Talk:Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses

message: 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)
thread_title: Let's get it started

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Presumably the first-century Christian congregation, which is documented in scholarly histories as being non-trinitarian. - CobaltBlueTony 17:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar doctrines or differences 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing Prose, Seemingly Random Insertion Points 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Creationism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Organ Transplants and Vaccines 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: revisited

message: 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)
thread_title:  Christian teaching developing gradually 

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

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  possible pov violation 

message: *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)
thread_title: "Idols"

message: 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)
thread_title: The Name of God=

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