Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

Further Reading

In the section called further reading I noticed there are several obviously anti-witness books listed. Is this article about Jehovah's Witnesses or is it about promoting a hateful agenda? I realize that the world hates Jehovah's Witnesses and the internet is where the world shares it ideas but this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article isn't it. By the way the rest of the article is horrible.Jesse Jaimes (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"the world hates Jehovah's Witnesses" is paranoia (albeit paranoia encouraged by the leadership of the group). Outside of its view of itself, the JW religion is just another religion, and it is subject to the same kind of critical review as the rest of the universe. Unless the books are for the purpose of hate speech, they are acceptable. If you think the rest of the article is horrible, improve it, but bear in mind that POV edits won't last long.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Erm, man. You are talking about paranoia encouraged by the leadership of the group. That will I call an extreme statement from you. I can't say I support the comment of Jesse James, but it does not seem that you are making it better. Summer Song (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not an extreme statement. To demonstrate, I quote, verbatim, from a scripted talk given at conventions worldwide in 2003. Note that this particular part of the talk was explicitly directed to young children in the audience: "So my dear young friends, think about this: any of your peers who try to weaken you spiritually may say they care about you, they may even say they love you. But it's a fact that they don't. And don't believe even for a moment that they do." ("Beware the Voice of Strangers", script talk, 2003) I know the statement was made as stated, because I was in attendance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeffro, what is extreme in the statement you heard there? Should it be considered wrong to warn young people about somebody if they tried to weaken them spiritually? And how would you call that paranoia? Summer Song (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In the context of this discussion, the weakening of their sprituality is incidental. Telling young children that their non-JW friends are categorically lying when they say they love them certainly encourages paranoia, and is cruel at best. Do you actually imagine that the young peers of these children actually deliberately set out with an explicit motive of 'weakening other children's spirituality?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeffro77, the world in general hates Jehovah's Witnesses, a quick google search shows it.The fact that this page is under attack constantly shows it. the "further reading" section shows it. Jesse Jaimes (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Who exactly is "the world" outside of JW jargon? Do you really imagine that JW is the only religion that is controversial? Do you express the same righteous indignation when you see that "the world" hates Scientology? or the Exclusive Brethren? or any other minor religion? Or do you sit back and scorn at them along with the rest of "the world" (of which you are in reality a part)?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeffro77, thank you for your interest in my views. the world as in the world which hates christians the way it hates Jesus, is the same world that Jesus told his followers to be no part of. My beliefs on this would naturally place all non Christian religions in "the world". Additionally all religions which claim to be Christian but at the same time fail to show a Christ like love of their neighbors, failing to obey the One Jesus identified as The Only True God, his father, YHWH. You see YHWH told his people to obey his son, Jesus. Now Jesus told the ones who were following him and being obedient to him to put away their swords. Not only to put away their swords but to go and teach other people to be Christian and put away their swords too. So Jesus' followers are no part of the world. The world by the way is involved in a huge war right now. Do you think Jesus' followers would be involved in the war in any way? (Now I have asked for your opinion). To summarize my opinion (thanks again for asking) the world is everyone who hates a Christian religion which abstains from Politics and wars and other world type stuff. Peace Jesse Jaimes (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supplying that stock JW footage. The question was, who exactly is "the world" outside of JW jargon? The reply above does nothing to answer the claim that JWs are uniquely hated by "the world". There are books that speak negatively about JWs, just as there are books that speak negatively about just about every other religion (and just about every other social grouping). Where you feel that "the rest of the article is horrible", please feel free to make the appropriate changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you I will Jesse Jaimes (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
JW's generally believe they are hated and actually pride themselves on this since it is one aspect that defines their position as being separate from "the world". If you believe you love Jesus a JW could argue that you actually hate Jesus if you don't agree with their understanding of the bible. I believe Jeffro77 glossed over the definition of "worldly", if you spend any time listening to JW sermons you will find this word used commonly and that it's classification encompasses all of those outside of the organization, those who disagree with or do not follow their teachings. "Worldly friends", for example, is a generic term commonly used to describe companionship with anyone outside of the organization and these people are not recommended for association. Therefore being classified as "worldly" automatically associates a negative distinction on the person(s) labeled in this respect, a "bad associate".Educated threat (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For one I am a JW & I am highly appalled at your statements we don't prize ourselves at being verbally & physically attacked because of people's prejudices & ignorance. We believe that all people should know our opinions about God which is why we so openly put ourselves out into the community preaching taking that risk of being harassed. the proper name for this is called field service I put that at the top in the paragraph I wrote about JW's since I am one. Also as I put everyone should get over their arrogant ways & realize everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Yes I believe being a JW is the right choice I was born a JW but I might add that I have attended churches of different religions than my own to broaden my horizon & see different aspects of religion. I have went to Pentecoastal, Baptist, & Methodist churches. But whenever I go out with my friends who are of those religions guess who gets degraded when asked the question "what's your religion". No its not something I pride in fact its something that hurts my pride & sometimes makes me feel outcast. You should feel ashamed for making such a unjust statement. That would be really offensive to elders on a JW congregation. Thats like cyber bullying teenagers. Personally my religion is mine & your religion is yours. Neither of us or anybody else for that matter has a right to critcize us for it. I came to correct some of the data that was wrong on the JW Wikepedia page but instead decided to discuss my beliefs where I figured they could be heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.162.221 (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jesse Jaimes, Do encyclopedias count as being part of the world that hates Jehovah's Witnesses? In fact, the citations are exactly what Wikipedia want. I quote from the Wikipedia:Verifiability page: "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."

To the "unsigned" person who wrote the last comment before mine, that applies to your experiences too. You're not a suitable reference source for an encyclopedia, because YOU'RE NOT PUBLISHED. And if you were self-published, that still wouldn't count.

It doesn't really matter what people's personal experiences of "truth" have been. Your statements need to be verifiable to be in this encylopedia. Andrew Holden, for one, writes in one of his books (which would be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia standards) that not much has been written about Jehovah's Witnesses by the academic press. Even if you add in newspaper articles, there's not really very much about Jehovah's Witnesses that qualifies for an encylopedia article. 220.237.33.216 (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That last comment was by me when I wasn't logged in. I meant Andrew Holden, not Andrew Morton.

Mandmelon (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"False Religion" opening statement

What's the deal with the 'false religion' opening statement? Doesn't strike me as very 'objective'?? Supremedalek (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously inappropriate, and I've removed it. Feel free to remove anything obviously inappropriate yourself. I'm surprised it stayed there as long as it did.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jeffro77. I cannot think of an instance were labeling any religion as "false" would be a neutral or objective presentation for encyclopedic presentation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Write

I have shortened the article quite a bit, relying more on sub pages. I have tried to keep it neutral. Please at least look it over before rejecting it. Thank you all. Jesse Jaimes (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(Re-entered after edit conflict). I reverted the article change because it comprised deletions as well as modifications, making the changes difficult to identify. Suggest trimming out paragraphs separately to changing content. I have also done a copy edit on the lead. The most significant change is the removal of 'self-identifies'. Instead, I have left out 'Christian' and entered the term, 'restorationist', which can't be disputed and inherently includes their self-identification as Christians without implying bias. (That change also made later statement of restoration to Christianity redundant.) The rest of the changes are largely improvements in grammar (though I'm still not happy with the run-on sentence at the end of the section).--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeffro77, I agree with your edit to the lead-in. Jesse Jaimes (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the run-on sentence, as the inclusion of too many controversial issues in the lead is unnecessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the original definition of "false religion" was everything that wasn't Roman Catholic. Well I think we all agree that the term is obsolete, incorrect and subjective at best. One can personally believe that a religion is false if it varies from the doctrine of one's own religion.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several references left over from the original article that now have little if anything to do with the text they are associated with. I do not have time to re-read the references, but someone should take time to make sure referenced material actually verifies statements in the new re-vamped article. Also, some of the reference material is bungled do to formatting.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I will begin my first wikipedia post with the disclaimer that, though I have read the page relating to the proper use of the talk page, I may not understand it after all, and may be in some violation here. I apologize, if so. I read the article twice first, then looked over the extensive references and, finally, I read all the posts herein above. I find the article as it stands today to be rather thorough, inclusive, and fairly factual, without much, if any, biased language positive or negative. On one point brought up in the above discussions I wanted to offer some further information that might be helpful in your further attempts to fill out the article's "weak" areas. I believe the participants in translating the version of the Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses allegedly chose to remain anonymous for what they seemed to think was a valid and unsuspect reason. Someone with current access to some of their literature around the time this Bible version was released may be better qualified to research this and verify it. As I understand it, these translators chose to remain anonymous to avoid creating a situation in which congregation members might start "following after men" rather than focussing on the scriptures themselves. The impression I have is that they wanted to avoid creating cult-like circumstances in which, because of their acknowledged role in translating the scriptures, they might be viewed as heroes, individual men worthy of some sort of veneration themselves. There was some reference to the names associated with other translations, and the fame and controversy visited upon these individuals which diverted focus from the scriptures themselves, to the translators. If this is so, and as I said, some of you may be better qualified to verify or refute this impression of mine, then it may prove impossible to get from them (and possibly accurately get from anyone) the names of the original New World Translation translators. This may appear to many to be suspect. It may be thought that Jehovah's Witnesses don't want these individuals more closely scrutinized by the rest of the world. I'm not sure such a POV could be proved, disproved, or objectively defended, and feel it might be good to find the reference, if it exists, which verifies my impressions. This claim, if it exists, could be quoted from that source where it may be found, to counterpoint the suspicion that they may have other, less noble motives for keeping these names secret. If such a reference can't be found, I apologize in advance for any time my contribution may waste. ResidentPoet (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Source of vowels for Jehovah

In the article it is stated the source is adonai. However, obviously, the first vowel of adonai is not the first vowel of Jehovah. I think the source is also the Hebrew (plural of excellence)word for God: Elohim.

Also, note that all Bible names containing the Divine Name begin with either the long form Jeho or the shorter forms Jo or Je (e.g. Jehoshua; Joshua; Jesus)- in English. Or end in ah. Paulharth (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulharth (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that application to Jesus, which is Greek. I believe that Jesus is equivalent to Joshua. The "J" should really by "Y" since it is pronounced so. My guess is that Europeans used the "J" in transliteration; for example in German the "J" has a "Y" sound. "Pslams 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him." --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, J and Y were once the same sound and letter. It's not a transliteration issue. It's an issue of the evolution of the European languages. J and Y became separate letters and sounds over time. Some cultures retain those sounds as being the same even today, such as in Latin American versions of Spainish, where the sounds are used interchangably. --Fcsuper (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification to "Beliefs: Jehovah"

One possibility of resolving the issue, and clarifying the article would to be to include the statement under the Beliefs / Jehovah section:

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's name, in English,[3] is Jehovah, an Anglicized vocalized form of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton יהוה appearing throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Jehovah's Witnesses cite numerous Bible translations for their belief in using the name "Jehovah" such as; The Jerusalem Bible, The American Standard Version, Youngs Literal Translation and others that have also included this Anglicized form of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton יהוה . Jehovah's Witnesses believe it is proper to transliterate what they consider the divine name from the original Hebrew to whatever language the individual speaks. Therefore, they pronounce the name: "ye-GO-vah" in Russian, or "ye-ho-VA" in Spanish. 'Jehovah' is how they transliterate the Tetragrammaton יהוה or "ha-Shem" into English. Critics to this belief state that there is no way to know what vowels were used, since written Hebrew only uses consonants, and there is no record of the vowels used. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the meaning of the name, and its use is more important however, than knowing exactly what vowels were used, and cite scriptures such as Ezekiel 38:23 for their belief. They also maintain that since any single language changes throughout time, there is no way to know if the Tetragrammaton as pronounced by Moses, was similar to the divine name as pronounced by Malachi."

Of course, some references would be needed for such a cleanup, but I'm sure there are many such references to be found.Airelon (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Assumption in Article

I appreciate the changes in the article clarifying that Jehovah is not the clear pronounciation of the Tetragrammaton, and, in fact, is likely the reading of it with the vowels of adoni added for ease of reading by devout Jews. However, I notice that as the paragraph progresses on Jehovah the assumption is made that Jehovah is the proper reading, for example: "The name Jehovah is mentioned 7,210 times in the scriptures". It would seem the least biased would be to say, "The Tetragrammaton is mentioned..."

This would seem best as, those who accept Jehovah to be the proper reading would have no problem with this nor would those who believe the Jehovah is based off of reading the vowel for lord added in Masoretic text. 162.82.215.196 (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the etymology of "Jehovah" should not be discussed in the article at all under Beliefs (but perhaps under controversies instead). It isn't a feature of JW's beliefs. They simply promote the name Jehovah and do not go into detail as to its origins, other than to say that their god declares this as his name and that they believe it means "He causes to become". These beliefs should not be stated as true facts in the article, however, because they are not verificable. Also, I removed the Tetragrammaton statement as it does not support the context in which it was being used, it was unsourced, it is possible POV, and it is likely a mistatement confusing their bibles use of Jehovah with the actual appearance of the Tetragrammaton. Also removed was the supposed meaning because the reference did not support the statement, nor does the statement represent the beliefs of JW's (at least no cited references supported it). --Fcsuper (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Books

Jesse Jaimes has removed mention of some of the books in the 'Further Reading' section and replaced them with a link to the Controversies article. I'm in two minds about whether that's appropriate, but I'm happy to leave it as is if others don't object. What I'm confused about is the presence of the book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended in the list of critical publications at the other article. Is the book critical of JWs, or is the objection merely that the author is not a JW?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Jehovah's Witnesses Defended is a Pro Jehovah's Witness book. --Saujad (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the author has said he is still calling himself a JW, but no longer supporting the organization. His position has been discussed earlier in this Talk page. Summer Song (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that in the most recent edition of the book he is attacking the organization and certain doctrines, but still defending other doctrines. Summer Song (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that our links section and other reading is one sided. Shouldn't we have a variety of views represented here? Dtbrown (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Eschatological Graph

The chart on the front page, “History of Eschatological Doctrine” is not a chart that is in agreement with Jehovah’s Witnesses teachings. Being on the front page implies that this is a their teaching. This is a graph by opposers of JW’s and needs to be placed with opposing view of Jehovah Witnesses or on the Eschatology site. Jehovah Witnesses understanding of certain dates has often been phased and understood as statements such as this: “where the Scriptures are not definite upon a point we cannot know for a certainty what these corresponding dates do represent, if they represent anything.” The graph displayed does not show the lack of uncertainty that the Watchtower publishes or Jehovah’s Witnesses generally understand. --Saujad (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by not showing the lack of uncertainty. Where should the chart be more definite? In any case, the chart does show a fairly accurate overview of the dates that were considered as accurate for various events in JW eschatology at various times. If there are specific dates that you think are incorrect, please indicate them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah Witnesses do teach certain events occur on certain dates. But I call into question many of the dates displayed on this chart.

I can say this chart displays dates that are not recognize as a teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses or printed in their literature. Some of dates displayed were mere speculations by some Witnesses so I do not believe should be recognized as a teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses as this chart implies. Whoever created this chart needs to provide proof that the dates displayed were teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If the contributor can not prove any of the dates this chart should be removed. --Saujad (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates alleged to be "mere speculations" were not simply arrived at arbitrarily by "some" members. Specific statements in Watchtower literature pointed to specific dates and, at the very least, encouraged speculation regarding those dates. For example, many Witnesses today imagine that 1975 was not specifically taught by the Society. However, they admitted as much in 1980 (The Watchtower, 15 March, 1980, page 17, para5-6). See also Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses#Encouraging Irresponsibility--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses back then. Majority of any discussions concerning 1975, in talks or literture, stopped by 1970 because of speculation. And it was well understood by all it was "speculation". But the Witnesses did not realized that some were putting so much hope in just a date. It really came as a big surprise that some were disappointed.

But it is not just the date of 1975 in the chart that I question.--99.194.147.98 (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


I can provide a list of what specific events are taught on certain dates if you would like.--Saujad (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was a JW too. Despite the fact that they did make predictions about the future that did not occur, 1975 is not one of them. They never said the end in 1975 or other fixed date after 1975 John196920022001 (talk)
The article Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses explains and documents the material from the graph. Dtbrown (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


This is in response to some of the statements of Saujad... the Wiki objective is fact over opinion, unbiased history over any group's official and often rose-colored self reflection. Personal feelings or memories are immaterial to an encyclopedia, and you are wrong about the emphasis of 1975 ending in 1970 (see Watchtower 1974 December 15 p.766). If you have found through RESEARCH any problems, point them out, but please don't waste people's time because you find the organization's history here on Wiki embarrassing. The point of the Eschatology chart is not to show the modern "official" stance, but rather it's being posted in the HISTORY section to show various different dates that were accepted at some historical point by the group's populous. It says nothing to about "speculation" or "uncertainty", nor does such even matter... if these dates were accepted enough to be published and emphasized to any level (particularly if people changed their lives based on such information), then the chart stands correct. These failed dates may not have ever been important to you, but just by looking at any growth chart you can easily see it was very important to thousands of others... don't forget that people's entire lives changed because of the date-setting mindset of this organizations history. If thousands of people made poor choices, like quitting their jobs, putting off children & marriage, running up debt, selling their homes, etc. to serve an organization based even partly on a date (Kingdom Ministry May 1974 pg.3) then it deserves to be documented and mentioned in the history section of the organization, regardless if the same organization now distances themselves from many of these dates. It’s only convenient to blame the followers for “reading too much into what was written and said” instead of the leadership bearing any responsibility at all for false direction. User:GlennJohnson 12:10, 27 August 2008

I can see Saujad's point about moving the chart to a different page. I think that Jehovah's Witnesses and ex-Jehovah's Witnesses have at least one thing in common - they want other people to know about the religion. Therefore, we should all agree that this page should be a good read, right? At the moment, it's a little dry. What I think is interesting is people, drama, hopes, dreams, new hopes etc. The facts need to be there too, but this is the history of human beings.

That's the value of secondary sources, which are the ones Wikipedia prefers so as to avoid original research. (Primary sources are ones that are close to the origin of the story - eyewitness accounts, archeological artifacts, religious scripture, historical documents. Secondary sources are ones that ANALYSE primary sources. Tertiary sources are encyclopedias.) The IMPLICATIONS of the facts are discussed in secondary sources. The human EFFECTS are discussed there. That way, the research is found in the source, not on the Wikipedia page.

If the eschatalogical graph hasn't been previously published in the format that it is presented on this page, it's probably "original research" and should go. Third-party sources need to be relied on.

I think that most of the information about the presidents should be on their own pages too. Mandmelon (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

silent lambs

I propose a paragraph written about silent lambs with a reference to the website. I can be written by a JW. i don't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falisrm (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The website in question relates to a specific issue regarding JWs, which may be appropriate to list at the article, Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse, but is too specific for the general Jehovah's Witnesses article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Eschatological Doctrine 2008 change

I don't see why the graph changed from imminent to indeterminate for the year 2008. Is there some footnote or reference available? As far as I know, it is still viewed as imminent and indeterminate. So maybe the graph should say both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.149.98 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Witnesses still believe the Great Tribulation would be within the within the generation of 1914 now as well in 1925. This we understand to always be to imminent as well as indeterminate. The graph needs to include all three, within the generation of 1914, imminent and indeterminate since 1925. Realistic this graph is not accurate. --209.102.147.89 (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Watchtower of February 15 2008 presented an altered view of the generation, indicating that it can refer to an extended period of overlapping lifespans, significantly increasing the possible length of the period. This has been mentioned on the Talk page for the eschatoloty template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not true. The teaching changed from 'within a generation of 1914' to indeterminate a few years ago. But I can't understand why that chart of missed dates is in the main article in an encyclopedia which's purpose is to provide general unbiased information. Having a chart of missed dates is a very explicit attempt to gear the reader's opinion against the subject and is therefore not neutral. Please read the weasel words article here on Wikipedia on idioms that should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.247.45 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The chart shows their eschatological beliefs at various times. The fact that those beliefs were/are incorrect does not necessitate that those beliefs not be mentioned. If you have better wording that still conveys the information honestly, go ahead and change it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The chart has a specific purpose, to show instability of doctrine in JWs. Why haven't you made a chart with the basic doctrinal positions about God, Jesus, Holy spirit, baptism, neutrality, soul, paradise, creation, etc, so that may be an overall view of JWs' doctrines in the course of time? Is it because that would show the opposite of the intended? Or make a chart of beliefs in Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy? I can assure you that it would be very interesting.--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the chart is about their eschatology, not a catchall for every doctrinal change they've ever made. Indeed, why haven't you made a chart with the basic doctrinal positions about God, Jesus, Holy spirit, baptism, neutrality, soul, paradise, creation, etc?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Truth

shouldn't it say something about jahova's being wrong because in the bible it says god's son is jesus and that they are all going to burn in hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.94.154 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is NEUTRAL. That means we don't pick a side. If you mean criticisms of them, then yes, there is a controversies section, and a complately different article as well. Agelseb (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

the truth is NOT picking a side

Avoidance of nationalism and other religions

I propose some sort of merger of "Avoidance of nationalism and other religions" and "relationship with governments," since they seem redundant.--Brotherlawrence (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this issue has been addressed now, though I would suggest section on avoidance with mixing with other religions needs more work in and of itself. --Fcsuper (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations?

The oppositions section has no citations, (I'm working on a research paper and I was looking for some sources, and there are none) yet lists dates and places and views. I propose we delete this, or someone find some citations. Perhaps this even ought to be merged with controversies? I don't pretend to be an expert on JWs, but I would be glad to help. Agelseb (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved some of the comments to the History section and deleted the section. If I was too bold, perhaps some of the material can be restored? What do others think? Dtbrown (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Proselytization techniques (organization, list-keeping, methodology, etc)

Can more be said about the techniques used to decide which houses are visited?

For example, are lists kept regarding which houses have been visited, which ones are "hostile" and should be avoided, and which ones do not respond when visited?

Does each member of a local Jehovah's congragation feel compelled to visit each house in a given area, or is it the goal that each house be visited by at least one member?

I have watched Jehovah's as they visit the various houses in my neighborhood, and there are some houses they do not even attempt to visit. Do they maintain a central, shared or combined municipal list of which houses have been visited, and which ones should be avoided? They seem to meet (in a car) after a walk-about and compare notes - presumably about which house they visited, and which ones did not answer the door?

Is there anything that can be placed on your door or the exterior of your house that is a recognized "do not attempt to proselytize" message for Jehovah's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.219.48 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


There really is no need to have information added to Wikipedia on this. Their evangelizing is pretty much common sense.

Witness try to systematically visit each home in a given area.

Notes are taking on homes where no one answered the door (not at home) and homes where someone expressed interest in the Bible. If no one was at home they try to come back and try on a later time or day. If someone expressed interest in the subject they have shared, they will usually ask if they can come back and answer any more questions that they have.

If someone does not want Jehovah's Witnesses to call at your home you can tell them that directly. They do try to keep a list to respect people's wishes. A sign in the doorway "no proselytizing" or "no Jehovah's Witnesses" will be also be respected if they can see it.--209.102.147.6 (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You ought to try and have at least one good conversation with them. They take a significant amount of time out of their lives doing a work that they are not payed to do. They do not deserve to be shooed away like salesmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.204.213 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Encouraged

nannyemma changed 'instructed' back to 'encouraged', claiming that what was stated was only a 'conscience matter'. Not only is 'encouraged' employed by JWs as a euphemism for telling them something they're 'supposed' to do, but "conscience matter" is also jargon unique to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Documents stolen from official site improperly linked in reference #120

My understanding is that Wikipedia does not condone plagiarism. The links in reference #120, namely for Harvest Siftings, and Harvest Siftings II as well as links once referenced for the original schism documents (Light After Darkness, Facts for Shareholders of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society et. al.) were stolen from the official CT Russell website run by the Bible Students, and therefore should not be linked to the offending website currently listed in said reference. They should be linked to their initial and originating source - www.pastor-russell.com. However, every time I or other persons (not connected with me or the website) have attempted to correct this problem somebody decides to change it back. This problem needs to be addressed rather than glossed over. Plagiarism is a serious matter. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The documents in question are not unique to your site. I have scanned Light After Darkness and Facts for Shareholders from copies I own and provided them to various webmasters. See, for example, [1] and [2], or [3] and [4]. I am working on getting copies of Harvest Siftings I and II to do the same. Dtbrown (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Pastorrussell, if the copyright of the works you refer to has expired, it doesn't matter if they are taken from your official site or some other place.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It should also be mentioned that the site user Pastorrussell promotes has no real official standing. It may claim to be the "official" Charles Taze Russell site, but it has no official standing. To be "official" would require the endorsement of either Pastor Russell himself or of his estate. Pastor Russell, of course, is no longer alive and his estate was left to the Watchtower Society. I have asked other Bible Students their opinion of the claim that www.pastorrussell.com is somehow "official" and they deny the claim. Dtbrown (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No, not saying that the all of the documents are unique to the site, but several of the documents are entirely unique, being the only copies known to exist. The main point made in this subject heading is that the website which is cited in the reference #120 took them without permission and claims them as their work, and that individuals OTHER than myself (who aren't even Bible Students) who have placed the correct citation have it reverted for no reason. With all due respect there seems to be an editorial clique associated with this article and many entirely appropriate links, comments, etc... are removed without cause. There have been individuals that have tried to avoid the official site through any means possible, which is expected. As to whether or not pastor-russell.com is official or not, it is endorsed by his remaining relatives, and most Bible Students who alone represent Pastor Russell. JWs have no connection with him whatsoever other than by claim, an investigation of which would prove such a claim to be without merit. They warn their followers not to read his works, and caution them to have nothing to do with any Bible Students who they feel represent an apostasy doomed to eternal destruction from God's wrath. Those "Bible Students" who opined may be unaware of the facts, and it also depends who was asked as there are several different Bible Students with their own views, agendas and preferences. I won't press this matter, but the facts are evident and whether or not an unbiased path is followed is left up to one's individual conscience. Pastorrussell (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a serious charge to claim that www.biblestudents.net stole the documents from you. Copies of Harvest Siftings I and II and Light After Darkness, etc. are rare but are owned by others than just you. So, how can you claim they are stolen? I'd say that if the only source of a document is one from your site we ought to use it. However, because the PDFs are watermarked with "www.pastorrussell.com" all through them, they are less useful than a PDF without that. Just because you were able to secure the domain name you have does not make your site "official." Endorsement by relatives does not make a site "official," nor does endorsement by some of the Bible Student groups make your site "official." You need to stop making that claim here on Wikipedia. You have an interesting site and it contains many interesting documents. But, it is not endorsed by either Pastor Russell or his estate. Dtbrown (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is neither my desire nor intent to falsely accuse or to be involved in any form of evil speaking of any other individual in any conceivable fashion. The words used in the subject heading are truthful, and need to be known, and were presented as mere fact so that the problem could be rectified. It is not my intention to engender any anger or spiteful disagreements. Likely my wording could have been better, and where I've failed I do apologize. Online text is a terrible means of communication as it leaves out so much of what we experience in face-to-face communication. However as for the status of the site, the claim is not false and is fully supportable. Because Wikipedia often requires independent outside sources to state something before it can be referenced or cited, the status of the website is becoming more evident to outsiders including two authors, at least one professor, one national politician, and is starting to reach elements of the press all of which under Wikipedia could be used as valid sources. In order to make sure the discussion remains friendly and prevent the issue from becoming in any way heated or mixed up with unrelated and irrelevant facts, this is my last comment under this subject heading. Pastorrussell (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The documents were not "stolen" or taken without permission. pastorrussell.com does not own the documents. The copyright on those documents has long expired. The statement that JW have nothing to do with Russell is also irrelevant, as the JWs are not the Bible Students. Statements that the originals of those documents are unique is irrelevant because the digital copies are obviously not unique. In any case, the material referred to in 'reference #120' was the work of Rutherford, not Russell. Finally, the user pastorrussell should not be promoting his own site on Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
O.K. outsider time. You are both RIGHT and you are both WRONG. Pastor Russell was the entirely first place to make those scans available on the world-wide-web many many years ago and was copied with links all over the web. When people saw it they got pissed and many stole them and sold them on ebay and lied about it being theirs AND STILL DO I might add. I ALSO put the link on here (wikipedia) and it is removed each and every time and I am not a Bible Student so something is wrong. Other people make scans even though they are already on the web on that web site for years. You guys are ganging up on him and he's right there's a click on here because only four people edit it and anybody different is ALWAYS deleted. Unfair? You bet! You're not an appointed committee. Try to look outside your little group. Who cares if the web site is the official or isn't the official. Chill out all of you! It's not a big deal. Like mom says you should play nice. Remember it's not just your ball. Everyone gets to play.Bbltype (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Bbltype, are you affiliated with www.pastorrussell.com and its webmaster? The other day you uploaded an image here [5]. As part of the comment you stated: "(Private Collection - Eric Patterson - www.pastor-russell.com)." And then you uploaded the picture to the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article here [6], referring to it having been stolen. What I found odd is that awhile ago user Pastorrussell uploaded a picture of C.T. Russell to Wikipedia with the same tag: [7]. The tag for that picture reads: "Photograph of Charles Taze Russell, 1911 Eric Patterson http://www.pastor-russell.com." According to these sites [8], [9] this is the same person who runs the www.pastorrussell.com site. Dtbrown (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
None dare call it conspiracy? No, I'm not connected to it or him and do not know them or him. But I wrote them a few times they answered only once and I stopped writing. Other Bible students contact me and seem nice enough. The pictures are on his web site and in the past he named them and some one here took it down and altered it. So, I fixed it and did it for other's too. Normally I couldn't care less but really ganging up isn't kosher and it's getting very weird. Maybe you don't like anything Russell or Witnesses- guessing? It affects objectivity. Whatever. Defending the oppressed is my claim to fame. I'm getting wiki-burn-out. PS My initials are BB. Bbltype (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pastorrussell et al:

I am confused. It is not plagiarism to cite and quote from published material regardless of who owns that material. It is not plagiarism for a writer to cite from where he or she gained access to published material, even if the source of access stole the material from someone else. So on what basis is the charge of plagiarism made?

Any writer worth their weight in salt will cite the source they access for the data they use. If the source obtained the data illegally or unethically that is a matter to be taken up between the victim and the thief. The writer and researcher’s duty it to faithfully report what they learn from where they learned it, and to accurately disclose both.

As for specific materials cited, though paster-russell.com is apparently a source to access these documents it is neither the author nor the original publisher. Proper bibliographic information would included author and original publisher, and in the case of republished copy the later publisher should also be mentioned whoever that happens to be. So my confusion is arises because I see no reason for the complaints I see.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

___________________

Plagiarism is defined as “1. a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work ; 2. the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.”

The writings you claimed to be plagiarized, are not yours to own. They are in fact “public domain.” There were NEVER any copyright dates on these writings. They were the explicit writings of the original author[s]. None of these writings were written by Pastor Russell, as they were more or less about the events after his death. Events that happened over 75 years ago. Any copyrights have longed expired.

Since they are public domain, they are owned by NO ONE, including yourself. “Public Domain is defined as – “The status of publications, products, and processes that are not protected under patent or copyright.”

However since you insist on this matter of plagiarism and ownership, you yourself are in violation of such. How? You have copies of pages taken from the “1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses” and “Jehovah’s Witnesses Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom” owned and copyrighted by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. You also have material by Paul S.L. Johnson, who left his estate to the Layman’s Home Missionary Movement, a movement still in existence and continue to publish and copyright Johnson’s writings.

Also let it be known that Research Applications International produced a CD Rom in 2003: Pastor Russell’s Anthology which contains the writings you mentioned above, are you going to “go after them”?

As to your websites official status, let it be known that any status you claim is all in your head and not on legal paper. As was stated already. Pastor Russell’s estate was left NOT to any family members, but to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. The fact that the Society discarded his writings in 1927, does not negate this fact. Pastor Russell’s marriage bore no children, his siblings (brothers and sisters) are all dead, his direct line is dead, what family he has is not by blood, but by marriage. So they have no rights to give you “official” status, as they never had official status. If they did, they would be reaping the financial benefits, from the DAWN, the Layman’s, Chicago Bible Students, Fort Worth, New Brunswick and all the other Bible Student groups and individuals who continue to publish his writings. Truth is any relatives Pastor Russell has, have abandoned The Divine Plan as he taught it. They’re not even Bible Students.

Now to the matter at hand, while I will admit that many of the documents you have on your website are “rare” they are not unique, and the only known copies. If you recall back in 1997 a historical committee was formed in documenting the life, ministry and legacy of Pastor Russell. Years of research, collecting, and documenting in a database was performed. I was on that committee, in fact I was chosen to write the book. Spent thousands of dollars collecting original copies of these documents, on ebay and from worldwide used bookstores. Jeff Mezera and I spent hundreds of man hours researching and collecting, the results were the Bible Students Library software, and thousands of pages of unpublished documents that we have in our possession.

So please stop this nonsense of yours. It seems you are looking for credit where credit is not due. You want praise, glory and honor for what?

--RR144 (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the links in this reference to scanned PDFs. One is from www.pastorrussell.com, the other two are from other sources. Dtbrown (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses

Over the last few days, there has been edit warring over edits made to Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses by User:GermanWriter, User:Tre2 and User:Cmmmm. I could use some help from editors who are more knowledgeable about JWs in evaluating which edits are encyclopedic and which are not. I speculate that User:GermanWriter does not like some of the edits because they are too critical of JWs. That's not Wikipedia's problem. However, the edits don't make the points in a form that is acceptable to Wikipedia (too many quotes and smacks of OR). I'm sure providing citations tp reliable sources would help. Can someone take a look at the edit history and join in the discussion at Talk:Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses? Thanx. --Richard (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Richard, that article looks to be a bit of a mess right now. I've left commentary regarding several of the sections. Whole sections should be removed, and more important topics are completely missing. See my comments there. --Fcsuper (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To know more about the Jehovah's Witnesses meeting places all over the world

This artice is NOT too long

This article is much shorter than many featured articles. The bulk of the article is citations, that's an excellent thing. It's the highest density of citations to actual text I've ever seen at Wiki.

Because of the high number of notes, it may help if a technology expert produces a tag to make that section "collapsible" perhaps. However, the article is demonstrably shorter than many FAs, and better sourced. It represents a huge community of living people, one would expect substantial coverage, especially given the controversial nature of any prosletising religion.

I'm removing the tag on the article. I've never edited here, nor am I a JW. I feel for both sides in the issue of this tag, but it just seems too much attention for too small an issue from a reader's perspectve. If the tag is to be restored, I think this should only be done if a consensus of editors here establishes this by objective data from FA articles at Wiki. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "know"

In the first and second paragraph, the word "know" is used in a way that is undeniably partisan. "They know God (Jehovah) is the creator, and Jesus (his son) is separate and not equal." and "Jehovah's Witnesses know that, according to the Bible, God has a personal name, the Tetragrammaton, which is traditionally rendered in English Jehovah (Psalm 83:18)." can hardly be held to be impartial statements; the use of a word implying absolute knowledge on subjects of the greatest contreversy is not only sure to be a source of contention, but also adds no new information to the article, besides the scent of dogma. I purpose that "know" be replaced with "believe" in these instances. Thorongilen 13:38, 28 June 2008

Controversy

This is a general ping to direct contributors to start looking at the Controversy section of this article. It is fairly well referenced as far as I can tell, but upon reading it, is appears somewhat conversational and even promotional to the ideas of the JW's. I'll look at the source article when I get a chance to see if wording can be improved here, but I invite others to look into this as well. --Fcsuper (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_37&oldid=1136839496"