations such as Christmas, Easter or birthdays because of their perceived pagan origins." These had also been removed by RTSally. The reason they were included is that because many of the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses are being challenged both on the talk page and on the public page of the Wikipedia Jehovah's Witnesses, that it was important to cooberate with verifiable links the statements here about Christmas, Easter, birthdays and their percieved pagan origins. The links were not Jehovah's Witness links, although a link from Jehovah's Witnesses on this subject might also be of value. Was there a reason they were removed? Thanks. 209.212.20.5 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Satan's control
On the Jehovah's Witness page, it states, "Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses.[23]"

This is an exaggeration of their beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible teaches that "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one," 1 John 2: 17, but at the same time, they are encouraged to have balanced association with neighbors, workmates, and family who are not Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witneses feel that this world is influenced, but do not believe that everything outside of Jehovah's Witnesses is "controlled" by Satan. There are many good people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses. This might have been stated more strongly in the past, but in the past six decades, Jehovah's Witnesses definitly don't teach that everything outside of the Jehovah's Witness organization is "controlled" by Satan.

Also, the Witnesses do not teach that all will be destroyed who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, even at Armageddon. Rather, that judgement lies, not with men, but with Jesus who judges mercifully.

The official position of Jehovah's Witnesses on this question is here:

Jehovah's Witnesses in the 20th Century, (1978). Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. p. 29
 * Questions Often Asked by Interested Persons ***

Do they believe that they are the only ones who will be saved? Q: Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they are the only ones that will be saved? No. The official position of Jehovah's Witnesses on this question can be found in the brochure, Jehovah's Witnesses in the 20th Century where it states in answer to this question, "No. Many millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah’s Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before the “great tribulation,” and they will gain salvation. Moreover, 'Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. We look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. He has committed judgment into Jesus’ hands, not ours.'—Matthew 7:1-5; 24:21."

Q: Do Jehovah's Witnesses teach that everything outside of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is in control of Satan and that any social contact with non-Witnesses should be avoided?

Again, the answer is no. Jehovah's Witnesses believe what the Bible teaches that, "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one," meaning that this world's divided spirit, it's politics and wars, and the immorality of this world, among other things, is definitly influenced by Satan. But at the same time, Jehovah's Witnesses work seculalry with non-Witnesses, are encouraged to have balanced and reasonable dealings with non-Witnesses at work, school, with neighbors and non-Witness family members. They are not taught to shun non-Witness family members, but to have normal, loving and reasonable dealings and association with them. At the same time the Bible teaches that "bad association spoils useful habits," so if a Christian were to associate with persons who do not practice Christian principles on a regular basis, this can be an influence. If we associate, for example, with persons who overdrink, we might develop that tendency. If we go to bars or wild parties, then that lifestyle is bound to rub off on us. So each individual Christian must find a balance in the area of association with non-Christians. This "world" is influenced by Satan, but not every aspect of the world outside of Christianity is "controlled" by Satan.

Q: Are Jehovah's Witnesses anti-government? A: No. Jehovah's Witnesses support the governments in whatever country they live, they are taught to scrupulously pay their taxes and obey the laws of the countries in which they live, but they also believe that it is not the Christian's role to use the Christian congregation as a political platform. They do not then, meddle in politics, but remain politically neutral. They feel that God's kingdom is the government that will ultimately solve mankind's problems. On the one hand, the governments of each country provide order and structure, which the Bible recognizes, and in that way serve as "God's minister". See Romans 13. On the other hand, when governments perscecute others, or use their political ideas in ways that foment war or hatred, then these are being influeced by the influence of Satan. Jehovah's Witnesses, then, don't get involved in political debates or warfare.

comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong, wrong, wrong. (1) Watch Tower Society publications have repeatedly stated, both explicitly and implicitly, that only dedicated and baptised Witnesses will survive Armageddon. Some examples:
 * United in Worship (p.179) refers to "a great crowd ... the other sheep who will survive the great tribulation into God's new world." These sheep "now numbering into the millions, help the anointed remnant publicize the vital message of the Kingdom." On page 186, para 8, of the same book, those who will survive are said to be in unity with the remnant of kingdom heirs.
 * The Watchtower (Jan 15, 2008, page 25, para 4, 8) refers to the great crowd of other sheep who survive Armageddon: "They are not independent but willing to serve under the direction of the heavenly King and his anointed brothers on earth." These survivors "willingly submit themselves to the direction provided by the Governing Body".
 * The Watchtower, March 1, 2007, pg. 6 refers to the few on earth who find that road that leads to everlasting life: "Only one body of true Christians walks unitedly with God on the road of true worship."
 * The Watchtower, Aug 15, 1998, page 19, para 15: "Without confidence in our Christian brothers, in Jehovah’s organization and, above all, in Jehovah himself, survival will be impossible. So how appropriate it is that during 1998, Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the world have repeatedly been reminded, by the words of their yeartext, that 'everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved'."
 * The Watchtower, Sep 1, 1989, page 19, para 7: "Only Jehovah’s Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the 'great crowd,' as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil. They will make up the 'flesh' that Jesus Christ said would be saved through the worst tribulation of all human history ... For survival into the Millennium under the Greater Noah, Jesus Christ, they have to remain organized with the anointed remnant."


 * (2) The reference to moral contamination and a world controlled by Satan is sourced to Andrew Holden, who has made an academic study of the attitudes and outlook of the Witnesses. It is reflected in repeated references in WTS publications to the dangers and hazards of the world. Examples:
 * WT Sep 15, 2008: "When Jesus gave his disciples the assignment to preach the good news worldwide, he knew that he was sending them into a hazardous environment, one dominated by Satan and the spirit of the world."
 * The Reasoning from the Scriptures book notes: "Jesus Christ referred to him as being 'the ruler of the world,' the one whom mankind in general obeys by heeding his urgings to ignore God’s requirements."
 * Watchtower November 15, 2008, page 30: "The Devil is in control of this world. Hence, he controls its media."


 * The quote here "The Devil is in control of this world. Hence he controls its media," needs to be clarified in the context in which it was written. The statement is article is referring to sex and violence in the media, as well as the materialism that is often portrayed in the media. Also, media is a broad term and can include news magazines, BBC news, and newspapers, which Jehovah's Witnesses are not opposed to and often quote from. Andrew Holden's writings may reflect a bias against Jehovah's Witness' beliefs, and his wording is blunt, which skews the quotes in a unbalanced direction. The surrounding context of the Watchtower statements give a more balanced picture of the subject being discussed.

This is the full quote of the statement above, showing the context and balance,


 * Watchtower November 15, 2008, page 30:

The Devil is in control of this world. Hence, he controls its media. It is not surprising, therefore, that the world’s viewing, listening, and reading material is saturated with immorality and violence. This world’s advertising elements try to build in us a desire for a flood of consumer goods that we do not need. By such means, the Devil constantly tempts us with materialistic attractions that can appeal to our eyes, ears, and minds. But when we refuse to view, listen to, and read Scripturally unacceptable material, we are in effect saying: “Go away, Satan!” We thus imitate Jesus in being firm and decisive in our rejection of Satan’s unclean world.


 * Watchtower, March 15, 2007: "Even today, demonic forces under the control of Satan the Devil are behind the scenes, exercising influence on human rulers and on mankind in general, prompting them to commit unspeakable acts of genocide, terrorism, and murder."
 * Watchtower Sep 1, 1998, "This world is far bigger than the Christian congregation, and Satan himself is far more powerful than any human. Hence, the world’s hatred is a real threat." And on and on.


 * The word used here is "influence" rather than control. Control gives the idea, when taken out of context, of a puppet on a string. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that, but rather, that the world, in general, is influenced, with increasing force, as years go by, by Satan and his angels. Naturalpsychology (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * Identifying the Beast and its Mark. Watchtower, April 1, 2004, pages 4-5.

Why does the Bible use beasts as symbols of human rulership? For at least two reasons. First, because of the beastly record of bloodshed that governments have accrued over the centuries. “War is one of the constants of history,” wrote historians Will and Ariel Durant, “and has not diminished with civilization or democracy.” How true that “man has dominated man to his injury”! (Ecclesiastes 8:9) The second reason is that “the dragon [Satan] gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.” (Revelation 12:9; 13:2) Accordingly, human rulership is a product of the Devil, thus reflecting his beastly, dragonlike disposition.—John 8:44; Ephesians 6:12.

This does not mean, however, that every human ruler is a direct tool of Satan.

Indeed, in one sense, human governments serve as “God’s minister,” giving structure to human society, without which chaos would rule. And some leaders have protected fundamental human rights, including the right to engage in true worship—something that Satan does not want. (Romans 13:3, 4; Ezra 7:11-27; Acts 13:7) Still, because of the Devil’s influence, no human or human institution has ever been able to bring lasting peace and security to the people.—John 12:31.Naturalpsychology (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * (3) The statements under "Separateness" about attitudes to government are accurate and fair. LTSally (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What one person thinks is "explicit", another person may think is "implicit" (at most). See Talk:Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. --Soc8675309 (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just in case you're confused by the above comments, User:Naturalpsychology has inserted a number of unsigned responses, including more quotes from Watch Tower publciations, within my comments. It now looks as if I'm arguing with myself. I'm not sure I can be bothered fixing all this. LTSally (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead section too long
According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs." Currently, this article has six. Looking at the lead, it seems that all of the paragraphs go into just a little too much detail. The same ideas should be conveyed, but in a more compact summary style. I propose that we use four paragraphs in this manner: Or something like that. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Discussion of the denomination's size, type, and origin
 * 2) Brief history and current authoritative structure; New World Translation
 * 3) Description of doctrine, publications, culture, disciplinary action
 * 4) Controversy/praise/achievements


 * I think the length is fine. WP:LEAD explains that the reference to a four-paragraph limit is only "a general guideline". The article covers a lot of ground and the lead section is already structured roughly around the main points you mention. So what it comes down to is this: what do you want cut from the lead section? LTSally (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't really put my finger on it. I feel that the current fourth paragraph seems to go into unnecessary detail; the third and fifth paragraphs seem like they could be reduced and merged with others. The final lead paragraph seems tangential, there should be a more engaging way to end the lead section. I don't know precisely what to cut but I'll think about it. Meanwhile, I want to hear what other people think. The article does cover a lot of ground, it's true. Four is not a magic number, but in this particular case I think that the lead section could and should be just a bit...(struggling to find the right descriptor)...more snappy. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Afterthought/sidenote: the lead section is already structured roughly around the main points I mentioned because I mentioned main points roughly structured around the current lead section. ;) ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree about "unnecessary detail" in paragraph 4. It simply sums up their main beliefs. I'd also oppose shortening paras 3 and 5, which contain some of the core features about the Witnesses that have made them distinctive and brought them to public notice. If the sixth paragraph seems tangential, it might be better appended to the end of paragraph four, adding to their overall outlook and attitudes. The current paragraph 5 might be a better conclusion.LTSally (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few cosmetic changes to the article, including the act of appending the 6th intro paragraph to the 4th. I still have a few thoughts about the lead section. All of this is just me brainstorming with my keyboard, trying to get the lead section to be a smooth read. Comments? ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking over the intro again, I feel that the "last days" paragraph is informative, but unnecessary for introductory material. While the doctrinal points raised in the fourth paragraph are likely to answer common questions and curiosities about the religion, the millenarian discussion would be best left to the body of the article. I understand that the millennial mentality of the JWs is core to understanding them, but I stand by my opinion to omit it from the intro nonetheless.
 * The fourth paragraph currently feels like a fast-flying barrage of information. All of the information is so concise and to the point, it is almost detrimental to the paragraph as a cohesive whole. Is there a way to generalize the paragraph slightly?
 * The second paragraph feels unusually short. Perhaps a few statements from the "last days" section could be factored into it?


 * The references to the last days are crucial. The religion doesn't just have a "millennial mentality" -- it exists because of the notion that Armageddon is imminent and Jesus is about to set up his kingdom. Furthermoe, their meetings and activity are centered around what they see as their God-given assignment to tell others about that. Omitting that is like removing reference to charitable acts from the Salvation Army article.


 * The rest of the intro contains a brief summary of their core beliefs and outlook that spares any casual reader the need to delve further into the article to determine the beliefs and practices that set them apart from other religions. I see only one thing that could be excised: the line at the end of paragraph three that reads: "The Watch Tower Society now teaches that it is impossible to know precisely when Armageddon will occur, but that it is imminent." The fact that they believe the world is in its last days is stated at the beginning of that paragraph. LTSally (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I still have my eye on the lead section. I'm sure the third paragraph could be compressed and factored into the second. I'm not saying the information on Armageddon should be removed, I'm just saying it should be treated with such detail in the body of the article, not in the intro. Ditto with the rest of the JW beliefs in the 4th paragraph. It's hard, though, to change them. The way those paragraphs currently stand...the sentences have such a clean logical flow. Removing any one sentence would break the elegant structure of the paragraph. So I'll keep thinking about it. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead is too long, but it should be edited carefully. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive_44. I think 'New World Translation', schisms, "organizational changes", "centralized control", 1931, 1914, 1925, 1975, "pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton", "the Truth", and "in the Truth" can safely be relegated to the body of the article rather than the lead.


 * I'd change
 * "for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions" to
 * "for their refusal of blood transfusions and political/military involvement".
 * See Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and Hitler salute.


 * The phrase:
 * "they do not observe celebrations such as Christmas, Easter or birthdays, which they believe to have pagan origins, or national holidays, such as Independence Day and Thanksgiving Day."
 * could more simply read
 * "they avoid celebrations of birthdays and most holidays (those they believe to have pagan or nationalistic associations)."


 * The lead's last paragraph is a redundant mishmash. --Soc8675309 (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link to the detailed discussion on the lead section. I have only a few nit-picky problems with your suggestions. 1) I don't really like using the slash to combine "political/military"; it feels too informal. 2) The parenthetical doesn't really work for me. The first one, I don't know how to improve. As for the second, I suggest the following:
 * "they avoid the celebration of birthdays and holidays with pagan or nationalistic origin."
 * Though admittedly, the phrase still doesn't sound just right. It flows a little easier when specifics are mentioned:
 * "they do not celebrate Christmas, birthdays, or other holidays of pagan or nationalistic origin."
 * This final one seems (to me) to be the best option.


 * As for the lead's last paragraph, the logical flow is clear, but it is indeed redundant, and should be fixed. ...but what do you think? ~B  F izz (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed the sentence re birthdays etc to "... and they do not observe celebrations such as Christmas, Easter or birthdays because of their perceived pagan origins". The reference to celebrating national holidays can safely be ignored in the intro: the issue arises far less often than that of birthdays, Christmas and Easter and their attitude towards nationalism is mentioned in the final paragraph.


 * I'm not sure what your objection is to the last paragraph: it deals primarily with their stand on conscientious objection, which largely explains why many countries have banned them. They have responded to government pressure by mounting challenges in courts, which have been widely acclaimed as civil liberties victories for the wider population. LTSally (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did notice the change you mentioned, which I like. The word percieved kind of slants the tone towards anti-JW, but not much. As for the last paragraph, see the new section below: ...but what do you think? ~B  F izz (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Abuse
Jehovah's Witnesses are thoroughly oppossed to child abuse. If there were any individual situations, by local elders, that were handled improperly, as suggested by the site Silent Lambs, these were individual cases, and not in any way some sort of cover up by the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses have a strict policy on child abuse, that is enforced. If information on Jehovah's Witnesses and child abuse is to be mentioned on child abuse, then in fairness, links to the Jehovah's Witnesses official policy and web page on child abuse should be included by Wikipedia. Additionally, Jehovah's Witnesses have written many articles in the Awake magazine on child abuse for many years. The book released a few yearse ago, The Greatest Teacher, which was designed for parents to read with children, has a section on protecting children from sexual child abuse.

These are links from Jehovah's Witnesses and the official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses that should be included on the wikipedia page, concerning child abuse:

Inquiries on Child Abuse, Jehovah's Witnesses Response http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/713173.htm

Inquiries on Child Abuse reads in part: "Child abuse is an evil. It is an evil of our time. ... The Bible says you should hate what is bad, and that certainly would include child abuse. ... Our top priority is to protect the victims."

Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection http://www.jw-media.org/region/global/english/backgrounders/e_molestation.htm

Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection reads in part: Child abuse is abhorrent to us. This is in harmony with the principle recorded at Romans 12:9. Even one abused child is one too many. For decades The Watchtower and Awake! have featured articles to educate both Witnesses and the public regarding the importance and the need to protect children from child abuse. Among others, there was the article "Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked!" published in the January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower ; "Help for the Victims of Incest" in the October 1, 1983, Watchtower, "Your Child Is in Danger!", "How Can We Protect Our Children?", and "Prevention in the Home", all in the October 8, 1993, Awake!, as well as "Child Molesting—Every Mother's Nightmare," in the January 22, 1985, Awake!

Keep Your Children Safe! A Danger That Concerns Every Parent Child Abuse- How to Protect Your Children http://www.watchtower.org/e/200710/article_02.htm

The 1st Paragraph reads: FEW of us want to dwell on the subject of sexual abuse of children. Parents shudder at the very thought of it! Such abuse, however, is a frightening and unpleasant reality in today’s world, and its effects on children can be devastating. Is the matter worth considering? Well, what would you be willing to give for the sake of your child’s safety? Learning about the unpleasant realities of abuse is surely a small price to pay. Such knowledge can really make a difference.

Protect Your Children http://www.watchtower.org/e/19931008a/article_03.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/e/19931008a/article_02.htm

Prevention in the Home

Monique was nine years old when he started abusing her. He began by spying on her as she undressed; then he started visiting her room at night and touching her private parts. When she resisted him, he was furious. Once he even attacked her with a hammer and threw her down a flight of stairs. "No one would believe me," Monique recalls—not even her mother. The abuser was Monique's stepfather. IT IS NOT the stranger in a trench coat, the loner lurking in the bushes, who poses the greatest threat to children. It is a member of the family. The vast majority of sexual abuse occurs in the home. So how can the home be made more resistant to abuse?

Child Molesting - You CAN Protect Your Children http://www.watchtower.org/e/19850122/article_01.htm

These links and information should be included if child abuse is to be mentioned in the wikepedia page. Jehovah's Witnesses work on both an organizational level, and an indvidual, grass roots level both against child abuse, and to heal the wounds of child abuse in child, teen and adult victims. Information has been provided in the Watchtower magazine on how to heal the wounds of child abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the deletion of the preceding comment by LTSally. Deletion is inappropriate, the user is attempting to generate discussion, albeit long-windedly. The comments may or may not be invalid in the context of the article but the right to post suggested improvements and/or amendments is fundamental to Wikipedia. Jamie (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article deals with claims about what the religion has done (or failed to do) about sexual abuse rather than what it has said about the issue. The attitude of the society about the abhorrence of sexual abuse is quite clear in those articles, but it has little to do with the allegations by Silent Lambs and other critics about the way it has handled allegations of sexual abuse within its ranks. LTSally (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless, you can't just go deleting comments from the talk page without providing an adequate explaination. Jamie (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a long off-topic rant that, as I noted, was inappropriate for a talk page, but if you consider that sort of discussion "fundamental to Wikipedia", then I'm happy for it to stay. LTSally (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it would of stayed regardless of whether you were happy or not. Especially considering far more trivial non applicable entries that have been posted to the talk page that have remained. Jamie (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The act of deletion resulted in more attention and distraction than simply leaving it. Agree it's usually inappropriate to delete another's thread. --Soc8675309 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section heading: "Sexual Abuse"
Not to be confused with the above conversation.

I think that using the section title "Sexual Abuse" is less than ideal. It implies that Jehovah's Witnesses are sexual abusers, but the criticism is really aimed at JW leaders who attempt to keep such incidents quiet. Perhaps a heading more like "Failure to report sexual abuse" could be used? Is there a better heading that you can think of? ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Suggest retitling section "Abuse reporting" or "Reporting policies". --Soc8675309 (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the Silent Lambs has stated recently that it is withdrawing its blog. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/182965/1/The-Silentlambs-Exposed-Blog-Is-Closing ---Apparently its satisfied with the response of the Jehovah's Witness organization to the abuse policies.

Abuse Reporting or Reporting Policies would probably be a better title for that section. --User:naturalpsychology —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC).
 * The forum link above links to a blog, with an entry discussing the closure of that blog which is against SilentLambs. It says nothing about any action taken by anyone associated with SilentLambs.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations for "Jehovah's Witnesses"?
I've been wondering...what are some proper abbreviations or other ways of saying "Jehovah's Witnesses"? Is it appropriate (in the article) to simply use "Witnesses"? "JWs" is probably too informal for the article space.

I suppose in some instances "the Watch Tower Society" is appropriate, and "the Governing Body" similarly so. But when? And what else?

A particular application of my question, the final paragraph in the Criticism > Sexual Abuse section uses an ambiguous "they" when talking about the reformed instruction of local elders. The original article uses "Jehovah's Witnesses Headquarters," which would be fine...but is there a better/more specific way to say that? ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When referring to the body of members, "Witnesses" is an acceptable abbreviation, and one used commonly by members of the religion themselves. "The Watch Tower Society" applies to the organization that publishes literature and, broadly speaking, directs the religion globally, and the "Governing Body" is used when referring specifically to the group within that society that establishes and changes doctrines and rules. Witnesses speak often about what "the Society" instructs them; the Governing Body, although it is the rule-making body, tends to keep a low profile, hardly ever mentioning its specific decisions and actions, and is therefore less commonly mentioned by Witnesses. The reference to "headquarters" is a far less formal term and refers generally and broadly to the decision-makers and administrative staff in Brooklyn, which could be either the Governing Body or lower parts of the hierarchy. LTSally (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The abbreviation "JW" is used in official contexts, such as "JW.org", and so it need not be avoided. "Witnesses" is often used to intentionally differentiate adherents from the religion as a whole. An example sentence: "Donations for Jehovah's Witnesses literature are largely borne by Witnesses themselves, instead of by their interested students."


 * The phrase "The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania did such and such" can be stated more briefly as "the Society did such and such" or "Watch Tower did such and such". Some writers avoid the latter because it might be confused with The Watchtower magazine; other writers intentionally embrace it for the same reason! Occasionally, it's useful to distinguish between "Watch Tower Society" and "Governing Body" actions.


 * I'm not familiar with the references pertaining to the abuse section, but writers should remember that JWs have both "U.S. branch offices" and global "administrative offices" in the United States. A particular policy might be global, but it might pertain only to a specific branch. The writer should choose "branch offices" or "administrative offices" depending on what the references say. If references are vague, use whatever term is used in the reference itself! --Soc8675309 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of "JW" in a website address has no context accept the address of a website. It does not suggest that "JW" would be appropriate in formal encyclopedic prose.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

phrase in introduction - secular world under control of Satan
This is with regards to the sentence in the introduction which states that Jehovah's Witnesses believe -

The statement - Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses.[19] -

The statement does not accurately reflect the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and implies that they feel that all of secular society are controlled by Satan.

The term "secular society" is a broad term which can include the workplace, etc., and there probably is a better word for that. Also, the point, limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses, if it were included in the page at all, should not be in the introduction, because it requires some clarification.

These are some references on Jehovah's Witnesses and government, showing the balance on that subject:

"This does not mean, however, that every human ruler is a direct tool of Satan." Watchtower April 1, 2004. pp. 4-5 Identifying the Wild Beast and Its Mark  (Full quote below)

There are some books that have been written on Jehovah's Witnesses, that start with a bias against Jehovah's Witnesses, their purpose (from the start) is to put Jehovah's Witnesses in bad light, so the quote from Andrew Holden, even though he may have written that, doesn't accurately reflect current belief or teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses. I haven't read the book, but the wording of that sentence is awkward, and not accurate.

****** Similarly, the State exercises its authority only because God as Sovereign Ruler permits it to do so. (John 19:11) Thus, “the existing authorities” can be said to “stand placed in their relative positions by God.” Relative to Jehovah’s supreme sovereign authority, theirs is by far a lesser authority. However, they are “God’s minister,” “God’s public servants,” in that they provide necessary services, maintain law and order, and punish evildoers. (Romans 13:1, 4, 6) So Christians need to understand that just because Satan is the invisible ruler of this world, or system, they are not subjecting themselves to him when they recognize their relative subjection to the State. They are obeying God. In this year, 1996, the political State is still a part of “the arrangement of God,” a temporary arrangement that God permits to exist, and it should be recognized as such by Jehovah’s earthly servants. Watchtower May 1, 1996 5/1 p. 10 par. 3 God and Caesar

The fact that the superior authorities are God’s minister explains why Daniel, the three Hebrews, Nehemiah, and Mordecai were able to accept responsible positions in the Babylonian and Persian governments. They could thus appeal to the authority of the State for the good of God’s people. (Nehemiah 1:11; Esther 10:3; Daniel 2:48, 49; 6:1, 2) Today some Christians also work in government service. But since they are separate from the world, they do not join political parties, seek political office, or accept policy-making positions in political organizations. ******

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses can be a part of some governmental activities, including jury duty and government work:

Watchtower April 1, 1997,  pp. 28-29 Questions From Readers - Secular courts are a function of “the superior authorities.” Such “stand placed in their relative positions by God,” and they make and enforce laws. Paul wrote: “It is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad.” Christians do not ‘oppose the authority’ as it carries out such legal functions, for they do not want to ‘take a stand against it’ and receive judgment.—Romans 13:1-4; Titus 3:1.

In balancing factors, Christians should consider whether they can submit to certain demands made by Caesar. Paul counseled: “Render to all [the superior authorities] their dues, to him who calls for the tax, the tax; to him who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to him who calls for fear, such fear.” (Romans 13:7) That is straightforward as to a monetary tax. (Matthew 22:17-21) If Caesar says that citizens must give of their time and efforts to clean roads or perform other work that is among Caesar’s functions, each Christian must decide whether to submit.—Matthew 5:41.

Some Christians have viewed jury service as rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. (Luke 20:25) In jury duty the task is to hear evidence and offer an honest opinion on points of fact or law. For example, on a grand jury, the jurors decide whether the evidence warrants someone’s being brought to trial; they do not determine guilt. What of a common trial? In a civil case, the jury might award damages or compensation. In a criminal case, they are to determine whether the evidence supports a guilty verdict. Sometimes they recommend which sentence stipulated by law should be applied. Then the government uses its authority “to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad,” or “to inflict punishment on evildoers.”—1 Peter 2:14.

What if a Christian does not feel that his conscience permits him to serve on a particular jury? The Bible does not mention jury duty, so he cannot say, ‘It is against my religion to serve on any jury.’

******

If Jehovah’s Witnesses are under theocracy, God rule, how do they view national rulers? Jesus said that his followers would be “no part of the world.” (John 17:16) However, Christians recognize their debt to “Caesar,” secular governments. Jesus said that they should “pay back. . . Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” (Matthew 22:21) According to the Bible, human governments “stand placed in their relative positions by God.”

Jehovah, the Source of all authority, permits governments to exist, and he expects them to do good to those under their jurisdiction. When they do so, they are “God’s minister.” Christians are subject to the government of the land in which they live “on account of [their] conscience.” (Romans 13:1-7) Of course, if the state should demand something contrary to God’s law, the Christian would “obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29. Stay Close to the Theocracy. Watchtower September 1, 1998. p. 16 par. 11

******

Watchtower April 1, 2004. pp. 4-5 Identifying the Wild Beast and Its Mark The Bible book of Daniel sheds much light on the meaning of symbolic beasts... Why does the Bible use beasts as symbols of human rulership? For at least two reasons. First, because of the beastly record of bloodshed that governments have accrued over the centuries. “War is one of the constants of history,” wrote historians Will and Ariel Durant, “and has not diminished with civilization or democracy.” How true that “man has dominated man to his injury”! (Ecclesiastes 8:9) The second reason is that “the dragon [Satan] gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.” (Revelation 12:9; 13:2) Accordingly, human rulership is a product of the Devil, thus reflecting his beastly, dragonlike disposition.—John 8:44; Ephesians 6:12.

This does not mean, however, that every human ruler is a direct tool of Satan. Indeed, in one sense, human governments serve as “God’s minister,” giving structure to human society, without which chaos would rule. And some leaders have protected fundamental human rights, including the right to engage in true worship—something that Satan does not want. (Romans 13:3, 4; Ezra 7:11-27; Acts 13:7) Still, because of the Devil’s influence, no human or human institution has ever been able to bring lasting peace and security to the people.—John 12:31. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 08:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms and Controversies- Bible Controversies
It should be noted, that there are criticism against the New World Translation, but as the wikipedia page on the New World Translation notes, it isn't of low quality, the main criticisms have to do with doctrinal bias and the use of the name Jehovah in the New Testament.


 * New World Tranlsation - Overall Review - Wikipedia

BeDuhn states that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators, but adds: "Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation." Though BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that "it emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared," calling it a "remarkably good" translation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

This basically sums up the strenghts and criticisms of the New World Translation: Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watchtower Society: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”[44] Dr. Bruce Metzger stated for the NWT of the Greek Scriptures that "on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators."[45] However, Metzger also cites NWT renderings as instances of translating to support doctrine, stating, "the Jehovah's Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek."[46] He cites the NWT’s comma placement at Luke 23:43 as “In the interest of supporting the doctrine of "soul sleep" held by Jehovah’s Witnesses.”[47] Another example Metzger offers is the insertion of the word “other” four times in Colossians chapter 1 “thus making Paul say that Jesus Christ is one among ‘other’ created things.” Of this insertion, Metzger states it is “In the interest of providing support of [Jehovah’s Witnesses’] Unitarianism” and that the insertion is “totally without warrant from the Greek”.[48] Dr. Bruce Metzger characterizes the NWT’s use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament as an “introduction.” He writes, “The introduction of the word ‘Jehovah’ into the New Testament text, in spite of much ingenuity in an argument filled with a considerable amount of irrelevant material (pp. 10–25), is a plain piece of special pleading.”[49] Charles Francis Potter has stated about the NWT: "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros, as "stake" instead of "cross," and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen."[50]

Thomas Winter considers the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (part of the NWT project) as a “highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek”. Winter relates that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.”[53]

This statement, then, in the Jehovah's Witnesses page of the Wikipedia main article should be modified, The Watch Tower Society's New World Translation of the Bible has been criticised for being of low quality.


 * Conservapedia states: Because of the choices available to translators, no two translations of the same text will necessarily read alike.

The New World Translation has been reviewed by numerous individuals and groups over the years with mixed results. Those that object most to the translation include those who hold deeply divergent theological viewpoints from Jehovah's Witnesses and tend to be most critical of the religion. http://conservapedia.com/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

Naturalpsychology (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Some statements that clarify the criticisms and main sources of the criticisms of the New World Translation, as well as the opposing viewpoint, that some scholars view the New World Translation as an excellent literal translation should also be included in this paragraph.69.115.169.139 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Criticisms and Controversies- Social Controversies
Concerning the statement: Constant urging to devote increasing amounts of time to door-to-door preaching has been described as coercive pressure.[263]

First, it must be recognized, that the sources of R. Franz's criticisms date back to the late 1970s, which are approximately 30 years ago, and are not necessarily valid today.

In the articles regarding door-to-door preaching as presented in the Watchtower, there is not "Constant urging to devote increasing amounts of time to door-to-door preaching." If that ever was the case, it isn't the case in the past 20 years in the Watcthtower articles. Balance and reasonableness with one's limitations has been the increasing emphasis over the past 2 decades.


 * “Keep Watching the Ministry Which You Accepted in the Lord,” Watchtower, Jan 15, 2008 page. 6 par. 13

13 Other difficulties that many have to contend with are advancing age and poor health, which may limit what they can reasonably do in the preaching work. If that is true of you, do not be discouraged. Jehovah is well aware of your limitations and appreciates what you can do. (Read 2 Corinthians 8:12.) Whatever kind of adversity you may be facing—opposition, apathy, or ill health—do all that your circumstances allow you to do in sharing the good news with others.


 * Keep "the Love You Had at First," Watchtower, June 15, 2008, page 26 par. 16

If illness or age are factors that limit what you can do, then set goals that are reasonable, but do not give up or let your love wane.

Elderly Ones—Valuable Members of Our Christian Brotherhood, Watchtower, May 15, 2004, page 12 par. 13

13 Perhaps poor health or other circumstances limit what you can do to promote true worship. Even if that is so, it is within your power to ‘do good with the true God and his house.’ You can display zeal for Jehovah’s spiritual house by attending and participating in congregation meetings and by sharing in the field ministry whenever possible

“Be Training Yourself,” Watchtower, October 1, 2002, page. 29

A Sympathetic Trainer

How does our sympathetic trainer respond? David wrote of Jehovah: “He himself well knows the formation of us, remembering that we are dust.”—Psalm 103:14.

You may have a serious health problem that limits what you can do in the ministry, or you may be struggling with low self-respect. Perhaps you are striving to break a bad habit, or you may feel that you are unable to face up to peer pressure in the neighborhood, at the workplace, or at school. Whatever your circumstances may be, never forget that Jehovah understands your problems better than anyone else—including you! As a concerned trainer, he is always there to help you if you draw close to him

"Share in the Joy of Giving!," Watchtower, July 1, 2001, pages 16-17.

Doing the Best You Can

14 It may be that your circumstances do not permit you to do as much as you would like to in the ministry. For example, old age may limit what you can do in Jehovah’s service. Still, remember what the wise man wrote: “Gray-headedness is a crown of beauty when it is found in the way of righteousness.” (Proverbs 16:31) To Jehovah, a life spent in his service is beautiful. Further, the Scriptures say: “Even to one’s old age I [Jehovah] am the same One; and to one’s gray-headedness I myself shall keep bearing up. I myself shall certainly act, that I myself may carry and that I myself may bear up and furnish escape.” (Isaiah 46:4) Our loving heavenly Father promises to sustain and support his loyal ones.

15 Perhaps you are coping with sickness, opposition from an unbelieving mate, heavy family responsibilities, or some other difficult problem. Jehovah recognizes our limitations and circumstances, and he loves us for our earnest efforts to serve him. That is true even though what we do may be less than what others do. (Galatians 6:4) Jehovah knows that we are imperfect, and he is realistic in what he expects of us. (Psalm 147:11) If we do our best, we may rest assured that we are precious in God’s sight and that he will not forget our acts of faith.—Luke 21:1-4.

Quotes from R. Franz, written in the early 1980s, and from information gathered in the 1970s, aren't as relevant today, and should probably not be relied upon as a source of the current state of thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses, which has changed considerably, in the areas in which Franz criticized the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses during that time period. Naturalpsychology (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * Raymond Franz remains a reliable source. His book was last revised in 2007. Your claim that his comments are "not necessarily valid today" isn't sufficient reason to delete them. If you have specific proof for your claim that the Watch Tower Society has changed its requirements about door-to-door preaching since then (rather than your own interpretations, which would be an original synthesis), please provide it. LTSally (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the article is not strictly limited to current criticisms. The history of criticisms raised against the Jehovah's Witnesses is certainly fair game for inclusion, as long as such topics are not given undue weight. The 'controversies' section is not there to discuss what Jehovah's Witnesses have done that is wrong, but rather what they have done that is controversial. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses continue to preach as did Jesus and the early Christians, however, the above citations from Watchtower publications over the past 20 years, demonstrate that the comment made,

"Constant urging to devote increasing amounts of time to door-to-door preaching," which is attributed to R. Franz, is not what the Watchtower is doing. 69.115.169.139 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology
 * Then don't fill out your service report for the next few months.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Jehovah's Witnesses continue to preach as did Jesus and the early Christians"? That is what the Watch Tower Society claims. There is, however, no evidence that Jesus set monthly hour quotas for his disciples, instructing them to knock at every door in an assigned "territory" in a systematic campaign to "place" literature. There is no hint that those disciples were required to report the amount of time they spent in this task, nor that they would be "counselled" or "shepherded" if they failed to do so. Nor that they would be expected to do this for life, month in, month out. There is no evidence that the disciples' preaching had as its goal the baptising of individuals into a religious denomination where they would become subject, for life, to a highly-structured, tightly-organized, hierarchical control system that would impose rules reaching into every part of their lives and punish those who breached those rules.


 * Any hour requirement is voluntary. If a person wants to serve as a pioneer, it is a voluntary work. If one is a publisher, there is no hour requirement. We are encouraged to "do what we can", and to try to imitate Jesus. Naturalpsychology (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * The "rules" of the Bible, do not impose on every aspect of the lives of a Christian. We have considerable freedom to choose whatever work we want, where to go on vacation, many matters are personal matters, even in the religious aspect of the life of a Christian, a Jehovah's Witness. There are not "rules for every aspect of the life" of a Jehovah's Witness. This again, is a mistaken assumption, an opinionated, rather than factual statement, which reflects a predetermined bias, rather than the type of information that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We need to remember the context of this discussion, this is an encyclopedia, rather than a religious complaint or attack board.Naturalpsychology (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * You are not really addressing the question at hand. You are criticizing the Jehovah's Witness religion for being a "highly structured, tightly-organised hierarchial control system, that i m poses rules reaching....This really has nothing to do with the discussion here. This is a matter of opinion. I don't agree with that statement, and feel that the evidence indicates that this isn't the case. If you are oppossed to the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is no reason for you to be a part of it, it is a matter of choice in one's religion. Some take religion more seriously than others. The Bible itself presents certain rules, that many find constricting. For them, Christianity is not an option. Jehovah's Witnesses do not "punish" those who breach the "rules". Shepherds in the congregation are encouraged to "treat the flock with tenderness," to loving "shepherd" the congregation, they are never encouraged to "punish" anyone. Do you have a quote from Jehovah's Witness literature, that the elders should "punish" those who breach the "rules". This is not the way Jehovah's Witness elders handle things. This is a misleading statement. 1 Pet 5:2. Christian elders are encouraged, "Shepherd the flock of God in your care." Jehovah's Witness elders are encouraged to shepherd the flock. For some, no organizational structure will do, not only in religion, but in secular work as well. They have a hard time with structure. To be a teacher in a school, you have to submit yourself to an organizational structure, with certain rules. If you can't handle that, then you can't stay as, or be a teacher. It is better for you to find other work. The same is true of religion. If a religion seems to structured, then maybe it's not for you. For many of us, and it has been stated in newspaper articles, the benefits outweigh any annoyances involved in being part of an organized religion. In that case, we don't quit and find joy in our ministry. As Paul said, "I am grateful to Christ Jesus our Lord, who imparted power to me, because he considered me faithful by assigning me to a ministry." 1 Timothy 1:12. The Christian ministry is not a burden, but a joy.Naturalpsychology (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * Is there constant urging to devote increasing amounts of time to door-to-door preaching? Statements in our Kingdom Ministry, the JW newsletter, last year alone include these exhortations: (1) "The months of March, April, and May will provide excellent opportunities to declare such good news. During these months the weather and longer daylight hours in many parts of the world are favorable for spending more time in the ministry ... Could you arrange your schedule to auxiliary pioneer for one, two, or all three months? ... Perhaps you can use part of your lunch break to preach ... share in the ministry for an hour or so before or after work ... (spend) full days in the ministry on the weekends. Some have been able to take a day or two of vacation time to spend in field service. (OKM, Jan 2008) (2) "How commendable it is to ‘buy out’ time from less important things to share more fully in the ministry! Perhaps we could adjust our schedule in order to auxiliary pioneer one or more months a year. Maybe we could lengthen the time we usually spend in the ministry. Staying out an extra 30 minutes each week would increase our ministry by at least two hours a month!" (OKM, March 2008). (3) "How great that joy is for regular pioneers, who devote more than 800 hours each year to this rescue work! Have you been giving serious thought to serving as a regular pioneer? It may require “buying out the opportune time” from less important pursuits. Many have done so and have simplified their lives, enabling them to cut back on secular work in order to devote more time to Kingdom interests. Can you arrange your affairs to join them?" (OKM, May 2008). Talks at weekly meetings, assemblies and Watchtower articles reinforce and repeat this message. LTSally (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is evident that you are oppossed to the preaching work of Jehovah's Witnesses. The comments above from which you have quoted, need to be balanced out with other comments which are mentioned above, which encourage Jehovah's Witnesses not to be discouraged by their limitations, to do "what you can" within your "limitations". Also, there is not "constant" "coercion" to "push" Jehovah's Witnesses to do more as the statement by R.Franz imply, but in from time to time, there is encouragement to do "what you can" to increase your field ministry. In almost every article in the Kingdom Ministry which mentions comments such as LTSally has quoted above, there are tempering comments, that we shouldn't be discouraged if we can't do more or have limited circumstances, and to do the best you can. Again, this is a situation of needing to take things in context. Jesus Christ "sent out" his disciples into the preaching work. Luke 10:1-"After these things the Lord designated 70 others and sent them forth by twos in advance of him into every city and place to which he himself was going. Then he began to say to them, "The harvest indeed is great, but the workers are few. Therefore beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest." He also encouraged missionary activity, and prayed for his Father to send out more workers into the harvest. This has been a part of Christianity since its inception. Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion and imitate these early Christians in their preaching work, within their individual limitations.

There has always been opposition to Christian preaching work.

"We are told in Acts 16 that Paul was arrested for preaching in the name of Jesus. He was stripped of his clothing, severely flogged by the Romans and thrown into the inner prison. When the Jews flogged a person, they stopped at thirty-nine strokes. The Romans were not that merciful but beat a person to the brink of death." Early Christians. http://www.allaboutreligion.org/early-christians-faq.htm Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * You may disagree with Franz and see this constant pressure as "encouragement to do more". However he is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards and his statement, contained in a section dealing with criticisms of the religion, can remain. And please spare us a history on persecution. Nowhere in this discussion is there a reference to opposition to Christian preaching. Nor do I take such a stand. LTSally (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What specific WIKI standards are you referring to? Why does Raymond Franz and his one book qualify as the only authoritative source on JWs, and yet Pro-JW sources don't qualify?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.79 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference #75 in error
The line in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses with footnote #75 quote, "in 1974 a Watch Tower Society newsletter commended Witnesses who had sold homes and property to devote themselves to preaching in the "short time" remaining," is in error. In checking the 1974 Kingdom Ministry in it's entirity, there is no quote in the 1974 Kingdom Ministry, or anything similar to it. Naturalpsychology (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * See "How Are You Using Your Life?", Our Kingdom Ministry, May 1974: "Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end." LTSally (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I improved the footnote so the information (as stated here by LTSally) is easily seen. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead, final paragraph
As it stands, the final paragraph of the lead section reads as follows:

The final sentence is just a bit too wordy. I suggest changing the final sentence thusly:

"Persistent legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses have had considerable influence on related legislation in several countries."

(Optionally append "including the United States." Would it be fair to say "many" instead of "several," or is that exaggerating too much?)

It doesn't quite do the concept justice, but it is much more direct and clear. The phrase "legal challenges by JWs" is still somewhat unclear and ambiguous. How would you improve upon this suggestion in order to communicate the main idea behind Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses? The solution might be to throw out the sentence entirely and rewrite a new one that better summarizes the topic at hand. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there were no objections, I implemented the change to "Persistent legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses have had considerable influence on related legislation in several countries including the United States."
 * I still think that the phrase ''legal challenges by JWs" is undesirable and could be clarified. I just don't know how to do so. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As to who mounted the cases, I doubt it was JWs: more commonly they seem to be cases fought by the WTS on behalf of (and in the name of) individuals. See Category:Legal cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses, where someone has been very busy. LTSally (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement -in the truth should be edited out of content, it isn't professional, and based on personal observation, without source
Statement below,

"Members commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the Truth", and adherents consider themselves to be "in the Truth"," should be edited out of the maintext, it has been added to provide a negative connotation to Jehovah's Witnesses, has no reference, and in not verifiable. 209.212.20.5 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * I have added a reference. The phrase is peppered throughout Watch Tower literature, eg "I am nine years old. My mother and I have just finished reading Danielle’s experience. It made me realize that I’m fortunate because my parents are in the truth and it’s not difficult for me to serve Jehovah." (Letters from readers, Awake, June, 2008), "I don’t expect to be around much longer, but I’ve got to say that these years in the truth have been so wonderful, the best life anyone could ever expect.” ("She Loved What She Learned", Awake, December 2006). I cannot for the life of me think how you regard this as a negative. It is simply identifying a distinctive language phrase used, with pride, by Witnesses to describe their religion and fellow members of it. Is this perhaps an example of what you claim below to be further proof of negative aspects in the article? LTSally (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the statement as negative at all. Rather, I find it to be a respectable manifestation that they really believe that they are doing the right thing. Perhaps there is a better way to restate the sentence? I see none, except that adherents is redundant with members and could be omitted. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is easy to see how their use of the term 'the truth' could be seen in a negative light. It is afterall - deliberately - used as a 'thought-terminating cliché', i.e. a catchphrase that limits further examination. But members of the group are indeed proud of the designation, and it is a prominent part of their belief system.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Heading Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
This page is designed as an encyclopedic account of Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than a page designed to criticize Jehovah's Witnesses of every alleged transgression they many have ever made, and as an airing board for complaints. I've never seen an encyclopedia with this type of negative information on any religion. So I feel that 2 things, there should be more opportunity for response on this section for positive information that counters this negative claims. 2nd, the tone of the rhetoric on this whole page needs to be toned down to one that is more factual, and less critical. Most of the books quoted here which are used as sources are from several sources which were written to be critical of Jehovah's Witnesses. This isn't a balanced representation of Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs or organization. Thanks. Naturalpsychology (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology


 * The article is an encyclopedic discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses. A simple Google search will reveal that it is a religion that attracts much criticism and this article covers, briefly and in a neutral tone, that criticism. Other religion-based articles that contain criticism include Seventh-day Adventist Church, Scientology, Opus Dei and Criticism of Islam. Can you please identify specific sections of the article you feel are overly critical or unbalanced? LTSally (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with both points that Naturalpsychology has brought up.
 * 1) I agree that the criticism section should include JW counterarguments, which at the moment appear to be completely absent in that section. It would probably be best to propose potential additions here on the talk page first, to avoid conflict. Be aware, though, that the criticism section is already at a good length, and we don't want to make it too much larger than it is.
 * 2) I also agree that the tone throughout the article, but especially in this section, is more critical than neutral, and plan to make small adjustments over time to address that issue. With the introduction of counterarguments, the tone will inevitably be neutralized. However, do remember that the criticism section does not attempt to cover all doctrinal matters, and by itself need not represent a complete view of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Hopefully the article, as a whole, will indeed be an accurate reflection of the religion.
 * A final note to LTSally (and whoever): the information currently presented in the article is great. However, sometimes (though not always) the way it is presented has a critical feel to it. I don't expect you to hunt down those instances and fix them, but rather, monitor those of us that do so, and make sure we don't go overboard in the other direction. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * B Fizz, you refer to the article in its entirety as having a tone "more critical than neutral". You have what appears to be a disinterested view, which could be of some benefit here, but I've read the article through again and don't see this tone at all. The article refers frankly to the failed prophecies, which are a significant chapter of the Witness history its own publications prefer not to mention. The section on Organization deals with the religion's very strong expectations of obedience and submissiveness by members, which are quite unusual among religious denominations. Beyond that I don't see much in the article that might attract criticism until the Criticism section itself. I will endeavour to locate some references from WT literature that help to respond to, or balance, those claims. Those in turn, are also appropriate to be fed into the spinoff article on that subject. LTSally (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sally. Those balancing references will be greatly appreciated. As for the critical tone that I was referring to, consider the example of the "Joseph Rutherford > Organizational Changes" section. Part of the first paragraph reads: "A power struggle developed between Rutherford and four of the Society's Board of Directors, who objected to his style of leadership. On July 17, 1917, Rutherford dismissed four of the directors, claiming they had not been legally elected." Good information, but critical in presentation. I'm not saying that these sentences are in need of change. I'm just saying that this is the kind of tone found throughout the article. A sentence from the following paragraph in that section reads: "Patriotic fervor during World War I and other animosities fuelled persecution of the Bible Students in America and Europe, including mob violence and tarring and feathering." The straight-facts presentation of this information does little to express emotion or sympathize with the Witnesses' suffering.
 * I feel that the article should not merely present the facts, but also convey something more about who Jehovah's Witnesses are, and why they do what they do. The Jehovah's Witnesses can be seen in both a positive view and a negative view. Both are necessary for a quality encyclopedic article; both points of view are necessary for "NPOV." On the flipside of an organization demanding strict obedience are some very disciplined, obedient people. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From memory I wrote both the sentences you've cited as examples. I don't think either is critical in tone. From my research on the Rutherford leadership battle, presented in greater detail under the Joseph Franklin Rutherford article (which I also wrote) it's clear that the challenge by the four directors -- a majority of the board -- against their president was pivotal in the development of this religion. It was one thing under Russell's leadership, quite another under Rutherford's. (Similarities have been drawn between the SDAs LDS's of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, which is a comparison you may appreciate). The issue, as explained in the Rutherford article, was precisely that of leadership: they considered him a power-hungry tyrant; he considered them would-be usurpers of his divinely-directed authority. Looking at the words you quote, I fail to see a critical tone. It simply reports the situation.


 * On your second point, the reporting of the persecution takes what I regard as a similarly dispassionate tone, which is what what is required in Wikipedia articles. Here's a quote from WP:YESPOV:


 * "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints, but even text explaining criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides."


 * You, by contrast, express disappointment that "the straight-facts presentation of this information does little to express emotion or sympathize with the Witnesses' suffering." Unless I've misunderstood you, you are mistaken in what you expect to see in the article. I'm happy to address the Criticisms section in the manner I mentioned, but so far I'm unconvinced of a predominantly negative or critical tone to the article. For the most part it describes the Witnesses' beliefs, practices, organization and history in a factual, neutral tone. LTSally (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To me: "you are mistaken in what you expect to see in the article." This may be true; you have a good point. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But also be aware that LTSally himself has said - "I see it as a public service to provide the public with facts...to provide Witnesses with the inconvenient truths they won't read in the publications of the organization". Which as other have also commented provides significant bias associated to his edits, well sourced or not. Jamie (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the trouble to read my user page. You are welcome to scrutinise my edits to ensure they are accurate, well sourced and fair. Just as I scrutinise the edits of Jehovah's Witnesses who like to use this article to promote their religion and remove truths they find uncomfortable. LTSally (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not quoted from your user page son. Jamie (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made some changes to that section which I think address the issues raised above. I have endeavoured to add some Watch Tower perspective to criticisms, deleted some criticisms that were not supported by sources and neutralised the language of some Witness activities that have drawn criticism. Let me know your thoughts: does it add some balance previously lacking? If so, I can make a start on dealing with the main Criticisms article in the same fashion. LTSally (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. The criticism section feels much more balanced. The counterargument for Social criticisms doesn't quite make itself clear, but has the right idea. As for the Biblical criticisms section, I recall reading somewhere else on Wikipedia that some (non-JW) have praised the literalistic New World Translation of the Bible, which would be good to include alongside criticism for the literalism of it. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Armageddon and Resurrection
A few comments about the "Life after death" section

Who is resurrected?
(according to the JWs)

Currently, we have the following two sentences, which are very unclear:

The second part of the second sentence is a recent addition (not by me), which I cleaned up a bit so that it would be legible English. But the phrase "most other people who died since the time of Abel will be resurrected..." is very unclear. Does it mean that those who are not destroyed at Armageddon will be resurrected? Is eternal destruction something more than death, which JWs see as a state of nonexistence? ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional confusion: What happens first, resurrection or Armageddon? Apparently resurrection, if "[those] who died since the time of Abel will be resurrected...[and] taught the proper way to worship God...before Armageddon." Is that right? The JW chronology of these events isn't expressed clearly here, and I don't pretend to know what they really believe on the matter. While the nitty gritty should be kept to Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, if there is a succinct, easy way to explain this more clearly...it should be done.
 * Note: after looking at the beliefs and practices article, I pulled this quote (the opposite of my conclusion) "Witnesses believe that after Armageddon, most of those who had died prior to God's intervention will gradually be resurrected to a day of judgment..." ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, the specific doctrines about the end of the world and the aftermath do not appear in this article, which seems to be an oversight when running through their beliefs and practices. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. The current belief about what the future holds is spelled out in Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses: (1) UN destroys all religions except JWs, which marks the start of the Great Tribulation; (2) Satan attacks JWs; (3) God responds by starting the war of Armageddon, in which angels destroy all non-Witnesses, including presumably 99 percent of the populations of India, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, North Korea etc (according to the June 1, 1952 WT that's just too bad they never heard the message from people knocking at their door with the Watchtower) using the forces of nature. According to the WT illustrations, churches crumble and tall buildings fall into deep crevasses. Satan is "abyssed" and put out of action. After the birds pick the bones of the corpses (all spelt out in lavish detail in WT publications) the clean-up of the "old world" begins. The new leaders will be today's elders. By then the world will be populated by only JWs (and anyone else God chooses to save, much to the chagrin of the Watch Tower Society). (4) At some point God begins resurrecting those who have died since the world began, starting with the most recent deaths, but carefully avoiding anyone the WTS has taken a disliking to. Through this gradual resurrection the world becomes fully populated again and people are judged according to the way they obey the new order. If they disobey they will be killed. Again. (Those who dread the idea of living under the control of JW elders will probably request that they be put back to death.) (5) At the end of 1000 years Satan will be released and allowed to lure the weak ones. Those who choose to follow him instead of Jehovah will be destroyed. Those who survive that test will be given everlasting life. I think that's about it, in short. LTSally (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha. It's like the Wikipedia equivalent of small man syndrome. Jamie (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice, Jamie Stapleton, that you don't actually contribute anything to these articles. You just sit around and snipe at the editors who do. Perhaps you could find something better on Wikipedia to occupy your time. LTSally (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal, family and working life take far too much of my time up to give a significant contribution. I choose to take a back seat and comment where necessary. My issue is really more with the lack of wikipedia policy that addresses editors who live their dream by systematically editting with negative bias. Some would say disruptively.Jamie (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds terrible. If you find such people, be sure to let us know. LTSally (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a section on eschatology, which discusses the Witnesses' views on the last days and what lies ahead. LTSally (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Only JWs have hope of salvation
As it currently stands, the article says:

"Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they have any scriptural hope of surviving Armageddon..."

I don't think that is the precise JW doctrine. On one or two occasions, I have been told that they believe that some exceptionally good people will be resurrected despite not formally joining the Jehovah's Witnesses. In any event, the statement should have an explicit citation from the Watchtower Society to support this statement as it currently stands. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your question confuses two Watch Tower doctrines — surviving Armageddon (which WT publications state or imply is something for which only JWs have a hope) and being resurrected after Armageddon (which WT publications say will be open to all humans except a fairly significant list of "classes" including those destroyed at Armageddon, the clergy, apostates, disfellowshipped Witnesses etc).


 * A number of WT citations have already been added to this article or to Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses to support the claim re surviving Armageddon. They include:


 * "Do not conclude that there are different roads, or ways, that you can follow to gain life in God’s new system. There is only one. There was just the one ark that survived the Flood, not a number of boats. And there will be only one organization — God’s visible organization — that will survive the fast-approaching “great tribulation.” It is simply not true that all religions lead to the same goal. (Matthew 7:21-23; 24:21) You must be part of Jehovah’s organization, doing God’s will, in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life." (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, pg 255).


 * "What does God require of those who will reside forever upon his Paradise earth? Let us examine four basic requirements ... A third requirement is that we be associated with God’s channel, his organization ... Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it." (Watchtower, Feb 15, 1983, pg. 12.)


 * "Only Jehovah’s Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the “great crowd,” as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil. (Revelation 7:9-17; 2 Corinthians 4:4) They will make up the “flesh” that Jesus Christ said would be saved through the worst tribulation of all human history." (Watchtower, Sep 1, 1989, pg 19.)


 * "Jesus stated concerning truly “sheeplike” ones: “He that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved.” ... It is by our endurance in proclaiming “this good news of the kingdom” that we may attain to salvation." (Watchtower, July 15, 1979, page 14.)


 * (Referring to the "great crowd" of "other sheep" who survive Armageddon): "They are not independent but willing to serve under the direction of the heavenly King and his anointed brothers on earth." These survivors "willingly submit themselves to the direction provided by the Governing Body". (Watchtower, Jan 15, 2008, page 25, para 4, 8)


 * Those quotes provide a clear, unequivocal answer to the question of surviving Armageddon. :A "question from readers" in The Watchtower (1971, page 63) did ask, "Can it be stated flatly that only baptized witnesses of Jehovah will survive Armageddon?" The article hedged, stating that unbaptised children would "clearly" be preserved because of the merit of baptised parents and that it was unclear how God would deal with mentally retarded people. Beyond that, the message was baldly expressed that to be saved, one had to be baptised and then publicly witness for him.


 * I don't recall reading any WT publication that opened the door specifically to people of good will outside the WT organization, however a Watchtower article on November 1, 2008, "Our Readers Ask: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe That They Are the Only Ones Who Will Be Saved?" stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses "believe that it is not their job to judge who will be saved. Ultimately, God is the Judge. He decides." Any suggestion that the Governing Body is extending the prospects of surviving Armageddon is tempered, however, by the following paragraphs, which explain that there are three "requirements" for salvation: (1) Disciples must have love among themselves. (2) Sanctifying God's name and teaching others about it. (3) Supporting God's kingdom (rather than human institutions) and teaching others about it. Readers are left to draw their own conclusion. LTSally (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While your point is clear, it doesn't come clean from the JWs themselves. The quotes you use strongly imply the conclusion, but leave loopholes. Neither of the responses from the Watchtower to the questions "will only witnesses survive Armageddon?" and "will only witnesses be saved?" is a flat out "yes" or "no." Given the opportunity to address those questions specifically, Watchtower fails to give a simple answer. Which is why I hesitate to use a simple statement to express such beliefs. We should seek more accurate wording that has the same loopholes as the Watchtower. But from what I see, failure to simply respond "yes" to this type of question is an implied "no." ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless we conclude that the Watch Tower doctrines are self-contradictory, it seems to me that the wording you started this discussion with could reasonably be rendered as "Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they have any scriptural hope of surviving Armageddon, although God is the final judge." The word "hope" is the critical one here: they have a confidence that they are meeting God's "requirements" (their word) for surviving Armageddon; others don't, although when responding to the specific question they concede it's God who judges, not them and a few others may slip in! Or perhaps ... "Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they meet scriptural requirements for surviving Armageddon, although God is the final judge." LTSally (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional reference provided above. Also see the official JW website, which asks "Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved?". Note the two strands to its reply: "No. Many millions who have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before God's time of judgment, and they will gain salvation." (emphasis mine). The first sentence avoids the issue over who survives Armageddon, because JW teachings as listed above show they believe that only they meet the "requirements' for survival. The second sentence, in referring to those who could also survive, makes that conditional on them converting to the JW religion before Armageddon. LTSally (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Watchtower online?
Are there archives of old Watchtower or Awake! magazines available online (preferably free)? At http://jw.org the archive only goes back a couple months. What about other frequently used sources? ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Watch Towers from 1879 to 1916 are here. Copes of Awake! from 1957 to 1969 are (removed). Old books are easily located on the internet. Watchtowers from 1950 and Awake from 1970 are on the Watchtower Library CD which is officially available only to Witnesses through their congregation, but can also be downloaded. Try Google. LTSally (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read Linking to copyrighted works. I have deleted the offending links. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. Jamie (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See Public domain: "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." LTSally (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the historical links. I was, however, hoping to find some (legal) repository of JW magazines from recent decades. One would think that the Watch Tower Society would want to make this material readily available. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Where's the xtianity infobox?
It's a xtian sect as evidenced by early Christian doubts and divisions over Jesus's divinity. 66.65.137.119 (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You might have to elaborate a little. I'm not sure how your question relates to your comment. LTSally (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Christianity infobox was removed some time ago by POV editors who don't like non-Trinitarian Christian religions. JWs are fundamentally a Christian religion (which incidentally is no endorsement of JWs or any other branch of Christian belief), so I have restored the template.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the mistake of removing the template, since at the top of the box it says "part of a series on Christianity", which (I thought) this article was not. Wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses is listed in the "non-trinitarian" section, which I did not realize was unexpanded. I will replace the box and hope that no one else makes the same mistake. :) ...but what do you think? ~B  F izz (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
There has been some discussion about this section. I personally don't believe it should be on the main page. This section can be confusing to a reader from the one-sided criticism, which can be mistaken as factual. Because some editors insist on including this section on the main page, is it possible to include a short response to the criticism? Like what is posted under "Handling of sexual abuse allegations". For example, the section under "Biblical criticisms" might include that some Biblical text scholars such as Jason BeDuhn have printed; the NWT is the best English translation of the Greek text.--Saujad (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of criticism, briefly, is appropriate. The section is not one-sided; for almost every criticism there is a Watchtower response or statement of their beliefs as a counter argument, including the sex abuse issue. The social criticisms section could probably benefit from a stronger WTS perspective and I'll move something into that soon. Please bear in mind that this section is a summary only of the main Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article. Statements of Bible scholars can be used more elaborately at that article or the one dealing specifically with the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. LTSally (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Schism
A significant schism occurred in the Watchtower organization in the 1920s. It represents perhaps that most extensive division the organization has ever experienced. Should the article note the event? In brief:

According to information published by Watchtower, between 1927 and 1928 there occurred an 80 percent drop in attendance for the organization's most important single event known as the Memorial. In 1927 attendance for this event was 88,544. (Compare with 89,278 in 1926 and 90,434 in 1925) In 1928 attendance for this event was 17,380. It took more than a decade for the number of persons associated with Watchtower’s most important event to regain its former high of over 90,000. (In 1939 the number was 77,164 and in 1940 the number was 96,613) --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is true that, as a result of failed expectations regarding 1925 as well of doctrinal changes - which included the removal of elders not willing to engage in the public ministry - that Memorial attendance fell off sharply between 1927 and 1928, as already noted in the article. Another thing to consider is that the Memorial attendance includes, not only active publishers, but also interested ones not engaging in the public ministry. Thus the 2009 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses reports that in 2008, out of a Memorial attendance of 17,790,631, there was a peak of 7,124,443 publishers - just 40% of that year's attendance, and an average (what could be called "active publishers") of 6,829,455 (38% of attendance).


 * The years 1927 and 1928 were extreme cases. The Watchtower of 1955 July 15, page 366, states: "For this year of 1927 the number in attendance at the spring Memorial internationally was 88,544, yet of these only some 18,602 were active as house-to-house Kingdom announcers." So only 21% of those attending the Memorial that year were actual publishers of the "Good News." In 1928, Memorial attendance plummeted over 80% to 17,380. However, the 1950 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses reports that the average number of publishers reporting each month actually jumped by 29% to 23,988 - 38% above that year's Memorial attendance! Evidently something prevented a more complete Memorial report for that year. Further, it appears that most non-publishers who attended in 1927 likely did not attend in 1928. --Glenn L (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 1: If we hold Watchtower’s statistics as equally thorough then the 1928 figures of 23,988 publishers compared with 17,380 memorial attendees suggests at least 30 percent of publishers failed to attend the most sacred event sponsored by Watchtower in 1928. This would be remarkable in its own right, and suggestive of serious division. Alternately, we can assume that, somehow, an extreme anomaly occurred in year 1928 regarding the memorial attendance figure and that Watchtower failed to correct this at the time or subsequently. Which do you think more likely? Attendance figures for 1928 were flawed and never, ever corrected or even addressed as possibly incomplete, or that at least 30 percent of publishers failed to attend Watchtower’s most sacred event sponsored for the year? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 2: Historically when Watchtower published significantly incomplete statistical figures it either disclosed this at the time or subsequently. Watchtower has never suggested its 1928 figure for total attendance at its annual memorial event was incomplete, significantly or otherwise. On the other hand, Watchtower has expressed that its figures related to the preaching work (“service work” et al.) were incomplete and/or inconsistent, particularly for the 20s and early 30s. In fact, one Watchtower source expresses 23,988 “persons proclaiming this same good news” for year 1928 while at least one other Watchtower source reports 44,080 “ministers” for the same year. Which is correct? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 response: Is it true that "Watchtower has never suggested its 1928 figure for total attendance at its annual memorial event was incomplete, significantly or otherwise"? No, for in their Proclaimers book (1993), page 717 states under the chart Memorial Attendance and Partakers: "Before 1932, available figures for Memorial attendance are often incomplete. At times, only groups of 15, 20, 30, or more were being included in totals published." Thus it is indeed possible that, as you dismiss in Comment 1, "[a]ttendance figures for 1928 were flawed and never, ever corrected," since such figures before 1932 are "addressed as possibly incomplete."


 * As for the different figures of 23,988 versus 44,080: In effect, both may be correct. The Yearbook regularly includes (as did The Watchtower until 2007) several columns of information regarding Kingdom proclaimers, including "Peak Pubs." and "Avg. Pubs." For the 1928 service year the "Avg. Pubs." were 23,988 (as quoted above), so the 44,080 figure would probably be that year's "Peak Pubs." Again, 1928 was an extreme case: In 2008 the average was 6,829,455 and the peak was 7,124,443. It should also be noted that the worldwide "Peak Pubs." figure is the sum of the individual peaks for each different reporting land's highest month of activity, so this admittedly could result in an artificially large total number. That is why the average figures are more reliable overall.


 * I'm not to this to argue with you. The 1925-30 period was a turbulent time, as were 1914-19 and 1975-80. But each time, the International Bible Students / Jehovah's Witnesses have recovered from these adverse times, and with Jehovah's help they will do so again in the future. --Glenn L (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The big drop in memorial attendance after 1926 is noted in History of Jehovah's Witnesses and I have added it to Joseph Franklin Rutherford. I don't think it's necessary in this article. I'm not sure the drop at that time can be described as a schism. There was certainly a disappointment over Rutherford's predictions for 1925 and his doctrinal and organizational changes were gaining pace. The original Bible Students were continuing to leave, as they had ever since Rutherford took over, as part of a schism. The post-1925 drop in memorial attendees and field workers was dramatic, but I haven't read anything happening specifically around that time that could be defined as a schism. LTSally (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Comment 2 response: The quotation cited by Glenn L from Watchtower’s Proclaimers book does not suggest memorial attendance figures for 1928 were inaccurate or incomplete. The statement in Proclaimers covers a period of more than 40 or 50 years! Certainly nothing in the statement remotely suggests that the figure for year 1928 was any more or less indicative/reliable compared with the preceding years of 1925-27. Hence, for the period in question (the mid-to-late 1920s) the citation you offer from Proclaimers offers no help. It is a general statement. It is dicto simpliciter fallacy to apply a general statement to something specific.
 * In contemporary terms, if the Witness community suffered an 80 percent drop in memorial attendance over a single-year period, it would be jaw dropping news indicating an implosion of the Witness religious community. Accordingly, it is surprising that the 1927-to-1928 event flies so far under everyone's radar. It deserves far more attention that it had received thus far.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we have some record or report that discusses the schism after 1925? I think part of the problem is that the JW organization just wasn't all that notable at that time, so records of events within the faith were mostly maintained by the Society itself (by whoever controlled that Society). Of course they are going to gloss over major issues with some cover story (just as any group does). There is one link in the History of Jehovah's Witnesses which may be a source for this discussion, though I've not looked into it myself it: ^ M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed, page 62. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 19:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Name
Why do they call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses when in th 1800s, Yahweh was discovered to be a more accurate rendering of God's name? Shouldn't they by Yahweh's Witnesses instead? Emperor001 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Russell used the name "Jehovah" in his writings, albeit sparingly. That rendering was common in writings by other authors at the time, according to one source. Rutherford elevated the name, using it repeatedly in his books and magazine articles and ultimately renaming the association to include that name. LTSally (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But why haven't they changed the name now that Yahweh is the predominant pronunciation of God's name? Emperor001 (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In their own words: "Why do the witnesses of Jehovah prefer to use 'Jehovah' rather than 'Yahweh'? For one thing, no one can be certain just what the original pronunciation was, even as admitted by those who prefer 'Yahweh.' And further, the form 'Jehovah' has a currency and familiarity that 'Yahweh' does not have." (Awake, March 1973). And more recently: "Some scholars, though, recommend the pronunciation 'Yahweh.' Is that closer to the original pronunciation? No one can be certain. Actually, other scholars have cited reasons for not using this pronunciation. Of course, Bible names, when spoken in a modern-day language, probably sound nothing like the original Hebrew, and hardly anyone objects. This is because these names have become part of our language and they are easily recognized. So it is with the name Jehovah." (Watchtower September 2008). Bottom line is that "Jehovah's Witnesses" is a brand as recognisable as Coca-Cola or Microsoft. Why would they change now? LTSally (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Why would they change it now?" Because they are all about the "truth". ;)  Sacrasm aside, the pronunciation of the Hebrew god YHWH's name as Jehovah has been pretty much scholarly discredited.  "Jehovah" version and pronunciation is a relic created in the Middle Ages, much like the Shroud of Turin.  As to the correct pronunciation of YHWH, some have suggested that it has none, since it likely an abbreviation for "I am who I am" in the ancient Hebrew language. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  19:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct, the original pronunciation of YHWH is unknown. However, Jehovah's Witnesses spell and pronounce God's name "Jehovah" in English-language literature for the same reason nearly 100% of professed Christians spell and pronounce his Son's name "Jesus" in English-language literature. Because they are the most familiar forms of those names in English. Suppose "Yahweh" was proven to be the correct form of God's name. If they were to adopt this name, then for the same reason, then ALL names starting with the letter "J" would need to be changed, such as Jacob/James, Jeremiah, Job, John, Joseph, Judas/Jude, and, of course, Jesus! Jehovah's Witnesses are not saying we need to change all of these familiar "J" names. They are saying that for the same reason that the other "J" names continue to be used, so the most familiar name for YHWH, Jehovah, will continue to be used by them. If others want to use "Yahweh" as used in the Jerusalem and World English Bibles, that is perfectly acceptable to them and is FAR superior to substituting "LORD" or "GOD" or "ETERNAL" for YHWH. The same argument can be used in each of the hundreds of languages which use their equivalent of "Jehovah," "Jesus," and the other "J" names.--Glenn L (talk)


 * yeah, I know that arguement. The one reason i'd say that it doesn't hold water is that they believe YHWH still exists.  Changing the pronunciation of one's name when introducing them is rather inappropriate.  Imagine if your name is John and you visit friends in Ireland, and your friends introduce you as Sean instead of John.   Sure, Sean is gaelic for John, but that just wouldn't be proper.  (Some people will change their own name when immigrating, but that is their own choice.)  Did god tell Jehovah's Witnesses that he changed his name to suit some scholar's mistake over 1000 years ago?  —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  05:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well he ('god') hasn't complained about it either. This discussion is out of this article's scope.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeffro77, sorry for falling to make the connection: the connection being the pronuniciation of YHWH as Jehovah is false and that this fact is vetted and heavily documented. Though, the OP is as you say.  :)  —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The name Jehovah has been in accepted English usage for hundreds of years. Jehovah's Witnesses' use of the name is not some recent novel invention of theirs, nor is it unique to them. Whether the name is 'false' belongs in discussion at Jehovah, not here.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Social Criticisms section
This section seems unusually long. The other criticism subsections are 2 paragraphs:—that seems to work well. Aside from the need to compact the information a little more, I also have the following concerns, which I may address sometime soon if no one else gets to it before I do:


 * Critics quoted by Edmond Gruss claim the "veneration" and "adulation" accorded the Watch Tower organization by Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as the tendency for members to let Watch Tower leaders "do the absolute thinking for them in important fundamental matters of their lives" are sufficient to define the religion as a cult. Fixed by LTSally, and further edited by me, B Fizz.

Um...what? The verb "accorded" here doesn't make sense...should it be "accorded to"? In any event, the sentence needs a little revision to clearly present the reasons why the religion is considered by some to be a "cult."
 * Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult and say that although individuals need proper guidance from God, they should do their own thinking. Changed, though not shortened, by me, B Fizz

A good example of some text that could be shortened. Is there a better way to say the second half of that sentence?
 * ...and [WT literature] warns Witnesses against studying the Bible, either alone or in small groups, without the Society's direction through its literature. Fixed by LTSally.

The use of commas in this sentence initially suggests to the reader that Witnesses are told not to study the Bible...unless I'm mistaken Jehovah's Witnesses do nothing but study the Bible (and, of course, Watch Tower literature written about the Bible). Rephrase for clarity.
 * Watch Tower publications say participation in the preaching work is a matter of loyalty to God and a fundamental requirement of faith, and that God appreciates the efforts of those who are limited by old age and poor health. Shortened and clarified (I hope) by me, B Fizz.

Should this be split into two sentences? The "God appreciates the efforts..." phrase could state its meaning more explicitly: the idea that old/sick people don't have to do as much, but are still expected to make an effort, etc.
 * Watch Tower literature warns against the "dangers" and "infection" of "independent thinking"... Fixed largely by LTSally.

The section, as well as all of Wikipedia, could do with a few less "quotation marks". In some cases, using a wikilink produces the same emphasis in a less cluttered way. In partial quotations like this, I would prefer quoting whole phrases, and using [brackets] as necessary, or just not using quotation marks at all. It's probably more of a personal preference than a stylistic best practice, but I will insist on fewer quotation marks regardless.

That's it for now. I rarely, if ever, can think of good fixes at the time when I identify issues, so I'll let this sit for a day or two until my subconscious (or one of you) has figured it out. Shame on me for being so longwinded this time. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It probably is a little long, particularly now that I've reworded it to present the WTS perspective of each criticism. I'll trim it and move material to the main article. LTSally (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done some more work to shorten the way things are stated, and updated my comments above. When I started marking them off, I thought that something was left undone, but it looks like all of the specific quotes I brought up were addressed. I have one more issue, the solution of which eludes me:


 * ...creates a form of mental isolation that has been cited as an element of mind control. Changed as explained below.

The phrase that has been cited as an element of seems hesitant on its way to the accusation: mind control. Perhaps something like ...creates mental isolation and approaches mind control. though that seems almost too blunt. See also Mind_control. I'm not accusing JWs of mind control, I'm just noting that Franz and friends are. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "creates mental isolation which [xyz commentators] have called mind control"?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did something like that, refactoring the sentence a bit. It's still wordier than I'd like, but it works:


 * The Watch Tower Society's firm discouragement of members to read criticism of the organization or scriptural material published by other religions has lead critics, including Raymond Franz, to accuse the society of causing mental isolation with the intent of mind control.


 * Another possible sentence structure was this:


 * Critics accuse the society of [...], citing it's firm discouragement of [...]


 * But for some reason, I preferred the former. Thoughts? ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 10:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The new arrangement of the sentence seems to read better, though I don't think it should say "with the intent of mind control", which would require a rather specific source indicating "intent".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great War as the Beginning of The End Times?
I've always found it interesting that the JWs pegged 1914 as the beginning of the end times as at that point one of the biggest catastrophes in human history up to that point, the Great War, aka World War I commenced and with it the sorry history of 20th Century. In fact when America declared war on Germany in 1917 the headline of the New York Herald Tribune screamed, "America Joins Armageddon!" It's actually not that incredible of an hypothesis at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.198.152 (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, they said that the end (Armageddon) would break out "with great suddenness" in October of 1914 (The Watchtower, 15 May 1911). They do indeed still claim that 1914 is significant, however the actual events of 1914 are not consistent with what they 'foretold'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The great war or World War one denotes the start of the times of the end. This doesn't mean the Tribulation or Armegeddon but it is related to prophecies in Daniel that refer to a measuring of the Gentile Times. I can find some of the info in the books....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you specifically referring to when discussing "the beginning of the end times"? Russell wrote in 1890 that the "time of the end" as drawn from Daniel 12:4 began in October 1799 and would end in October 1914, at which point he believed Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over earth's governments. In the December 1, 1929 Watchtower his successor Joseph Rutherford changed the start of the end times to 1914. By the early 1950s Watch Tower publications still referred to 1914, and the war in heaven, as the start of the "time of the end". The most recent study book on Daniel avoids putting any specific date on the expression. The phrase is now used only in a general sense to refer to the current "last days". LTSally (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You really opened a can of worms with that question. The 1799 you are reffering to is the Millerite Prophecies I believe. Let me gather some information from you. I happen to have quite a few of the publications at home. I will put iit in a discussion and then put a talkback on your page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The date is from a inference from Daniel Chapter 4 starting in Verse four “And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant. 5 And I saw, I Daniel, and, look! there were two others standing, one on the bank here of the stream and the other on the bank there of the stream. 6 Then one said to the man clothed with the linen, who was up above the waters of the stream: “How long will it be to the end of the wonderful things?” 7 And I began to hear the man clothed with the linen, who was up above the waters of the stream, as he proceeded to raise his right [hand] and his left [hand] to the heavens and to swear by the One who is alive for time indefinite: “It will be for an appointed time, appointed times and a half. And as soon as there will have been a finishing of the dashing of the power of the holy people to pieces, all these things will come to their finish.”
 * [] 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy
 * [] "The Perfect Government of Peace"
 * [] "Are We Living in “the Last Days”?"

There is of course much more but maybe this help clears it up? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit lost about what your point is. This talk page is to discuss improvements to the article and I think we're getting way off topic. LTSally (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hell In A Bucket is incorrectly assigning current JW beliefs about 1914 to what was actually said at the time. However, at the time, it was the 'tribulation' (or "awful time of trouble") that Russell expected to "break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914" (Watchtower, May 15 1911). However, this discussion is out of scope for this general article and would be better suited to a different forum, though aspects of it may be relevant to Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses or Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1925 Editorial comment innacuracy
With regards to this comment:

In 1925, following a dispute over a proposed article, Rutherford dismissed the Watch Tower's Editorial Committee, giving him full control of the organization and of material published in the magazine.[37]

The reference here is from Ray Franz. From what I read Ray Franz got his source information on the JW history from Tony Wills book. Going back to that original source, Brother Rutherford, according to Wills historical criticism, did not dismiss the editorial committee, but he wanted the article in question in print, and overode the committe on that point. It didn't say anything in the history about dismissing the editorial committe, but that he ignored them on this article "Birth of a Nation". 67.83.55.39 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Naturalpsychology --User:naturalpsychology
 * I don't see any suggestion in Franz's book that he drew his material from Wills' book, but you're correct that Rutherford did not dismiss the editorial committee at that point. He removed their names from the Watchtower in 1931, at which point presumably the committee ceased to exist. What Rutherford did do in 1925 was to ignore the demands of the committee that he not publish his article, which conflicted with Russell's doctrine and established a new one. Franz raised the matter in the context of a discussion of the Governing Body, citing the incident as an example of how Rutherford and Russell acted alone, ignoring the views of any other individuals when establishing doctrine. Rutherford was convinced the Lord was using him and later claimed Satan had tried to stop the article being published. LTSally (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Memorial Attendance
The Memorial attendance is currently over 18 million Natural (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)naturalpscyhology
 * If you have a source on that (Awake! or otherwise), I'd be glad to help you with the citation. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 06:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's posted at . The actual figure for the 2009 Memorial is 18,168,323. --Glenn L (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be good 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)naturalpsychology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs)

Attempt to restore Neutral Point of View in this Wikipedia article
We know that Wikipedia places emphasis on a Neutral Point of View, in all of their articles. With that in mind, it is of importance that this article, somewhat controversial, or very controversial, or polarized, one might say, reflect a neutral point of view.

One of the points in question would be the reference to many writings of apostates, former Jehovah's Witness apostates in this article.

It would not be balanced to give undo weight to apostate writings of former Jehovah's Witnesses and other sources which reflect a negative viewpoint, or negative bias towards Jehovah's Witnesses, and which start with the bias of clearly being opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses, as documentation and support for wording which is  included (in this article) to produce a bias in the view of Jehovah's Witneses as is the cases in the wording of a number of statemnents and the type of information presented in this article on Jehovah's Witnesses.

There are a number of statements and the wording of which, using adjectives which should be made neutral or have clarifying information if they are to reflect the neutral point of view by Wikipedia standards.

For specific points, I will wait until later, please, to bring them out. But to establish now the point that many of the Jehovah's Witness apostate publications sited as references use strong or biased wording in this Wikipedia article and do not have a neutral point of view, but rather a strong POV.

Ray Franz, a Jehovah's Witness apostate, is used extensively as a reference, and there are 25 references in the article or in the references to Raymond Franz alone or his books.

Edmund Gruss, is also a Jehovah's Witness apostate. There are 8 references in the article or in the references to Edmund Gruss

About Edmund Gruss: Quote from Amazon on Gruss's book: Jehovah's Witnesses by Professor Edmond Gruss is one of the best documented and most devastating critiques of the Watchtower ever written. It contains thousands of quotes from official Watchtower sources that prove the Watchtower over and over has made scores of totally false predictions. Professor Gruss, an ex-Witness himself. http://www.amazon.com/Jehovahs-Witnesses-Doctrinal-Prophetic-Speculation/dp/193123230X Both Ray Franz’s and Gruss’s works are not considered to be neutral in viewpoint, but rather are very strong in POV, or even extreme in POV, as two examples, and so in using them as references for some specific references here.

So the strong POV of persons such as Raymond Franz and other apostates, have a strong influence on this (Wikipedia) article in some specific areas, and my current purpose, if it is God's will, is to help restore a neutral point of view to this article over the next few months. Comments on this critique of the current Wikipedia article or the points made here? Natural (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Natural
 * Many reliable sources may have strong points of view. For example, many sources in the article are JW publications which naturally have a strong pro-JH POV. You don't expect us to toss them out as well do you? -- Neil N   talk to me  23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that in this article, that if you are going to use strong wording and opinions from apostates, using apostate literature as your source, then, if any of these are to be used, for example, labeling Jehovah's Witnesses a cult is a decidly apostate or anti-Jehovah's Witness position. It is a comment of extreme bias and does not reflect a neutral point of view. Therefore, it would not be necessary to raise this point at all in this article, even though that particular point is couched with the counterpoint from Jehovah's Witnesses.

The remainder of the same paragraph has strong wording from the source of Raymond Franz, without any counterpoint, and therefore, does not need to be at all referred to in the Wikipedia encyclopedia article.

Words like "cult" and "mind control" are strongly opinionated statements and reflect a bias. This is especially true in light of using Raymond Franz and similar apostates as sources for these words. Natural (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Natural
 * You didn't answer my question. Should we remove references to JW publications due to their "extreme" pro-JW bias? -- Neil N   talk to me  00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that you should remove every single reference, but I feel that the present article is lopsided towards Ray Franz and other Jehovah's Witness apostates. I feel that "mind control" is not acceptable for this article, doesn't need to be answered or rebutted, because it is extreme and fringe. Cult is somewhat an extreme viewpoint an extreme POV, with respects to Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not just Jehovah's Witnesses who defend that point, but, other neutral sources indicate that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a cult, but a religious denomination. I would like to make some references along those lines on that point. --209.212.20.5 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that you have either not read or not understood WP:NPOV. To quote one sentence of this policy: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." To use one of your examples, Gruss has cited the claims by several others who say Jehovah's Witnesses fit the definition of a cult. Gruss is a reliable, published source and it is appropriate to include that claim in the JW article. Neutrality is achieved by immediately countering that claim with a denial by the Watch Tower Society of that accusation. The denial was contained in a Watchtower article called "Are Jehovah's Witnesses a Cult?" in which they acknowledge that they have been described as such and proceed to explain why they believe they are not a cult. Those are the two conflicting views in that case. It is not a fringe or extreme claim; the Witnesses are described as a cult by many authors.


 * Franz is similarly a reliable published source. His books have been cited by many other authors and although he was expelled by the Watch Tower Society for eating with his employer, who had previously disassociated himself from the Witnesses, his comments and observations are acceptable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article on the religion. Your suggestion that he is an apostate is irrelevant and does not automatically exclude him from the article as a source. Almost all books examining the Witnesses — Franz, Gruss, Rogerson, Penton, Botting, Hoekema, Holden etc — contain some criticism of JWs. Macmillan's Faith on the March was entirely complimentary of the Witnesses, as is all WTS literature. It is foolish to exclude any of these reference works simply because they express a point of view.


 * Your next step is to identify, one by one, the parts of the article you believe fail to achieve an editorially neutral point of view. These can all be discussed. LTSally (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well put. -- Neil N   talk to me  04:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, idenifying specific areas where there is bias and making the needed corrections.--209.212.20.5 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Natural, your comments here themselves demonstrate a high degree of bias. In particular, you frequently employ the JW pejorative sense of the word "apostate" (though any person who joins the JW religion after leaving any other religion is also an "apostate"), a loaded term used as a thought-terminating cliché. If a statement by a person is true, but the statement is attacked simply because of some (non-)affiliation of the person who said it, that constitutes an ad hominem attack on that source.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A quote from the June 22, 2000 Awake supports Jeffro's point:
 * "Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked."
 * It has long been a tactic of the Watch Tower Society to label those who dare to challenge or question it as "apostates". Repeated stern warnings to Witnesses to avoid the "poison" of apostasy, which is equated with disloyalty to God, ensures that the faithful will not listen to those critics, dismissing them not on the basis of their argumentation but on the basis of their label. Followers of Jim Jones, the Moonies and other groups have been swayed by similar tactics to abandon any proper examination of their religious leaders. Naturalpscyhology, who seems to be spraying the word "apostate" all over Wikipedia, appears to be following the same pattern. LTSally (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Apostate definition and lack of credibility, poor source for accurate information, as described by Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D., author and expert on sects, apostasy. Professor Emeritus, Oxford University.

So to answer your question, not everyone who leaves a religion is an apostate, but one who displays an intolerant, hateful, disposition toward his former religion, or who works actively and zealously to undermine the acitivity of his former religion is an apostate. This would apply to Jehovah's Witness apostates and to apostates from other religions also.

These are Bryn Wilson's comments on apostates:

"The apostate’s story, in which he is usually presented as a victim, is seen as good news-copy for the media, particularly if he offers to ‘reveal’ aspects, and perhaps secrets, of the movement to which he formerly belonged. In consequence, apostates receive perhaps an unwarranted amount of media attention, particularly when they are able to present their previous allegiance in terms both of their own vulnerability and the manipulation, deception, or coercion exercised by the leaders and members of the movement into which they were recruited. Because these accounts are often the only information normally available to the general public about minority religions, and certainly the most widely disseminated information, the apostate becomes a central figure in the formation (or misformation) of opinion in the public domain concerning these movements."

"Academic scholars interested in religious minorities, and in particular sociologists, in whose field this subject matter particularly lies, normally pursue their scholarly enquiries by a variety of well-recognized methods. They gather their data not only by archival research and the study of printed matter and documents, but also by participant observation, interviews, questionnaire surveys and, directly to the point at issue here, from informants.

The apostate typically represents himself having been introduced to his former allegiance at a time when he was especially vulnerable — depressed, isolated, lacking social or financial support, alienated from his family, or some other such circumstance. His former associates are now depicted as having prevailed upon him by false claims, deceptions, promises of love, support, enhanced prospects, increased well-being, or the like. In fact, the apostate story proceeds, they were false friends, seeking only to exploit his goodwill, and extract from him long hours of work without pay, or whatever money or property he possessed.

Thus, the apostate presents himself as ‘a brand plucked from the burning,’ as having been not responsible for his actions when he was inducted into his former religion, and as having ‘come to his senses’ when he left. Essentially, his message is that ‘given the situation, it could have happened to anyone.’ They are entirely responsible and they act with malice aforethought against unsuspecting, innocent victims. By such a representation of the case, the apostate relocates responsibility for his earlier actions, and seeks to reintegrate with the wider society which he now seeks to influence, and perhaps to mobilize, against the religious group which he has lately abandoned."

Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D., (1826-2004), Professor Emeritus at Oxford University. Former President of the International Society for the Sociology of Religion. Wilson is described as "a scholar of indubitable integrity". "Wilson displays a scrupulous attention to detail within a broad theoretical approach that not only educates and illuminates, but also stimulates his readers," according to one source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The credibility of the apostate is something that is called into question. So, if strong statements are made that present a negative view of Jehovah's Witnesses, or an extreme view, they should come from credible sources, rather than educated apostates, or someone who has an "ax to grind" with Jehovah's Witnesses for one reason or another, and so wrote a well-researched book to justify his own course. Both POV is expressed in these books, as well as Conflict of interest, in the books themselves. Someone quoting extensively from these books, doesn't make it true, any more than in trying to justify yourself. It's all the same biaed boat.


 * So, selecting books or quotes which are moderate and neutral is of more value to an encyclopedia, rather than those which resort to slander, or that have a strong self-interest.
 * That's the idea, if one wishes to produce an article which is balanced and neutral.


 * Many of the quotes to Watchtower publications are used in this article to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than support a positive view. So there needs to be balanced in the amount of criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses in this article, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.20.5 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement needing clarification
Statement: "Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination under the control of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses."[21]

The wording of this statement is specific to implying that Jehovah's Witnesses have very little contact with those outside their religion and that all society outside of Jehovah's Witnesses iss controlled by Satan.

In using Andrew Holden's book, pages 109-112 as a reference, no such statement is made. Rather, those pages refer largely to the entertainment of this world which has violence, sexually immorality, in the theatre, etc. that is specifically those segments of the entertainment world which are contaminated, it doesn't make broader generalizations beyond those specific sectors of the world.

Also, with regards to associating with individuals who are not Jehovahs' Witnesses, there are different individual consciences, and each individual decides for himself how to apply the scriptural principles found in the Bible on this matter, in applying scriptures such as 1 Cor. 15:33, "Bad association spoil useful habits." This scripture is in reference to early Christians and their association with non-Christians who had a hedonistic attitude, and how it could influence those Christians and their attitude. It states saying, "Do not be misled".

On page 110 of Holden's book, an interview of one of Jehovah's Witnesses states a reasonable approach to outside association which most Jehovah's Witnesses follow, including my immediate families who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Holden's book states, quoting the Witness, "We use our own consciences in a lot of matters," referring to the subject of association. While some Jehovah's Witnesses might apply it more strongly, others apply it more loosely, and each individual is free to make his or her own decisions. If one is frequenting "night clubs" which clearly have a bad influence, then someone might talk to him, but it usually only in cases of extreme where there might be some shepherding.

Holden, "Certain Witnesses demonstrate their conviction by keeping contact with outsiders to a minimum. Others, though they may befriend non-members and maintain amicable relations with people in their neighbourhoods, make their status known to those withwhom they associate. For these individuals, some voluntary contacty is acceptable, even desirable, so long as it does not mean that their religious principles must be compromised.

So you can quote individual passages in Witness literature and say, Witnesses feel that anything outside of their religion is from the Devil, but it isn't that way, and it isn't how we feel. Everything is applied with balance. Yes, the immoral movies, the cursing, the immorality and homosexuality, the abuse of children, divorce, all of that is influenced and some of it even controlled by the Devil, but not every little thing that is not part of Jehovah's Witnesses, that is absurd.

So, the text in the Wikipedia gives both a wrong view of Jehovah's Witnesses, and it gives a wrong view of what Andrew Holden was trying to say, because he presented several sides to the issue. The Wikipedia decidely favors one side, that is, an unreasonable side.

So, the point being, it was raised once before, the sentence needs to be reworded to accurately reflect the truth of it, and, if Andrew Holden is used as the reference, which is as good a reference as any, then it needs to more accurately reflect what Holden was trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NaturalPsychology (talk)


 * Note: For reasons of clarity I have altered the order of some comments by one user, which were added under a user name or IP address. This also reveals a new section he added but failed to appear because of his careless editing. Please avoid, where possible, inserting comments inside another editor's comments unless you are clearly identifying whose comments are whose. LTSally (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You expressed the view above that "if strong statements are made that present a negative view of Jehovah's Witnesses, or an extreme view, they should come from credible sources, rather than educated apostates". Holden, as an impartial sociologist, should fit that bill.


 * On page 11 he introduces his discussion about interaction between Witnesses and non-Witnesses thus: "The Witnesses draw clear boundaries between themselves and non-Witnesses, establish strict entry criteria and keep their involvement with wider society to a minimum." Page 12: "One does not need to be in their company for very long to realise that secular society is regarded as a place of moral contamination — a place where the righteous are seduced by the devil." I disagree with your interpretation of his comments on pages 109-112. He makes a very clear statement that the Witnesses he interviewed were "highly selective" about the company they chose and the places they entered. He says that when Witnesses engage in common social activities "it is nearly always in the company of other members of their congregation". On page 111: "Although some voluntary contact with the outside world is permissible, the Witnesses are advised to err on the side of caution when forming friendships with those who do not share their beliefs." (emphasis in original).


 * I believe Holden's opinion is clear and is expressed fairly, accurately and with neutral language in the sentence you have objected to. You may have your own view about how readily Witnesses mix socially with non-Witnesses, but the article needs to reflect the view of reliable published sources. LTSally (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, based on the above from Holden, I feel that whoever constucted that sentence did it in a way, like other sentences in this article, to make it seem that Jehovah's Witnesses are extreme in their view in which they view others outside of the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses.

A more accurate sentence that reflected better the thoughts expressed by Mr. Holden would be,

"Jehovah's Witnesses regard certain elements of society as being influenced by Satan, and are cautious in their participation in any entertainment that might violate princples in the Bible. They limit some of their voluntary associations with persons who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, especially if these have a negative moral influence on them or their children. At the same time, every Witness makes their own conscientious decisions as to who they will or will not associate with outside the sphere of the Jehovah's Witness community, within the paramaters outlined in the Bible such as is stated in 1 Corintians 15:33."

That would more clearly reflect the position of Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to associations outside of the community of Jehovah's Witnesses. I can say that this is the truth, as I am a Jehovah's Witness and know what we do, based on the Bible and what other Witnesses do also. In the entire section of Mr. Holden's analogy, He presented both sides of the issue, rather than just the one side.

The general principle is, their is a considerable area of conscience involved in many personal decisions that each individual Jehovah's Witness makes every day. The Bible gives principles, the literature and meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses give help in understanding the princples of the Bible, but it is up to everyone to apply it in a way appropriate to their own life. When you start talking about really serious things, like mentioned in the Bible, fornication, stealing, adultery, homosexuality, those things are pretty straight-forward in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, then it is getting into other areas. But, those type of universal guidelines exist in most religions.

--Natural (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In reviewing the article and the many references to Raymond Frank's books, this one paragraph in particular, it would probably be better for this to be on a seperate page, that is Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, or on Raymond Franz's own page, rather than on the Jehovah's Witness page. The "mind control" is his own accusation, which has not basis in reality, except on some extreme websites of anti-Jehovah's Witness nature, and Raymond Franz's own ideas. True sociologists don't take the writings of apostates too seriously and don't use them for quotes or authority for obivious reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your suggested wording is unacceptable because it is your view rather than that of a reliable published source. That one sentence we're discussing covers a facet of Jehovah's Witnesses that makes the religion quite distinctive: namely, that they tend to limit social association with non-members of their religion because of a fear of moral contamination. That fact is worthy of inculsion in the article. It is not a criticism per se, so is not appropriate for the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article and I have no idea why you suggest it would be appropriate on the Raymond Franz page.


 * Furthermore, your comments about Franz are defamatory of a living person. I have deleted them as per WP:BLP. And would you please, for the 54th time, sign your posts. LTSally (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote about Ray Franz is the truth, Franz attempts to slander individual members of the Governing Body and Jehovah's Witnesses as a whole in his writings. Now, you can defend that view, as you do try to, but that's the facts of it, having seen it with my own eyes. --Natural (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology, your opinion about who the JW religion endorses JWs to have close contact with is not supported by The Watchtower, which actually supports Holden's view that JWs are to minimize contact with "worldly people" generally (rather than "certain elements" as you claim), and that all of the (non-JW) 'world' is under Satan's influence. Specifically, The Watchtower, 15 March, 2006 p23: "9 What about having close association with those who may be morally clean but who lack faith in the true God? The Scriptures tell us: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) We come to discern that bad associations are not limited to permissive or morally debased people. Hence, we are wise to cultivate close friendships only with those who love Jehovah." It is not contested that some Witnesses "apply this more loosely", but the article should state reliably sourced information about the religion's official stance. Your opinion about what "True sociologists" do, particularly with regard to your opinion of their alleged attitude to the JW definition of "apostates" constitutes a No true scotsman fallacy and an ad hominem attack.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology, regarding your statement, "So you can quote individual passages in Witness literature and say, Witnesses feel that anything outside of their religion is from the Devil, but it isn't that way, and it isn't how we feel." If JWs are not following what they are specifically told to do in official JW literature, that does not constitute the religion's official stance for material that is suitable for an encyclopedia, though it could be stated that it is typical for JW to disobey their leadership in this manner (as you suggest) if there is a reliable source.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The current statement is what is in question in the Wikipedia article. The way it is worded is not supported by Holden. Holden supplies both sides of the issue, that Jehovah's Witnesses limit some social contact, using their own "conscience". And second, he focuses on the moral contamination of the certain entertainment, not the "secular world". That phrase is not used by Holden, it is an interpretation by Wikipedia editors, who also happen to be oppossed to Jehovah's Witnesses.

The public school is part of the secular world. The Awake article spoke highly of the teaching profession (have to find the exact date, 2005 or so), had a cover article on teaching. Does that mean then that the institutions of which public school teachers are a part are places of moral contamination? Then why are so many Jehovah's Witnesses teachers or principals, administrators in public schools. That's not the point Holden was making. The wikipedia article is worded abruptly, without clarification, taking, one sentence from the Watchtower, and not other clarifying statements, and putting it in an extreme way.

Holden presented two sides of the issue, which gives it balance. The Watchtower also presents two sides of the issue, you are taking just one side of it for your own purpose, your own predetermined bias. You need a "neutral point of view" which considers all sides of the issue, and that is the current problem with the Wikipedia article, it decidedly takes a one-sided narrow view. It needs to consider all sides of any controversial or potentially damaging comment about Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses are not so narrow in their writings or in practice. You are choosing to focus on a narrow view. Holden's words are already quoted above, which demonstrate that the point you are trying to make, is not the point Holden was trying to make, unless you take isolated senteneces, without considering the entire 3 or 4 pages which discuss the issue.

"Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination under the control of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses."[21] So then, public schools and school teachers, a part of secular society, "under the control of Satan"? That is what that sentence implies, and it's nonsense, it is not the point Holden is making, or Jehovah's Witness literature. If you take an isolated sentence out of context, it might seem that way, but you can do the same with the Bible, and make it appear like anything you want it to. You have to take the whole picture, and take isolated sentences in context. --Natural (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please try to keep your comments brief, as per WP:TALK. You are repeating yourself. I have cited some quotes from Holden's book that support the sentence. Holden's view is clear and is faithfully represented in the article. You are combing the pages in search of some minor qualifications he makes to try to turn his judgment on its head. Jeffro has cited a quote from the Watchtower that supports Holden's claim (and, by extension the views of those JWs he interviewed) that secular society is in the control of the devil. If you disagree with this statement, your beef is not with Holden but with the Watch Tower Society, which advances this argument.


 * I can't see where discussion on this point can go. The article includes the claim of a reliable source, who makes an important point that is also supported by WTS literature. You are suggesting the book doesn't really make that claim, but your suggestion is patently false. I could sit here and type in the content of those four pages of Holden's book as proof, but somehow I think you'd still see a different meaning within it.


 * What's the next part of the article you believe fails to maintain an editorially neutral position? LTSally (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Holden doesn't say that the world is under the control of Satan as it states here. Also, Holden has an entire book that gives the context with which the statement that is made in the Wikipedia article is elaborated on. In that book he shows various facets and balances within the Jehovah's Witness religion, of what he describes as "blurred lines" and areas of conscience with regard to "the world". The naked sentence in Wiki here, with no explanation isn't what Witnesses belive or teach. I am going to drop it and come back to it later. --Natural (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On page 26 of his book, Holden writes: "Despite their belief that Satan controls the world ..." I don't know how much clearer you need it. LTSally (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Disciplinary action
Wiki article: "Baptized members who violate the organization's fundamental moral principles or who dispute doctrinal matters are subject to disciplinary action, the most severe being a form of shunning they call disfellowshipping."[22][23]

"The Bible says to do all things free of murmurings and arguments." With that in mind, the Bible doesn't encourage "disputing" about doctrine. And so, it might be reasoned, "disputing" often in the congregation is something which disrupts the peace and unity. The issue being "disputing" in the congregation. If someone has questions about doctrine, or feels differently about it, or sends a letter to the Watchtower about a specific doctrine, it is not a question of discipline. If someone is causing divisions because of their private beliefs, that is different, in harmony with the Bible principle at Galations 5:19-21, "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, 20 idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, 21 envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom." So it is the "enmities, strife, fits of anger, contentions, divisions" that is the main issue, rather than questioning a doctrine and being disciplined or disfellowshipped for that.

This sentence is in the first paragraph of the wiki article, and is worded in such a way as by someone who might resent the Bible doctrine of disfellowshipping, as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5.

Also, it isn't so much the "organization's fundamental moral principles, but the Bible's fundamental moral principles, that are more of the issue. "In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, 10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." 1 Corinthians 5:9

If disfellowshipping needs to be mentioned in this paragraph, which it shouldn't be, because it requires some qualifying and explanatory informationed, it needs to be explained in context of the organization, as mentioned and elaborated on by Holden. That the "majority" of those disfellowhsipped are reinstated, he describes how. And the Biblical purposes of disfellowshipping, being two-fold, to help the wrongdoer see the seriousness of his actions, so tha the or she might recover spiritually. That elders do reach out and continue to try to help disfellowshipped ones while they are in that state, and to maintain the moral purity of the congregation, so that the safety of the congregation is insured.

So these deeper subjects are usuually not brought up in an encyclopedic context, and are more appropriately elaborated on in books, because they require quite a bit of explaining, in order to get the full picture. One sentence out of context, gives the wrong impression of disfellowshipping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The current statement is fairly balanced - it accurately indicates that disfellowshipping is "the most severe" form of discipline, and does not state that members with doctrinal disputes are instantly disfellowshipped.
 * It is in the first paragraph because it is a notable detail about the religion as found in reliable sources and because the lead is a summary of the main points in the article. The lead does not say disfellowshipping is necessarily permanent, and the discipline section already discusses the option for reinstatement. (However, if a person leaves because they do not accept the doctrines taught&mdash;either through research they have done, or because doctrines have changed since the time they joined&mdash;then shunning is permanent unless the individual is expected to lie about what they believe.)
 * It is the "organization's fundamental moral principles", not "the Bible's fundamental moral principles", because the rules that make a member subject to disciplinary action are subject to change, based on the Watch Tower Society's interpretations of the Bible.
 * Disfellowshipping is considered in further detail at Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline, where some of the 'deeper things' you mention are dealt with.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that you are using this talk page as a means of justifying policies and doctrines of the Watch Tower Society. The purpose of the article is to explain to members of the public the beliefs, practices and history of the Witnesses and cover any other notable points about them. I believe it does this well and without adopting the negative tone you claim. I'm puzzled at why you say the reference to disfellowshipping is in the first paragraph of the article. It is at the end of the fourth paragraph, so very much towards the end of the introduction. Like everything else in the intro, it is a summary only of content below.


 * Further, it is a nonsense to speak of "the Bible doctrine of disfellowshipping". You are confusing your religion's doctrines and interpretations of the Bible with clear Bible doctrine (God made the world; God had a covenant with the Jews; Christ died for our sins etc). Jehovah's Witnesses are probably unique in their use of 1 Corinthians 5 as a basis for their multi-layered system of discipline, which includes a church judicial investigation and trial and the possible shunning — potentially for life — for those pronounced guilty of a range of breaches of organizational law. The "doctrine of disfellowshipping" was formulated not by the author of 1 Corinthians but by the Watch Tower Society. LTSally (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really feel that LTSally has a neutral point of view on disfellowshipping, since he would be disfellowshipped, according to him, as stated on his page, if the elders in his congregation new what he was doing, he says on his page. So, I feel he would like to raise the controversy towards the top of the article to cover his own tracks, as it were. COI, in my opinion. I don't really feel the LTSally is free to make any contributions on the subject of disfellowshipping.


 * Also, people who might read about disfellowshipping up top, without reading the rest of the article, because it is a longer article than what is usually expected of a primary page on a subject, from what I can see, will get the wrong impression of disfellowshipping. Holden brings out that over half of those who are disfellowshipped come back, and it is likely that some will read the top section here, without reading the details below. An encycopedia is not going to bring up information like that at all, but in something like Wikipedia, if it is brought out, it needs to be done discreetly with clarifying information all the way around.--Natural (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The statements about disfellowshipping "up top" do not state that disfellowshipping is either common or permanent, so it is unclear what 'wrong impression' you imagine readers will make.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrew Holden mentions disfellowshipping in his book, but also mentions "counseling". If disfellowshipping is mentioned, in your views, in the first section, the "counseling" should also be mentioned as well, because most times, counseling suffices, disfellowshipping is not so common. Holden brings out that in the congregation he attended, in his sociological study, eight years had passed where no one had been disfellowshipped. That needs to be clarified as well, that it is not so common in each congregation. In many congregations, it is like Holdens. There are over 100,000 congregations of JW, but only 40,000 or so disfellowshipped. Holden's book brings out that over half are reinstated. So that is a net of about one in each congregation every 4 years. Counseling and shepherding are stresssed in Watchtower literature and much more common than disfellowshipping. Also see Watchtower reference and quote, elders are primarily shepherds, not disciplinarians, and are instructed to shepherd and discipline with mildness and love. Article: Always Accept Jehovah's Discipline. Watchtower. November 15,2006. --Natural (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro states that disfellowshipping is the most serious form of discipline, which inherently indicates that there are also less serious forms of discipline. More specific information is in the article, Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline. You may like to review that article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental, most prominent belief -Bible inspired Word of God
"The one imperative belief, however, is that the Bible, from beginning to end, is the inspired word of God." Holden p.23. "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, reproving, setting things straight, disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equiped for every good work.

The very beginning of the article should mention this fact. It is a fundamental teaching and belief of Jehovah's Witnesses. All of their teachings are based on the Bible.

Holden continues, "All Watch Tower teachings are scripturally supported." p. 23.

--Natural (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion here isn't really consistent with the logical order suitable for an article in an encyclopedia. JWs, like all Christian religions, base their beliefs on their interpretations of the Bible. While this is inherent, it is not necessary to make it the most prominent statement in the article, because a) it is unnecessary to do so, and b) there is no evidence that the Bible is actually "inspired" (by whatever mystical means a particular religion interprets that verse) or that it is an especially high source of moral code.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not there is evidece that the Bible really is inspired of God, really isn't the point of the statement by Holden who is an agnostic and former Catholic. The point he was making is that the most prominent belief of Jehovah's Witnesses is the they believe the Bible to be inspired by God. So, in the introduction of the Wiki article, it would be appropriate to include that statement. --Natural (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the intro states that they are a Christian denomination. I think it's a given that, like every other Christian denomination, they accept the Bible as the word of God. Like every other denomination they meet, pray, sing songs, worship God, believe Christ was resurrected and aim to follow moral principles. That's what Christians do. None of these need to be mentioned in the intro. LTSally (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It is redundant to describe a Christian sect as one which believes the Bible inspired of God. --Sungmanitu (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like in your view and of some others, the only things that need to be mentioned in the introduction are largely controversial or negative things. If controversial things are mentioned in the introduction, they need to be explained and elaborated on, so that it gives the full picture, otherwise, they have to be placed in another section below.--Natural (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you're actually reading the article. The subject of congregational discipline, including disfellowshipping, is given its own section in the main body of the article. The matter is treated in expanded fashion at that point.


 * Your view that the introduction is dominated by "controversial or negative things" is utter rubbish. The first paragraph identifies what the religion is, its size and its system of governance. The second paragraph relates its history. The third paragraph deals with the central teaching of the religion about living in the last days. There is one line dealing with a controversial issue, namely, the number of times it has issued warnings that the world is about to end. The fourth paragraph provides a brief summary of their distinctive teachings and practices. It contains two sentences you have objected to: the first dealing with what a sociologist has noted about their tendency to remain separate in the community and the second about their use of shunning and disfellowshipping as a form of discipline. Both are distinctive and notable aspects. The fifth paragraph deals with their resistance to engage in military and nationalistic activities and the subsequent friction this has caused with some governments. In total, three sentences that touch on aspects of the religion that have raised criticism in reliable, published sources. Their inclusion in those sources indicates they are [WP:N|notable]].


 * On another issue related to the subject discussed above, I have removed your edits about elders being shepherds. That is what elders are. It is also superfluous to add a line about what elders are not. LTSally (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit on Holden reference. Bias reflected in current wording
Just for the record, I feel that this statement reflects an opinion that is not expressed by the source, Andrew Holden in his book, that is the quoted source or the specific pages of that source. I feel that it reflects an anti-Jehovah's Witness bias as it is currently worded, as the smalnl edit that I had made was reversed by Jeffro. I don't feel that it is accurate.

"Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination under the control of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses."[21]

It is an intepretation of an interpretation. It doesn't belong as it is stated in the first paragraph, and Jehovah's Winesses do not view all of "secular society" as a place of moral contamination, neither do they feel that all of "secular society" is "under the control of Satan". Those are statements taken out of the overall context of Holden's work, who doesn't say "under the control of Satan." That is the wording of the current editors. I am going to drop it and move on to the next point, but this certainly is a biased statement on the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses that needs some modifying or clarification.

--Natural (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your perception of your religion's views of secular society in general is incorrect. JWs officially view all of secular society to be under Satan's influence, not merely 'elements' of it as you claim.

The better word choice, as you mention above, would be "influence" for one small improvement in wording.--69.116.69.75 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC) This post was made by Natural. If it wasn't signed, it was an oversight. I'll be careful to sign all of my posts. I wrote about this about two months ago, that is the word influence instead of control and then here again, the same point was being made, with different documentation. Thanks. --Natural (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Watchtower, 1 June 2007: The extent of Satan’s evil influence is revealed at 1 John 5:19, which states: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” ... How, then, does Satan wield his influence over mankind today? Satan does so primarily by promoting a spirit that governs the way that people think and act. Accordingly, Ephesians 2:2 calls the Devil “the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit [or, dominant attitude] that now operates in the sons of disobedience.” Instead of encouraging godly fear and goodness, this demonic “air” breeds rebellion against God and his standards. Satan and his demons thus promote and aggravate the evil perpetrated by humans.

Context: Same article directly underneath the above quote: “Safeguard Your Heart” One manifestation of this “air” is the plague of pornography, which inflames improper sexual desires and makes aberrant behavior appear to be appealing. (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5) Rape, sadism, gang rape, bestiality, and the sexual abuse of children are some of the subjects that pornography features as entertaining. Even in its less noxious forms, pornography can be highly addictive and harms those who view it or read it, turning them into habitual voyeurs. It is an evil that damages both human relations and one’s relationship with God. Pornography reflects the debased mentality of the demons who promote it—rebels whose improper sexual desires date back to the pre-Flood world of Noah’s day. For good reason, the wise man Solomon admonished: “More than all else that is to be guarded, safeguard your heart, for out of it are the sources of life.” (Proverbs 4:23) In practical terms, safeguarding your heart from the snare of pornography may mean changing TV channels or turning off the computer should salacious images appear, and it is important to act swiftly and decisively! Think of yourself as a soldier trying to ward off a missile aimed at your heart. Satan targets your figurative heart—your seat of motivation and desire—and seeks to corrupt it. You also need to shield your heart from the love of violence, for the Devil knows that “anyone loving violence [Jehovah] certainly hates.” (Psalm 11:5) Satan does not have to turn you into a bloodthirsty villain to make you an enemy of God; he simply needs to nurture within you a love of violence. It is no coincidence that violence, often with occult themes, saturates the popular media. The Nephilim are dead and gone, but their traits and behavior are very much alive! Does your choice of entertainment show that you resist Satan’s schemes?—2 Corinthians 2:11.
 * w07 6/1 p. 6 The Source of Evil Exposed! ***

The context clearly reveals that "the world" in this case is referring to depraved sexuality, pornography, child molesting, etc.

The context shows, the world quoted below is referring to our jobs and work, two different things. This are two totally seperate ideas.--69.116.69.75 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I don't know if someone took off my signature of if I didn't sign it, but this is my entry above, this is my signature: I'm setting this after LTSally brought to my attention with the sockpuppetry posting. This posting was from Natural: --Natural (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Watchtower 15 August 2008: 2:2—How is the spirit of the world like the air, and where does its authority lie? “The spirit of the world”—the spirit of independence and disobedience—is as pervasive as the air we breathe. (1 Cor. 2:12) Its authority, or power, lies in its persuasiveness, persistence, and relentlessness.
 * The Watchtower 1 August 2008: let us briefly consider the meaning of the expression “the world” (or, ko′smos in Greek) that Paul used in his letter to the Corinthians. In that Bible passage, ko′smos refers to the world system in which we live—human society as a whole—and it includes the mundane things that are part of daily life, such as housing, food, and clothing.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote you make above demonstrates how one can choose one's quotes selectively to create a bias that was unintended by the writer. I feel that your use of the quotes above clearly demonstrates an attempt to hide the real meaning of the article in the Watchtower, to use it "against" Jehovah's Witnesses.

This is what the full context of that particular article says. The world is used many ways in the Bible, and we have to differentiate between different aspects of the world. In the context of the August 15, 2008 Watchtower, this is the full quote,

w08 1/15 pp. 17-18. Before we learn what happened to Marc and Amy, let us briefly consider the meaning of the expression “the world” (or, ko′smos in Greek) that Paul used in his letter to the Corinthians. In that Bible passage, ko′smos refers to the world system in which we live—human society as a whole—and it includes the mundane things that are part of daily life, such as housing, food, and clothing. To obtain such daily necessities, most of us must hold a job. Indeed, we have no choice but to use the world to carry out our Scriptural obligation to provide for ourselves and our families. (1 Tim. 5:8) However, at the same time, we realize that “the world is passing away.” (1 John 2:17) Therefore, we use the world to the extent necessary but not “to the full.”—1 Cor. 7:31.

In this context, it is not saying that the need to hold a job puts us in the control of Satan, or that a job is from Satan, rather it states that we should not use the secular world to the full, in other words, don't make it our chief ambition, it is important to work, but the spiritual things are of more importance. --69.116.69.75 (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your elaboration is superfluous. The article neither states nor implies that JWs do not hold jobs or provide for their families. It simply states, correctly, that JWs view all of secular society to be morally degraded under Satanic influence. The cited Watchtower articles, with or without the extended passage you provided, provides the extent of the supposed 'Satanic influence', showing Natural's opinion to be incorrect.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you repeating the discussion above of the very same sentence? Incidentally, you are wrong in claiming Holden doesn't state that Satan controls secular society. On page 26 he writes: "Despite their belief that Satan controls the world ..." LTSally (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

 * Is there an attempt at sockpuppetry going on here? I find it suspicious that a new, anonymous user is now arguing in defence of User:Naturalpsychology. That IP address is located in ..... the same city as Naturalpsychology. LTSally (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are saying about this above, the four comments in question are from --Natural (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I would rather not have my city broadcast. I don't know how you found out where I live. But it is scary. Please don't post my city on the talk page any more. Thanks.--Natural (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Would rather not have my whereabouts broadcast, thanks.--69.116.69.75 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I am posting this so you know that it was Natural who wrote it. --Natural (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think it's a sock puppet case make a report. It could be meat puppets or it could be a coincidence. Let's not muddy the waters further, if you have suspicions raise them in SPI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. The anon user at IP 69.116.69.75 sounds like Naturalpsychology and seems to be adding Watchtower quotes in support of an argument by that user. There are three options: (1) they are two separate individuals and it's coincidence that both are in Newark, NJ; (2) it's a clumsy attempt by Naturalpsychology to pretend he has another supporter or (3) it's an indication that Naturalpsychology is so inept at editing Wikipedia (or cares so little about working within Wikipedia's processes) that he is, once again, failing to log on before making edits. I'll wait and see. LTSally (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who HellinaBucket is. I'm honest. I did do some edits before logging on, but I had no idea that HellInaBucket was in Newark? There is no sockpuppetry here.--Natural (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He wasn't accusing me of socking....He was suggesting you might be pretending to be someone else. I advised he should file a case to verify if he had suspicions. Easiest way to squash it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You lot should be more worried about LTSally. I find it quite offensive that without concrete evidence of Naturalpsychology having a sockpuppet he has published his location. I assume you have done that using the IP published when he commented without singing in, otherwise there are more pressing checkuser concerns. Regardless, it seems hypocritical that LTSally spouts off about inept Wikipedia editing whilst he ignores the basic privacy rights of a user.
 * Also FWIW, I agree with Naturalpsychology's points, I just don't have the time to comment. Jamie (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to stir up trouble. I had noticed a number of anonymous, unsigned comments that supported arguments by User:Naturalpsychology. I suspected those comments were made by Naturalpsychology. I did a trace check on the IP address and found it was the same city as that identified on Naturalpsychology's user page as his home town. I left a message at the IP's talk page asking for clarification. There was no reply. I filed a sock puppet investigation request. Naturalpsychology subsequently confirmed he had edited with the IP address. To repeat, Naturalpsychology himself published his location on his user page. I revealed no more information about him than he had published. He later removed his location from his user page. I consider the matter close and I believe he does too. LTSally (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on whether Jehovah's believe that only they will be saved
In this talk page their is a lot of debate over whether the article should say that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only they will be saved at Armageddon. The reference used for this is a quote from a fairly old Watchtower - 1989 - and most references used to back up this comment are old. To cut a long story short, this statement is wrong. A more recent reference - the Watchtower of 11/1 2008 P.28 - contains the article: "Our Readers Ask; Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe That They Are the Only Ones Who Will Be Saved?". It says: "Like adherents of many religious faiths, Jehovah's Witnesses hope to be saved. However, they also believe that it is not their job to judge who will be saved. Ultimately, God is the Judge. He decides." Isaiah 33:22 is then quoted, which says: "For Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Statute-giver, Jehovah is our King; he himself will save us." Because of this, I will change the statement in the article to: "Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the current world order will be destroyed at Armageddon, and they hope to be saved at Armageddon. However, they also believe that it is not their job to judge who else may be saved, and so they leave this matter up to their God. They base this belief on Isaiah 33:22." This comment is fair, and is exactly what the Witnesses believe. All references in the article on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe should be the most up to date, and if a recent article says something different to an older article, the recent article should take precedence. It's fine to say what Jehovah's Witnesses used to believe, but this shouldn't be confused with what they currently believe. If anyone has any objections to what I am inserting into the article, please post a reply to comment in the talk page before undoing my changes, and please give me a chance to reply. Edit contributor 999 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This was discussed extensively above at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Without repeating the entire discussion, note that the Nov 2008 article includes three "requirements" for surviving Armageddon: (1) Disciples must have love among themselves. (2) Sanctifying God's name and teaching others about it. (3) Supporting God's kingdom (rather than human institutions) and teaching others about it. There is no further elaboration, but any Watchtower readers will know exactly who the Watch Tower Society is referring to here. A similar statement is contained in the Jan 15, 2008 WT, cited above, which says of members of the "great crowd" of "other sheep" who survive Armageddon: "They are not independent but willing to serve under the direction of the heavenly King and his anointed brothers on earth." These survivors "willingly submit themselves to the direction provided by the Governing Body". The meaning of that article is crystal clear: the "great crowd" who survive Armageddon are Jehovah's Witnesses.


 * Also see the official JW website, which asks "Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved?". Note the two strands to its reply: "No. Many millions who have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before God's time of judgment, and they will gain salvation." (emphasis mine). The first sentence avoids the issue over who survives Armageddon, because JW teachings as listed above show they believe that only they meet the "requirements" for survival. The second sentence, in referring to those who could also survive, makes that conditional on them converting to the JW religion before Armageddon. It's a slippery way of providing a "Most definitely not!!" answer to the question. In effect they are saying that there are many non-Witnesses alive today who do not meet the "requirements" but who may yet ... by "taking a stand" and becoming Witnesses.


 * Those two points indicate that there has been no shift in Witness doctrine since the statements of 1979, 1983, 1989 and the "Live Forever" book. LTSally (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the page on the JW site referenced above has been moved. The current official stance as stated on that page has not changed, and is as stated by LTSally above. Though there is ambiguity in both statements (the JW webpage, and the Watchtower cited above), the more ambiguous statements in the Watchtower do not cancel the less ambiguous statement on the website. 'may yet take a stand for truth' is obviously intended to mean 'become JWs' or is otherwise entirely meaningless. Neither statement contradicts the earlier more specific comments that only JWs have "any scriptural hope" of surviving.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference you gave on the JW-Media website is pretty clear about the answer. After asking "Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved?", the reply is NO, full stop. If that's not clear enough I don't know what is. Saying "only they “have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system" in the article is misleading.

The article should say: "Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the current world order will be destroyed at Armageddon, and they hope to be saved at that time. They do not judge other people as to whether they will be saved, but say that God has committed judgement into Jesus' hands." Jehovah's Witnesses clearly say that the answer is NO, as it is on their website right now. I think the rest of my statement sums up what is mentioned on the website. I hope everyone will be OK with this and I will insert this into the article, but if anyone disagrees, please post your replies. Thank you. Edit contributor 999 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Their "NO" is not the end of the matter. They qualify their answer as noted above, which indicates that the answer is actually something different. The bottom line is that they believe that to be saved one must meet "qualifications' they enumerate. To meet those qualifications one has to be a JW. If you asked me whether I painted my house green, I might say "No." I might then reply, "I simply mixed up a pot of yellow paint and a pot of blue paint and used that." It's true that I didn't use green paint, but the result is the same. LTSally (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying "No, other non-JWs who died centuries ago will get resurrected too" isn't of much benefit to anyone living now, and the rest of the answer on the JW media page indicates that they do not believe that non-JWs living at the time of Armageddon have much chance of surviving unless they "take a stand for truth", which obviously means their 'truth'. The article accurately indicates this stance, while also including the claim that God will ultimately decide.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The 2nd question about "who will be saved?" is a different question and it is pretty clear that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that they are the only ones who will be saved. But as far as Armageddon and who will be saved, this is the most current writing on Jehovah's Witnesses on that subject:


 * Wathctower 11/08 p. 28 Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe That They Are the Only Ones Who Will Be Saved?


 * "Jehovah’s Witnesses think that they have found the true religion. If they did not think so, they would change their beliefs. Like adherents of many religious faiths, Jehovah’s Witnesses hope to be saved. However, they also believe that it is not their job to judge who will be saved. Ultimately, God is the Judge. He decides.—Isaiah 33:22.


 * God’s Word reveals that those who would be saved must not only want salvation but also cooperate with the Savior. To illustrate: Suppose that a hiker becomes lost in a wilderness. He desperately wants to find his way out. Will he perish, or will he survive? The outcome depends on the way he responds to help. Out of pride, he may refuse the help of a rescuer, or savior. On the other hand, he could humbly accept help and reach safety.


 * In a similar way, salvation belongs to those who cooperate with mankind’s Rescuer, Jehovah God. Salvation is a gift from God, yet not all people will attain it. God’s Son, Jesus, said: “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.”—Matthew 7:21.


 * Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God saves only those who exercise faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus and closely follow Jesus’ teachings. (Acts 4:10-12)"


 * Jehovah's Witnesses teach, currently, that God is the judge. They believe that they have the true religion and they try to teach others what the Bible says they must do to be saved, according to the Bible. But as far as stating that only Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved, they say simply "God is the judge. He decides." Isaiah 33:22. --Natural (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article you quote states (as quoted above): "Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God saves only those who exercise faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus and closely follow Jesus’ teachings." JWs believe that it is only JWs who actually do this (unless individual JWs choose to believe differently to what they are taught).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The intepretation that this sentence "Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God saves only those who exercise faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus and closely follow Jesus’ teachings." JWs believe that it is only JWs who actually do this (unless individual JWs choose to believe differently to what they are taught." can be considered a Synthesis of ideas, and interpretation of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. WP:SYNTHESIS. The article states that we do not judge who meets those qualifications but God does. "He decides," rather than us. So,while the Bible states what it means to "closely follow Jesus' teachings," God judges not any individuals on earth.


 * This is a clarification of a teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, with a specific article in a recent Watchtower addressing that question, because it has been stated different ways in Watchtower publications. Because of that, this article was written to clarify the actual teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. The quote from the current Wiki article is over 20 years old, and so isn't as valid as the current understanding and clarification, or refinement of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. The current article above, is the article which officially gives the current position of JW on this subject. --Natural (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The more recent article you quote does not "clarify", because it is intentionally vague. It does not contradict the earlier JW statements that only JWs have any 'scriptural hope', nor does it counter the JW website which currently states that people who aren't yet JWs only have a chance to survive Armageddon if they "take a stand" for JW 'truth'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTHESIS relates to information in articles, not discussion on Talk pages. Editors should still use their brains when considering source material for articles and discussing them on Talk pages.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not a hint in the November 2008 article to support your claim that it was written to "clarify" the current JW belief. Nor is there a word to support your claim that is more "valid" than previous WT articles on the subject or that the old ones are now less "valid". Simple reason: it marks no change at all from the earlier position. All it does is dodge the question.
 * And I'm interested to know your opinion on who the author of that article believes meets all those three "requirements" for surviving Armageddon: (1) Disciples who have love among themselves. (2) Disciples who teach other people about God's personal name. (3) Disciples who put their faith in God's kingdom rather than human institutions. Have Jehovah's Witnesses ever taught that there is another denomination beside theirs, or scattered individuals, who do those things and therefore will be in the New World with them? LTSally (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Different Jehovah's Witnesses might have slightly different views as to who will actually survive, and that might be true of different writers at Bethel as well. So, we have to wait and see who survives. The Bible tells us what one must do, but God is not one that sticks to the strictness of his own policy, but is judges reasonable. God was about to wipe put Sodom and Gomorrah, when Abraham "bargained" with him to save the cities if only 10 righteous people were found it it. It was God's plan to destroy the cities and save no one, but he was willing to take Abraham's "advice" at the last minute as it were. God was about to destroy all of the Israelites, and Moses stepped in and pleaded with Him. God changed his mind, and spared them, at Moses pleading. So who will actually be destroyed at Armageddon, and who will not, who will be resurrected and who will not, we can only go on what the Bible says, and try the best we can to live up to the Bible and teach others, but in the end, it is up to God to decide. I favor a more merciful and broader judgment of mercy in the end, and pray for that, but it's not our decision, it's God's. Psalms 103:9-14. But at the same time, we don't take our changes and go out on a limb, we stay close to God and  try to follow closely Jesus.--Natural (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sermon, but you didn't answer my question. LTSally (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the dispute on this topic demonstrates exactly what happens to reading comprehension, reasoning and logic skills through years of dependant thinking. If this sort of double speak wins you over then there’s virtually no hope that you’ll be able see through life's propaganda in order to make reasonable and sound choices.Jadon (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)