Talk:Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses

Earlier discussions on this entry may be found in this archive:

• Talk:Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 01 - Archived old discussions, many undated, most dated prior to November 2003

Let's get it started

Is there a reason why the fundamental 607 doctrine is not mentioned in either the article or the Talk page??

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Jehovah's Witnesses

george 03:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

I just replaced a couple of sentences that were removed from this page without explanation. One compared their belief regarding Jesus Christ being a created being, with that of Arius; the other compared their belief in a spirit-only resurrection of Jesus Christ with early gnosticism. Before someone removes them again, it would be helpful if they provided some rationale for removing this information. Wesley 17:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JW believe that the holy spirit is God's active force, not person. But, Arian is not. And JW believe physical resurrection of Jesus Christ in the 1st Century, then they are not gnosticism. Rantaro 07:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

JWs DO NOT believe in a physical resurrection. They only believe that Jesus materialized physical bodies for himself as required after his resurrection. The belief in his physical resurrection would not be compatible with their belief that Jesus gave his perfect human life as a ransom, which he could not thereafter claim as it would invalidate that ransom.

JW agree with the Arians in the most important respect, namely that Jesus is an exalted created being rather than God Almighty. I think that comparison is still valid. Of course they aren't Arians in every respect. Sorry if I was wrong about them believing in a spirit-only resurrection. Wesley 17:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Similar doctrines or differences

I am having some problems with the intro. In the first three paragraphs we have "The doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses are in many ways similar to those of a number of earlier groups with a nontrinitarian understanding of Christianity, a Biblical moral code and a strong commitment to evangelizing." and "Many of the Witnesses' doctrines differ radically from those of most other Christian groups." First of all, I am not sure, which groups the first sentence refers to. I would prefer to see names here. Maybe it refers to Millerite groups? But then my perception would be that these groups have more in common with mainstream Christianism than JWs have with those groups referred to in the first sentence. So I think that both these sentences are conflicting. How can we sort that out? Heiko Evermann 21:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since nearly six months have gone by without anyone identifying which earlier groups they're talking about, I removed the claim that they are similar to earlier nontrinitarian groups. Can anyone name three such groups that might have been intended as examples? Wesley 17:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the first-century Christian congregation, which is documented in scholarly histories as being non-trinitarian. - CobaltBlueTony 17:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

BAPTISM

Heiko, it was me that removed the reference to the Baptist churches, not Summer Song. Why would you want to single out the Baptists in reference to this section of the article? Why not also include "Catholics, Mormons, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. ...."? I'm sure you get the idea. I don't see why it is not necessary to name any specific groups. When it says in the article that JW's "do not recognize baptisms from any other church" it means "any other church"!!! --DannyMuse 08:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Danny, maybe I misread the history then. Sorry for that. Let me try to explain my point. Maybe we can then find a way to rewrite that in a better way: It is easy to understand that JWs do not accept infant baptism from infant baptizing churches. All Baptists (+Pentecostals, SDA etc) think that way. However those churches that practice "Belivers' Baptism" usually regard each others baptisms as valid. So you can convert from Pentecostal to Adventist and back without having to be rebaptized. It is different with JWs. They insist on rebaptism even though the JWs baptism and the Pentecostal baptism are essentially the same. If I didn't know about JWs, but knew that there are Baptist churches, I would like to be informed about that out of the article. Maybe the little hint in brackets was not enough. After all it is the second time that it was removed. So my proposal is to add 2 pieces of information. 1) JWs insist on rebaptism in the case of infant baptism, because like Baptists (which includes Pentecostals, SDA etc !!) they do not see the requirement of personal dedication met here and 2) they insist on repaptism in the case of a former Believers' Baptism, because ... (well, that I still do not know, and I would really like to know. Perhaps you can help me? Kind regards Heiko Evermann 09:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Heiko, thanks for your clarification. Now I understand why you wanted to add the comment regarding Baptists. I still think that it is an unnecessary addition, but perhaps there is a way to make the point you want. As it was, your reason for including it was not obvious and it seemed to single out Baptist for now apparent reason. Let me think on this a while. But in the meantime you might want to read the recent additions I made to the JW main page under the subheading "Jehovah's Witnesses and other Religions." When you understand JW's view of other religions it becomes clear why anyone that becomes a JW will need to be baptized as such regardless of any and all previous baptisms. Cheers. --DannyMuse 16:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heiko, I've moved your recent changes here for preservation and/or discussion:

• Concerning baptisms of churches that practice infant baptism (e.g. Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans ) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that infants are incapable of making a personal dedication to God and are therefore not eligible for baptism.

"Eligible" is just the wrong word here. As JW's believe that baptism is a symbol of a personal dedication if follows that it is a result of an individual's conscious decision. Infants cannot do this. Eligibilty has nothing to do with it. I know that you feel the point that you are trying to make is important, and I'm all for that, but the way you have worded your revisions is unclear and obscures what JW's believe. This is after a page discussing JW Doctrines, not Catholic, Lutheran, etc.

Also, why did you delete the comments regarding complete immersion? This is important and not all churches practice this, for example Catholics baptize by sprinkling. --DannyMuse 08:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Danny, my dictionary says "eligible: fit to be chosen; legally or morally qualified". When I do a web search for "eligible for baptism", I find quite a number of instances. I thought that this was the technical term. But I am not a native speaker. I meant: infants are not qualified/eligible, _because_ they cannot make a concious decision. And as a side note: your church and my church agree over this point. Concerning the immersion: I did not delete that on purpose. I had thought that I had only moved it. Sorry for that. BTW: Thanks for rewording the baptism paragraph. I like it this way. Now it contains all the information that both of us want to see here. Kind regards Heiko Evermann 09:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Heiko, It's the "fit to be CHOSEN" part of eligible that doesn't work. Our understanding (which seems similar to yours) is that the individual must do the choosing, not someone else for them. This is why I do not think it is the best word to use. Other than that, I'm glad you approve of my last edits. On to the next subject. --DannyMuse 02:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Confusing Prose, Seemingly Random Insertion Points

On 16 Dec 2004, anon user 69.133.109.231 inserted the following statement into the introduction:

"Following Russell's death in 1916, the foundationary structure of biblical understanding was discarded by the new leadership."

To user 69.133.109.231: Could you please clarify what the phrase "foundationary structure of biblical understanding" is supposed to mean? It is very confusing and as worded does not seem to fit in the paragraph where inserted. What is the foundation to which your are referring? The structure? Perhaps if you reworked the sentence it would make more sense. Also, you might consider a more appropriate placement in the article for the point you are trying to make. Thanks. --DannyMuse 12:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Creationism

Concerning creation the article has a rather strange comment: "Witnesses differ from fundamentalist creationist groups in two important ways. " 1) The JW view of creationism is exactly one of the different facets of creationism that one can find. Exactly the same POV can be found elsewhere. The only noteworthy thing might be that JWs agree with each other about this, while different creationist POV can elsewhere be found in one and the same congregation, held by different individuals. So they do not "differ ... in two important ways". It would be better to say something like "Creationism among Christians comes in many different flavours. JWs believe this: xxx" 2) I think the passage should explicitly talk about Christian creationists, because that is what JW creationism should be compared against. (Besides most creationists today are Christians.) And I would like to propose to delete "fundamentalist", because fundamentalist and creationist are not related, and fundamentalist has a bad flavour these days. Kind regards Heiko Evermann

Hi Heiko, I appreciate your call for clarification on this paragraph. JW's definitely believe that Jehovah God is the Creator, but they are not "Creationists" per se. What is the distinction? It is similar to your comments regarding the connotations of "fundamentalist". "Creationist" and "creationism" are generally used in popular discussions in connection with those that believe in a literal 6-Days of Creation, etc. As is explained in the article, this is not what JW's believe. I think a lot of your comments regarding the "different facets of creationism" are certainly valid, but that they belong in articles on that subject. This article is about JW Beliefs and should only include references to differing views where appropriate to distinguish their beliefs from commonly held similar views. That being said, I'll make some edits to try and incorporate your suggestions. Please review and advise. Thanks, --DannyMuse 15:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Creation and the Flood

On 23 Dec 2004, user 81.70.181.229 changed the "Origins: Creation" subhead to "Creation and the Flood", adding comments pertaining to both topics.

While there are certainly related points for both of these subjects I believe they should be handled separately. Intertwining them as they are now leads to an awkward structure of this section lacking coherence. I suggest the section be divided into two separate sections, one for Creation the other for the Flood.

As an additional point, 81.70.181.229 deleted the phrase "theory of evolution of species" from the opening sentence of this section. I believe this is an important phrase both topically and due to the fact this was the subject of discussion that gave rise to this section of the article being developed. So I restored that phrase, attempting to include 81.70.181.229 points concerning creation involving more than just evolution, but also to the creation of the Universe itself. Discussion on these points are welcome! --DannyMuse 18:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On 1 Jan 2005, anon user 81.70.181.229 again removed "Evolution of species" & "on Earth" from the Creation and the Flood section inserting these explanations into the text:

• "saying 'Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the theory of evolution of species' is incorrect as they accept limited evolution occurs as described below"

RESPONSE: This is NOT incorrect. The “as described below” part referenced clearly makes the important distinction between microevolution (which JWs accept) and macroevolution or speciation (which JWs do not accept). Microevolution and "evolution of species" are not the same thing. This is significant. The phrase in question merely begins the section by stating what JWs don't believe regarding evolution. Details follow. Nevertheless, I’ve revised the sentence in question to clarify the modern theory of evolution of species as that based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. Also, as stated above in reference to the 23 Dec 2004 edits, also by user 81.70.181.229, this phrase (evolution of species) is important both topically and due to the fact this was the subject of discussion that originally gave rise to this section of the article being developed. It needs to stay here.

RESPONSE: Baloney. The "Evolution" book explicitly allows for macro evolution by using the "type" qualifier and even goes through the trouble of discussing wolves and dogs if I remember correctly. It is also referenced in talk number...124 I think. This is a common misconception even among witnesses. The "Big Bang" theory also causes problems (but post-Creator book there have been fewer of those). I suggest noting that. I'll come back later and check to see if it has happened.--nickjost

• "'on Earth' is redundant in this sentence; do you mean to say they accept that life elsewhere arose by 'chance'? No, so why specify Earth?"

RESPONSE: On the contrary, the use of the word “Earth” is not redundant but rather emphasizes the point under discussion. For many people, the issue of the origin of the Universe and that of life on earth are different questions. Since we happen to live on Earth, this is the place that most concerns evolutionist. It is also currently the only place at present where we can directly study the evidence. Besides, the next sentence of the article addresses the supposed redundancy.

As user 81.70.181.229 does not participate in the discussion here on the Discussion page, I have inserted a hidden comment into the article text requesting s/he do so. --DannyMuse 18:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Organ Transplants and Vaccines

I have re-entered the dates for the banning of organ transplants and vaccines and the subsequent change of policy. Porthos m said: "There never was any organ ban from what I can understand. . The article from 1967 made clear it was a personal choice" and he or she removed the article. I think it is very important to get facts correct before removing material. If you are not sure, then go and do some detailed research, don't just trash an entry due to lack of infomation.

Here is a small section from the Watchtower magazine where banning organ transplants: "Question from Readers (Watchtower 15th November 1967.) Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one's body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source? . . . Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one's life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. . . When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others."

In 1980 the position was reversed, and but they were still strongly insinuated to be wrong, but no action would be taken against those who chose to have an organ transplant.

In regard to Vaccines they were heavily condemned from 1921 onwards to 1952: "The public is not generally aware of how large an industry is the manufacture of serums, anti-toxins and vaccines, or that big business controls the whole industry......the boards of health endeavor to start an epidemic of smallpox, diphtheria, or typhoid that they may reap a golden harvest by inoculating an unthinking community for the very purpose of disposing of this manufactured filth... Vaccination summed up is the most unnatural, unhygienic, barbaric, filthy, abhorrent, and most dangerous system of infection known. Its vile poison taints, corrupts, and pollutes the blood of the healthy, resulting in ulcers, syphilis, scrofula, erysipelas, tuberculosis, cancer, tetanus, insanity, and death."-The Golden Age magazine, 3 January 1923 p.214

"Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancers, eczema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome affections. Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an outrage and a delusion."-The Golden Age, 1 May 1929 p. 502

This was changed in 1952: "The matter of vaccination is one for the individual that has to face it to decide for himself. Each individual has to take the consequences for whatever position and action he takes toward a case of compulsory vaccination, doing so according to his own conscience and his appreciation of what is for good health and the interests of advancing God's work. And our Society cannot afford to be drawn into the affair legally or take the responsibility for the way the case turns out."-Watchtower magazine, 15 December 1952 p.764

revisited

I think we should consider the conclusion to the 1967 article:

It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105.

This does not sound like a "Ban"

The 1967 article says in very certain terms that the Watchtower Society considered organ transplants to be cannibalism. Further, the quote above says just the opposite of the choice being a 'conscience matter'. It says instead that Witnesses should "look to God for direction", which, according to the Witnesses, is delivered by the 'Faithful Slave', who wrote the article that says that organ transplants are "cannibalism". Ergo - "ban".--Jeffro77 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The conclusion to the 1980 article:

Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

Obviously they reduced the intensity of the article, but not the spirit of the '67 article.

There certainly was no lack of information or research on my part, I just tend to be a bit quick sometimes. The article may have used words such as cannibalistic, which has a very negative tone to it, but this 1969 text, which was the basis for the way the Witnesses viewed organ transplants really just showed that it is a personal decision that you need to take very seriously, weighing in certain biblical aspects, and some chose not to allow their bodies to be subjected to transplants. Did anyone misunderstand this article? I don't know. It might have been so, but the gist of it seems pretty clear to me - organ donations were not banned. This is why I removed the talk of any ban. --7846 22:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Teachings about Jesus

The following reads not like an encyclopedia article but like a bible study.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is the first being that was created by God. They also believe that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ in his prehuman form. Before becoming the man Jesus Christ, he was "the Word" (Greek, Logos) and was with God from the beginning of the creative works of God. (John 1:1, 2; Colossians 1:5; Revelation 1:1; 3:14) Jesus said: "I live because of the Father." (John 6:57) Hence, he was the Son of God, not God himself. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible teaches that Archangel Michael is Jesus Christ in his prehuman form. Why? Because Michael was the archangel, meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel.' Since the term is singular, there seems to be only one. Talking about Jesus, Paul said that he will come "with an archangel's voice." (1 Thessalonians 4:16) If archangel would apply to any other angel, this expression would not have been suitable. The Bible books of Daniel and Revelation also shows that Michael has a very special role in connection with the establishment of God's Kingdom and the time of the end, showing that he must be identical to the Son of God. (Daniel 10:13; 11:2-4, 7, 16, 20, 21, 40; 12:1 Revelation 11:15; 12:7, 10, 12; 16:14-16; 19:11-16) + They consider Jesus Christ to be the embodiment of wisdom. Wisdom Personified - Proverbs 8:22, 29, 30 "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago." Here the verse is talking essentially about two things - namely an abstract quality and a personal being produced by God, according to Jehovah's Witnesses: God's Son. What came to be in the beginning? John 1:1: "In the beginning the Word was." Indeed, this Word (see above) was the firstborn of God's creations. (Colossians 1:15) He is the symbol of wisdom. God has always been wise, yet here wisdom is said to have been created. True the word rendered "produced" (qanah) could also be translated "possessed," but judging from the context, it is to be understood as "created" or "produced". (Compare Genesis 4:1 where a form of qanah, qanithi ("have produced") is used.) Verses 24 and 25 speak about how wisdom is born. "When he decreed the foundations of the earth, then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men." When God said the words found in Genesis 1:9, Jesus was there with him as a masterful worker, a "fosterling" (footnote in NWT) in the sense that he was God's favourite child. Also, what is said here about wisdom matches what is said in the rest of the Bible about God's Son.

The article needs to describe what they believe about Jesus. It does not need to provide an apologetic for that belief, it doesn't not need to provide a study to support it. It does not need to explain why they believe what they believe. If anyone wants to know why the JWs believe the way they do they can head over to the Kingdom Hall or the Watchtower website and ask.

Furthermore, it's patently non-NPOV. Kevin Rector (talk) 23:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ah Yes, as I look more closely now I see it is a C&P job from one of our Publications thus a clear copvio anyway. I apologize for being so hasty before. We definitely need to rework this. It should be deleted from the article and replaced with a proper entry. Anyoone care t help? I am about to get VERY busy again. George 11:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the NPOV copyvio problems. Kevin Rector (talk) 13:14, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Christian teaching developing gradually

The first sentence of the section "Development of Doctrine" states: "A comparative study of New Testament texts shows that many doctrinal points became established as Christian teaching very gradually." Is this really true? Notwithstanding the issues raised if the New Testament is known to have been BS-ing people more and more the farther back in it one goes (that's for another day), the last thing I remember that could be considered a doctrinal change would be the conversion of Cornelius (and thus opening the door to Gentiles), a whopping three years or so after Jesus' death, not exactly a 'very gradual' thing. There's Revelation, but that's just a combination of letters to congregations and a murky prophetic statement of how exactly things that they had already believed forever would occur, not new doctrines. Can anyone point to these "many" doctrines that became established "very gradually?"Tommstein 08:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

abandoned to banned

I agree that the society abandoned these beliefs it's self. But, It does not let individuals to practice these if there consence does not bother them. So they are technicly they are banned.

   *  1921 - Vaccines banned.
   * 1927 - Celebration of Christmas and birthdays (abandoned*)
   * 1928 - Great pyramid of Giza has nothing to do with God's purpose
   * 1930
         o All of Russell's dates were changed, the majority to commence in, rather than be completed by 1914
         o Moved Christ's enthronement as King from 1874 to 1914
         o Moved start of last days from 1799 to 1914
         o Moved Armageddon from 1914 to within a generation, with the understanding of generation changing several times 

   * 1931 - Adoption of the name 'Jehovah's Witnesses'
   * 1932 - Application of restoration prophecies to Christian congregation, rather than to the literal Jews
   * 1935 - Identity of "great crowd" of Revelation 7
   * 1936 - Use of the cross as a religious symbol (abandoned*)
   * 1939 - Complete neutrality in worldly affairs 

Just thought I would comment.--Greyfox 00:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I just changed those instances of the word "abandoned" to the more precise, as you observed, "banned".Tommstein 06:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you--Greyfox 00:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

CD lawsuit

Jeffro77, I inserted that CD lawsuit stuff based on reading their actual lawsuit against quotes.watchtower.ca. The document is at http://quotes.watchtower.ca/scans/2005_09_8_watchtower_statement_of_claim.pdf. Some of the main stuff was the following:

pp. 3-4: "(d) an order requiring the Defendant to deliver up, or destroy under oath, within 3 days of the date of the Order, all reproductions of the Plaintiffs' copyright materials, including the original and all copies of the CD-ROMs, or any part thereof, in any form whatsoever, including on the web site 'watchtower.ca'"

p. 4: "(h) damages for breach of contract and breach of confidence in an amount to be determined prior to the commencement of trial" (1.a.iii makes it clear that this is "the contract relating to use of the Plaintiffs' 'Watchtower Library on CD-ROM'")

pp. 7-8: "19. The CD-ROMs are intended for personal use and study by Jehovah's Witnesses. They include a License Agreement that each user must agree to before being able to use the CD-ROMs.

20. The License Agreement states that each CD-ROM is for the personal use of Jehovah's Witnesses only...

21. The content of the CD-ROMs is not readily available to the general public. Some of the content is intended only for Jehovah's Witnesses, and the introductory letter that precedes the License Agreement in the CD-ROMs restricts their use to Jehovah's Witnesses. The Plaintiffs have protected the confidentiality of the CD-ROMs by requiring each user to agree, prior to use, to the terms of a License Agreement, which restricts use of the CD-ROMs and their software to Jehovah's Witnesses. Accordingly, the CD-ROMs constitute confidential information."

p. 10: "(d) has... used... the Plaintiffs' confidential information in the CD-ROMs."

It is abundantly clear that they are willing to sue for this CD stuff, among the many other things they're happy to sue you for. That they don't state on the CD itself that they will sue you doesn't really matter (although I'm not sure what exactly their other legal remedies are supposed to be, so you could say it's implicitly there too), what matters is that they in fact will. In addition, they are demanding the destruction of all copies of the CD in front of a court of law; that they don't mention on the CD that they'll throw that into your lawsuit too doesn't really matter, what matters is that they will, while telling the court that the CD is supposed to only be for Jehovah's Witnesses. They can try to put a pretty face on the CD all they want, but at the end of the day, real people are getting sued by them in real courts for this. That the CD doesn't itself throw the word "lawsuit" around doesn't matter, since I was making no claims about what they threatened you with on the CD itself anyway. What say you?Tommstein 10:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't trying to suggest that the Society hasn't changed their litigation-happy ways. I have already seen the Society's statement of claim about the 'quotes' site (and I found some of it quite humorous). Despite what point 20 of their claims states, the actual license agreement does not actually say that only a Jehovah's Witness may own or use the CD. It does limit the transfer of the software to a non-Witness, but the agreement places no restriction on a former Witness, ergo a non-Witness, continuing to use or retain the software. Though the "letter" during installation of the software says that the software is for "Jehovah's Witnesses, not for the public", the installation program does not explicitly require agreement with the "letter", and the "letter" does not form part of the license agreement. Therefore it is unclear how they can defend their claim.

As an afterthought, it may also be significant that an ex-Witness is implicitly still legally considered a Witness by the JW leadership... to clarify, they contend that at baptism, a person agrees to submit to the organization (the 2nd baptism question) [even though the suggested verbal contract cannot possibly be binding because it is not provable that the Witnesses are "God’s spirit-directed organization"]. They use this to include that a person has no right to complain about being shunned if disfellowshipped or disassociated, therefore suggesting that the person is still considered subject to the organization's regulations. Additionally, if a disfellowshipped person is reinstated, they are required to have a 'hearing' with the elders, they are not re-baptized, and they are not re-asked the baptism questions, all implying that they still have status as a Witness even after being disfellowshipped.--Jeffro77 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

True, but isn't the new disfellowshipping/disassociating announcement "Name_of_Person is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses?" That makes it pretty explicit where they stand on that.Tommstein 08:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It also occurs to me, their argument in the lawsuit is clearly that the defendant is not a Jehovah's Witness, even though he apparently was until 1998.Tommstein 08:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That is the announcement they use, but semantics aside, a disfellowshipped person is simply not treated in the same way as a typical "member of the public". If ex-JWs in fact have no status with the organization, then to rejoin, they would need to have a bible study, be re-baptized, and would not require a reinstatement hearing. There is nothing in the wording of the licence agreement that states that a former member must relinquish their copy of the software.--Jeffro77 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe their 'people categories' can be split into three: current Witnesses, ex-Witnesses, and never-were Witnesses. No reason to artificially limit it to two categories and then try to figure out which one ex-Witnesses fit into.Tommstein 06:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That said, my main concern with the reference in the article was that the statement on its own may raise more questions than it answers, and may not be necessary/relevant in the 'research' section, and if left in, could do with some clarification--Jeffro77 14:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not talking about the text of their license agreement, or other random letters they stuck in there. The CD could come with no license at all, and it wouldn't change anything regarding their filing lawsuits (that their lawsuit is clearly BS with or without the license is for another day).

But I see what you mean, since "under pain of lawsuit" (or whatever the words were that I inserted) is pretty vague. I'll try to either clear that up or remove it altogether. I'm thinking of something along the lines of 'it is prohibited to give the CD to a non-Witness, and they have filed lawsuits against ex-Witnesses for using the CD and demanded that all copies of it be destroyed.' What do you think about something along those lines? I could probably also add mention about how they consider it confidential information and also take issue with simply revealing any information in it (nevermind that at least 99.9% of it can be obtained otherwise; I'm not actually aware of anything on it that would fit into that 0.1%, but I haven't checked lately).Tommstein 08:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good. Like you say, most of the content of the disc, except for maybe the 'Ministry School guidebooks' and 'Kingdom Ministries', is information they usually want people to take anyway (although I don't think the Insight volumes are generally placed with non-Witnesses either). Most of the quotes on the Quotes website do not reference publications that have not been made available to the public anyway, so it is unclear how those sections could validly be termed confidential regardless of the medium. That said, the Quotes website could just as easily reference the printed form of the same publications, which is covered by 'fair use' anyway, so pushing the CD issue seems more like scare tactics than anything else.--Jeffro77 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no doubt that this whole lawsuit is probably a scare tactic, but the lawsuit is very real. That would be the simplest thing to do, 'fine, since I can't get these words from the CD any more, I got them from the printed publications.' Or maybe someone could figure out how to read the raw data off the CD so that no one has to agree to anything to use it. I've looked, but it's either encrypted or otherwise obfuscated (I don't think it's actual encryption, unless it's some algorithm that some inhouse incompetent came up with, because the data was not nearly random-looking). But as to those changes, I'll probably insert them tomorrow or some other time shortly into the future.Tommstein 06:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

small change in Beliefs About Jesus Christ

They believe he was born of the virgin Mary. Should be changed to they believe that Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary.

It might lead to cofusion. Witnesses do not believe in the eternal viginity of Mary. In which "virgin Mary" implies

possible pov violation

(This logical fallacy of correlation implying causation is parodied in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.)

found at Eschatology: the Condition of the Dead and Judgment Day. --Greyfox 04:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for logical fallacy states, "The presence of a fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises." Therefore the statement is not POV, but simply illustrates that correlating a prophecy with world events without actual proof is, by definition, a "logical fallacy". It is the logic that is faulty, leaving the actual belief as something that may, or may not, be true. The referenced parody is directly relevant to the concept.--Jeffro77 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well believing in the bible period is circular reasoning but you do not see some one putting something like this on the bible page. It sounds like a commentary even though it is true. It needs to be removed it looks out of context and pov.--Greyfox 05:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if people are throwing around logically-invalid reasons for believing the Bible in the Bible article, then those fallacies should be pointed out there too. Not that I especially care whether the sentence in this article stays or goes (and I think Jeffro77 removed it a minute ago).Tommstein 07:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was an encylopedia, It should explain there beliefs not point out problem with them. The reader should figure that out on his own. This is not a critcal thinking page. Go to any of the critical pages or sites for that stuff. Heck, I've wanted to bash the society here too, but there other sites for that not here. --Greyfox 15:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Literal 144,000 and Watchtower's contradiction

I've added some text that is relevant and should be inserted, as it is a fact, from the Watchtower, and rarely even known, let alone acknowledged, but also causes massive problems for the doctrine of the 144,000. Here is the text from the Watchtower showing in their own article that the so called "literal" 144,000 of Revelation 7:4; 14:1, would have been completely filled in the first few centuries had it been a literal number, long before the Watchtower's 'full up' date of 1935 came. Christian martyrs numbered over 901,000 just in this article, and there were hundreds of thousands—if not millions—more who were converted to Christianity, and served their lives faithfully in addition to the 901,000 brutally killed and listed in this article.

Here is the article condensed, with the most relevant bits quoted:

(Watchtower 1951, 1 September, p. 516)

"Nero saw to it that the first of these terrible persecutions set the pace for the rest. At once he caused Christians to be rounded up, summarily condemned and put to death in the most barbaric manner conceivable. Some were thrown to the fierce beasts in the public arena, others were sewed in animal skins and left to the fury of wild dogs, many were crucified, and still others were garbed in combustible materials and ignited to become human torches lighting the gardens of Nero by night. It was in this persecution that the apostle Paul was martyred.

"Brief respite followed the death of Nero, but by the latter years of the first century the second great persecution, under Emperor Domitian, flared up. It is said that in the year 95 alone some 40,000 suffered martyrdom . . . Diocletian assumed the crown A.D. 284. At first he seemed friendly to the Christians, but in the year 303 he gave in to persuasion and opened the tenth persecution, probably the most ferocious of all. Suffocation by smoke, forcible drinking of melted lead, mass drownings and burnings, breaking on the rack of men and women alike ran the empire with blood. In a single month 17,000 were slain. In the province of Egypt alone, 144,000 such professed Christians died by violence in the course of this persecution, in addition to another 700,000 who died as a result of fatigues encountered in banishment or under enforced public works . . . The Devil's vicious assaults by violence against Christianity continued through the Dark Ages, the Reformation and right into the present days. Only the hand of the persecutor, not the basic reasons for persecuting, has changed . . . But for all of this, it is noteworthy that many pagans, even officers in the army, were converted to Christianity by the unwavering faith of the Christians while enduring the cruellest torture . . . The Christian stand of complete separateness from the world and its systems stood out in refusal of military service as in the case of the young Christian Maximilian, who protested that he had taken the badge of Christ and could not as well accept that of the world."

As you can see the Watchtower's argument and doctrine falls once you see how many died, and died horribly for Jesus, and then you have all the others who lived out the entire life as true Christians. Note how the self-righteous Watchtower uses the pejorative slur "professed Christians" against those Christians who died in Egypt: "In the province of Egypt alone, 144,000 such professed Christians died. . ." The Watch Tower Society is clearly trying to demote them to 'fake' or not worthy of the Watchtower's acknowledgment, as it can clearly see just those in that one incident in Egypt would devastate the entire doctrine of a literal 144,000 and remove all power from the organisation, and remove its claim of a "special relationship with God".

The reason this information (and not the discussion here) should be inserted, is because it is a foundation doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses, and without it the entire hierarchy of the organisation and the Governing Body would become impotent, and so it deserves a mention, as it is of such massive magnitude in the organisation's role of a "special channel", and their claims of a literal 144,000 being the "Faithful and Discreet Slave class led by Jesus and God's Holy Spirit" via the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Central 16:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I always wondered if there were statistics on how many Christians there were back in the day. Now I've heard it from the horse's mouth directly. The only defense even theoretically possible is, as you mentioned, that those weren't actually "true Christians," that they had strayed from the original 'true' beliefs. Of course, question number one then becomes, how exactly were the Bible Students back in the day approved members of the 144,000, considering all the stuff they believed that even a modern Jehovah's Witness would recognize as horsecrap. Question two might be, if those early Christians were so screwy, how exactly were there faithful ones throughout all of history until the Bible Students saved the day, and by save the day, I mean also believe stuff that today would be considered apostate by Jehovah's Witnesses?Tommstein 02:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Tom. The problem is the Watch Tower Society has already classified the majority in that article as Christian and part of Christianity, as opposed to Christendom, in which they place all "fake" Christians, even those who have nothing to do with Christendom and her churches. If you note the wording: ". . .these terrible persecutions set the pace for the rest. At once he caused Christians to be rounded up. . . the second great persecution. . . It is said that in the year 95 alone some 40,000 suffered martyrdom. . . in addition to another 700,000 who died as a result of fatigues. . . The Devil's vicious assaults by violence against Christianity continued through the Dark Ages. . . were converted to Christianity by the unwavering faith of the Christians while enduring the cruellest torture . . . The Christian stand of complete separateness from the world and its systems stood out in refusal of military service as in the case of the young Christian Maximilian, who protested that he had taken the badge of Christ and could not as well accept that of the world."

As you can see there is nothing placing these martyrs in the Society's "fake box", except the carefully inserted slur for those who died in Egypt. The Watch Tower Society has written hundreds of articles in the same vain speaking of all the "persecution of Christians", and it never does this in the same way for any in regard to Christendom, unless they were rebelling against some church doctrine and being persecuted for it, then they are classed as real Christians and given some sympathy. The writers of this one article don't appear to see how they are clearly dismantling the Society's whole 144,000 doctrine, and making it blatantly obvious that the numbers of faithful would have been filled up long before any great apostasy came about. They also leave out the numbers that are estimated from secular history, and also all those who happen to live until old age, which by default, and history's accounts, were the vast majority numbering into several million in the first century alone. It quickly becomes apparent with a little research that the 144,000 cannot from this fact alone be a literal number, as it would have been completely filled up over 1900 years ago according to history's accounts, and even by just reading this single Watchtower magazine article it become obvious.

The worrying thing is most JWs know nothing of this article, and have done little research into how many were estimated to have converted in the first three centuries, and are obviously never encouraged by the Watch Tower Society to do that. One can see if the 144,000 is not literal then there is no special "anointed" class, as all Christians are equally in line for a heavenly reward, and are all in the same class. And if the number is literal, then no one is of the anointed, and again this removes all power from the organization and its claimed channel of God teachings. You have also made the point about 607BC, and 1914, if they admit that those dates are incorrect, this also trashes their "we were chosen in 1919 by Jesus" doctrine, leaving them again in a powerless position to claim any special relationship that is better than any other Christian on earth. As we can see, the Watch Tower Society's solution is to just ignore it all and hope to hell no one does any research! Central 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

When you point out specific things from their quotes as you did, they indeed were saying that these were 'true' Christians. No wiggle room left, only the possibility of saying that they have now decided that those were in fact 'fake' Christians after all and that that is another in a long line of wrong articles. The funny thing with 607BC is, they have also similarly printed stuff that allows one to come to the same 586-587 date the rest of the world knows about. I guess not only do they hope that people don't do any research from outside sources, but that they don't do any research from any of their own publications that are more than a couple decades old. The thing is, they're always gonna have people that stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and say "I can't hear you" to any facts they don't like. Take the entire contingent of Jehovah's Witnesses that edits here, who know full well about all this stuff we're talking about (even if they don't know stuff like the finer chronological details of 607BC), and yet just don't give a crap. How many do you think will read the stuff you just posted above and actually leave their religion as just another false one? That's right, probably between 0 and 0. You can only present facts to people, not take action on them for them. At least it's not my life getting pissed away by hard-headedness.Tommstein 16:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses do not see this as a contradiction for the following reason. They teach that the Apostasy foretold by Jesus (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) began in earnest after the death of the last Apostle at the end of the 1st century. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, pp. 310-312) Beginning in the 2nd century, the Church began to adopt teachings that Jehovah's Witnesses believe are deviations from Scripture. (Watchtower 2001, 1 April, p. 14) Therefore, the members of the Church from that point forward are referred to in Watch Tower Society literature as "professed" Christians and are not considered to necessarily be "anointed". The events mentioned in that article took place in the 3rd and 4th centures, a time when Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Apostacy was well under way. Those martyred Christians mentioned in the article were definitly devout and honest-hearted, but they were a part of an organization that was moving away from what Jehovah's Witnesses believe is scriptural Christanity. Hense, the article refers to them as "professed" Christians at one point. This article is not obscure. It is included on the Watchtower Publications CDROM. Also, all of the 1950s Watchtowers were recently reprinted and made available in bound volumes. To say that this doctrinal delimma has never been addressed is incorrect since there are many Jehovah's Witnesses who are aware of the article and have no problem with it for the reasons stated above. You may not agree with their reasoning, but I believe that it should be included in the article. That way readers can decide for themselves how they feel about it. El Goodo 05:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the above quotes more carefully. As we mentioned, they only used the "professed" tag one time, in reference to the 144,000 killed in Egypt. I know what they teach about the apostasy beginning, but that doesn't prevent them from contradicting themselves pretty blatantly here. That's the whole reason this was even brought up, because it contradicts their nominal beliefs. The rest, besides those 144,000 Egyptians, aren't referred to as professed. In fact, re-read the first paragraph of Central's reply that begins "Hello Tom." They are clear that this was the Devil attacking Christianity, not himself, even talking about "The Christian stand." Didn't Jesus say words to the effect of 'Satan doesn't attack Satan' anyway, not that that has a direct bearing on what the magazine said? By the way, on a personal note, that whole episode where Jesus said 'Satan doesn't attack Satan' is one of the more problematic things I ever read in the Bible, especially from the Witness point of view. But one last thing that occurs to me, which I think I mentioned above, is that, if having beliefs different from those of current Jehovah's Witnesses is enough to make someone a non-Christian, then Witnesses were also non-Christian for many decades. In fact, until 1995 to be precise, which was the last time a major change occurred as far as I remember. So, just having beliefs that differ from what the Bible says (according to Witnesses) isn't enough (in the non-doublespeak world) to make someone just a 'professed' Christian, unless Jehovah's Witnesses were also just professed Christians until 1995, and probably still at present, unless they will never, ever revise their beliefs again.Tommstein 08:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the key concept that you (and, admittedly, many others) have trouble understanding is how an organization can claim to represent God and yet at the same time admit to having erroneous teachings. Though Jehovah’s Witnesses view truth as absolute, they believe that God only gives his followers a partial understanding of truth. So Jehovah’s Witnesses view the acquiring of understanding of truth to be a continuous, progressive journey. They view themselves as being on the “path of the righteous ones” that Prov 4:18 says “is getting lighter and lighter”. During the 1st century, Jesus’ followers had their understanding modified many times. Among other things, they had to understand that Messianic kingdom was not a reestablishment of the earthly kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6), that Gentiles would be allowed into this new form of worship (Acts 10:34,35), and that the Christian congregation was not bound by the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:1-29). During this time, the Apostle Paul admitted that they only had partial understanding of truth (1 Cor 13:9). Now Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the anointed class are the ones used by Jehovah God to progressively reveal His truth. Being imperfect humans, however, they have filled in gaps in their understanding with erroneous thoughts. As a result, they must humbly submit themselves to correction. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that this process ended in 1995, but that it continues to this day and will continue into the future. They do not believe that the anointed class is infallible or that its modern writings are inspired. They do believe, thought, that the teachings of this class are continually being refined towards Truth. Now back to the 1951 Watchtower article. The events described occurred in the 3rd and 4th centuries. A time when Christianity was adopting doctrines based on pagan beliefs and philosophies. In the eyes of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they were moving *away* from truth and not toward it. This indicates that they were not following the lead of the anointed class. According to their understanding of the parable of the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that there were anointed Christians among these groups. That is what made these groups targets of persecution from the Devil even though they were not made up entirely of anointed Christians. I appreciate that you incorporated my earlier comments into the paragraph, and though I feel that the paragraph still incorrectly characterises the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I will refrain from editing it further. I believe that would just turn the paragraph into a point-counter point argument and finally render it into an unreadable mess. Personally, I don’t believe that the paragraph belongs in Wikipedia since the goal of the WikiProject Jehovah’s Witnesses is to present unbiased information on who Jehovah’s Witnesses are and what they believe. I believe that it would be better to place this discussion on one of the many web sites devoted to discussing the validity of the beliefs and teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, I’m satisfied that I’ve had my say, and I’ll leave it to those of you on the WikiProject Jehovah’s Witnesses to determine what to do from here.El Goodo 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A clear contradiction between an article they published and their nominal beliefs is certainly something worth noting. Most or all of us who will ever seriously edit this article already know all that stuff you mentioned, but the point of this paragraph is that they have actually admitted in an article that there were well over 144,000 Christians (with no disclaimers like 'merely professed') back in the day, while the rest of the time they ignore that and say no, there weren't 144,000 until modern times. It's a case of them having shot down their own doctrine.Tommstein 08:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Idols"

• In other contexts "idols" aremuch better rendered cult images. Here though, "idols" does seem appropriate, so I haven't changed it --21:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Name of God=

I would like to suggest the following Paragraph(s) instead of what appears now. Three main changes 1) explaining the link between the Septuagint and the occurrence in the autographs. 2) explaining, “no proof” that appears in the second sentence. 3) droping the redundant information in next Paragraph namely, “Again, the relationship between the Septuagint and New Testament autographs that the Jehovah's Witnesses are trying to make is unclear.”

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the Tetragrammaton originally appeared in some places in the autographs of the New Testament, but was subsequently removed by scribes. There is no definite way to proof this claim since we do not have the original autographs. What they use to support this claim is that some ancient fragments of the Septuagint Greek Old Testament contain the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters. They feel that when the NT writers quoted the Septuagint, where the Tetragrammaton appeared, or quoted the OT, that they would have been obliged to faithfully include the Tetragrammaton. [Reference the NWT Appendix 1D] They do acknowledge, however, that no extant NT manuscript contains the Tetragrammaton.

more to follow Johanneum 15:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

mo

Merger

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. BenC7 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)