Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 26

message: I'm concerned about the phrase in the lead paragraph that states "Jehovah's Witnesses reject traditional Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, eternal torment in hell and the immortality of the soul."  While the Trinity could be considered traditional, I'm not so sure about the last two.  Who says that those doctrines are traditional?  Aren't those primarily Catholic doctrines, not necessarily Protestant ones?  I'm not trying to debate the truth of those doctrines, but I'm asking whether those should be considered traditional.  Hottscubbard 06:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protestant denominations, as far as I know, believe in an eternal hell and the immortality of the soul. BenC7 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always associated "the Trinity, eternal torment in hell and the immortality of the soul" with "traditional Christian doctrines." Dtbrown 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Traditional Christian beliefs" in the introduction 

message: I'm not sure what I think of this new section. Is it necessary on the main page? We mention these publications in the lead and elsewhere in the article. Any thoughts? Dtbrown 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably unnecessary. It can go in its own article. BenC7 05:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already is in another article. (Or at least, there are other articles that deal with this.) The need for this sections was highlighted by our peer reviews. josh
buddy, talk 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining this. Do you have a reference for the info on the translators of the NWT? I'm assuming it's from the Walsh trial. I used to own a transcript but no longer have it. Dtbrown 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just copied from the NWT article, and I assume that their reference is either the Walsh trial, or CoC by Franz. I believe those are two independent lines to the authorship, but in all honesty, I merely added these sections as an attempt to get the ball rollings, and to address the peer review comments. josh
buddy, talk 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publications section 

message: Is the headquarters still in Brooklyn? I think a lot of the management is done in the Patterson, NY facility. Perhaps we should just say New York and not specify the city? Anyone know? Dtbrown 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Afaik, all the printing & writing is now done in Patterson. I think the service dept is in Patterson now as well. I'm not sure how much really goes on in NY anymore. Someone more on the inside would have to comment on this. josh
buddy, talk 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that the printing is done in Wallkill but the Service Dept and Writing and the Governing Body is in Patterson. I'll change it to just say "New York" instead of NYC. If it needs further adjustment someone else can change that. Dtbrown 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquartered in Brooklyn? 

message: I have tried to do some clean up on the article. It seemed some parts did not flow well and I hadn't done much real editing in quite awhile and I wanted to take advantage of some free time I had. I think I'm done for the time being. Feel free to edit changes as you see fit. Dtbrown 03:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: I noticed the following phrase in the Publications section: "A part of their religion is chess"
Surely this must be a mistake.   
I changed this to a short text about the discouragement of chess as a military game. --Prorokini 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifics? Wikipedia does not exist to "expose" JWs. Facts are presented here both pro and con, hopefully written from a neutral point of view. Dtbrown 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What more, beards are not internationally forbidden among JWs. There are very few truly global standards of dress and grooming among JWs. josh
buddy, talk 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Change as you please. BenC7 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Feel free to tweak as necessary. Dtbrown 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Edits 

message: Is the Protestantism box (in the history section) really necessary? I can't see how it helps the reader, or how it relates to the text. BenC7 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is a part of their history whether they acknowledge it or not. They bible cannon is protestant, they come from the adventist movement which is a protestant splinter group. Most evangelical groups in the US are protestant in history, doctrine and nature whether they recognize it or not. Thank the puritans for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.109.235.241 (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that they might "come from" the Adventist movement doesn't make them Protestant. You could equally argue that Protestant churches ultimately "come from" the RCC, so they are therefore Roman Catholic. But obviously it is the doctrine of Protestants that sets them apart from their originating group. In the case of JWs, their doctrine certainly sets them apart from the groups from which they may have originated. BenC7 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I think the Protestantism tag is appropriate here unless one subscribes to the view that any denomination which is not Catholic or Orthodox is Protestant by default. Neither do JWs view themselves as Protestant. Dtbrown 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where do JWs come from? What religion was Russel? Adventists are a sect of Protestantism, which Russel broke off and formed Bible Students because he didn't agree. The JWs have their roots, especially the second coming of Christ, in Adventism, read his history and the Advenitist page on Wikipedia. 219.109.235.241 09:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  To say that the Witnesses have their roots in a certain religion is to imply that they adopted a certain brand of Christianity and then molded it into their own version.  This isn't accurate.  To color the Witnesses as a whole with a certain branch of Christianity just because of Russel's religious past is careless.--CBrewster 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually quite accurate. They did indeed base their initial beliefs on beliefs of others. Any Christian religion will inherently be 'colored' as being a "certain branch of Christianity". Not sure what the issue is here.--Jeffro77 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To say that Witnesses are Protestants would definitely be misleading. It would be accurate to say that they have their roots in Adventism though. Russell's numerology about 1914 was quite definitely taken from Adventists going back as far as the 1820s. Just because JWs imagine that God whispered in Russell's ear to create a brand new religion, the fact remains that in simple terms, they really did 'adopt a certain brand of Christianity and mold it into their own version'. The same is true of any form of modern Christianity.--Jeffro77 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestantism tag 

message: This is a very informative article for someone who does not know much about Jehova's Witnesses. One question I have though is: are Jehova's Witnesses allowed to marry people of other religious beliefs and is it frowned upon? If the answer is no it would be worth adding, unless it is already there and I have missed it. 153.18.17.22 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is frowned upon. Members who marry non-believers are usually viewed negatively in the congregation. They are 'encouraged' to 'marry in the Lord', which they consider to mean only JWs. If a JW marries a non-JW, they may not be married in a 'Kingdom Hall' or by a JW 'Elder' (the same applies if one of them is an 'interested one', a 'study', or an 'unbaptized publisher'). See  also w04 7/1 p.30--Jeffro77 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with 153.18.17.22 that this point could be worth mentioning. It would be right if this point of view was told and explained for those outside the congregation. But it must be treated in a way free of biases and criticism. It should be explained from the theology of JW and should be followed with references to JW litarature. Summer Song 11:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The Duthie reference:
*Alan S. Duthie stated that the "Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT, which is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines' ...even though a few aberrations can be found. ...Some have to condemn out of hand any version made by Jehovah's Witnesses...because they must be full of heresies...It is true that there are some heretical doctrines to be found in NWT (eg. the incoherent polytheism in Jn.1:1,... but the percentage of the whole Bible thus affected... does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from 'full'. How To Choose Your Bible Wisely, Alan S. Duthie. pp. 30, 216. Jason BeDuhn stated "While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said the NW[T] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2004 p.163
The quality of the reference is questionable. Changing particular verses (such as John 1:1 [about which I have no opinion], or Jeremiah 29:10 [about which the context invalidates the JW translation]) may only be a small impact on the complete work if considering the changes simply on the basis of the percentage of the entire bible that is 'altered', but it is the significance of those portions that are altered that is important. Jason BeDuhn's comment is of limited value if it is unknown which translations were compared. If such a long reference in support of the NWT is included in the article, why no references against it?--Jeffro77 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, it isn't really that much of an endorsement. Its value is still questionable.--Jeffro77 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NWT reference

message: From the article:
Critics have challenged the Witnesses' policies on blood transfusions, stating that their requirements are inconsistent and contradictory.[127] However, to Witnesses blood as the fluid per se is not the real issue. They say the real issue is respect and obedience for God’s personal property- blood.[128][129] That the matter blood is not at stake, is seen in the fact that members are allowed to eat meat which may still have some blood left in it. As soon as blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God and then a person can eat the meat even though it will contain a small amount of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses view of meat and blood thus is different than the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove any little trace of blood.[130]
The part in italics does not address the issue raised. It was the WBTS that imposed certain policies on blood; to then turn around and say that the WBTS does not see it as the issue is to deliberately ignore the point that the critic is trying to make. If it is not a response, as Johanneum even states in the edit summary, then it shouldn't be presented here where a response or counter-point should be. BenC7 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Johanneum, that's an interesting interpretation. Can it be sourced to JW publications? I'm concerned that if it cannot be sourced it would be original research. Dtbrown 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  DTBrown  The 1961 Watchtower  (p.669) Questions From Readers states this:   
"There may remain in the meat some very small amounts of blood even after proper bleeding has been done. Then, too, the fluid that runs out of the meat may simply be interstitial fluid. The important thing is that respect has been shown for the sanctity of blood, regard has been shown for the principle of the sacredness of life. What God’s law requires is that the blood be drained from the animal when it is killed, not that the meat be soaked in some special preparation to draw out every trace of it."
Awake! stated this 1973 May 8 p. 27 Is It Right to Eat Blood?
"Disrespect for the sanctity of blood is just as serious. Why? Because men really do not have the right to deprive any creature of life, for they are unable to restore that life. Accordingly, for them to take life without acting in harmony with God’s command respecting blood means taking God’s property, that is, the life represented by the blood. It means making themselves responsible for taking the life of the creature in defiance of God."
So while this may be expressed in different terms, it seems that what is stated is the same thought. Johanneum 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy - blood 

message: This article says "All major Jewish denominations, as well as national Jewish organizations, reject that Messianic Judaism is a form of Judaism." And the beginning of the article begins with saying that they are a "religous sect". Religous sect would be a more correct term for JWs. BMurray 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. "Group A claims that B is false. Therefore C is false." If the discussion was about whether we should call 'Messianic Jews' Christians, you might have a point. We're not.--Jeffro77 07:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On what basis do you allege that "Messianic Jews are more Christian than JWs"? JWs hold the entire 'Christian' bible as their holy book; Messianic Jews do not. JWs believe that Jesus was God's son; Messianic Jews do not. The teachings of JWs are quite plainly those of a Christian religion, though they do not hold to some of the beliefs of many (but by no means all) other Christian religions. None of those beliefs that they don't have in common define them as non-Christian. Your comparison with Messianic Jews is invalid, and the only validity to your argument is that we might be able to say that 'Messianic Jews' are 'Christians', which is a long shot at best, and completely irrelevant to this discussion.--Jeffro77 23:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that Messianic Jews do believe in Jesus, or as they'd prefer to say "Yeshua." "Religious sect" usually refers to a small group as the link in the article shows. Some Messianics apparently do not prefer the label "Christian" . Dtbrown 23:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You have not provided any justification for saying that JWs are not 'Christian'. If you want to start a discussion on the Talk page of 'Messianic Jews' to say that they are Christian, feel free (though I don't like your chances).--Jeffro77 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Messianic Jew]] 

message: "Former" was added in light of recent news that called her such.  While it is true that the news is freqently not accurate, and the secular definition of a Witness is different from the JW view, It would seem that the new agency got their information directly from her.  Anyway here are a few links.     
Quote follows-
"A former Jehovah's Witness said the blood ban isn't always as strict as it appears.
"The word is symantics," said Kerry Louderback-Wood, of Fort Myers, Florida."  I think see meant semantics.  Johanneum 14:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Johanneum, for the links. I have mixed feelings on whether to add this or not. As you said, it may not be accurate by the JW definition. If a reader goes to her linked article they will see immediately that she was raised in a JW home and I think that would be sufficient. Dtbrown 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerry Louderback-Wood 

message: I think this article should be merged with Legal Instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is just very short and includes information that would do well in that article.Summer Song 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to a different page? Or do you mean this main JW page should be merged with something else? Dtbrown 05:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I talk about the article Watchtower Society. I am not talking about this main article. Summer Song 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now I have put it into action. See Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses. Summer Song 20:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Watchtower Society]] 

message: Please read this article. I would like an reply from everyone whether this article is neutral. In my opinion, it is clearly not. 
It is stated: There is not uniform acceptance of the current blood doctrine within the Jehovah's Witness community. Though accepted by a majority, there is evidence a significant population of Jehovah's Witnesses does not wholly endorse it. Facets of the doctrine have drawn praise and criticism from both members of the medical community and Jehovah's Witnesses alike.
For any further explaination, see what the participants have debated in the discussion page of the article. Summer Song 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a problem with this when it was started, I just don't have the time to take on the issue so I dropped it.George 08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions]] 

message: Links from www.reexamine.org and www.reexamine.info are being removed per http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=537555#reexamine.info. Personally, I think that many of the links were not copyright issues, but some were, and apparently Wikipedia has decided to blacklist the site. I tried to replace some of the links with other acceptable links when I was able to. You can help by checking other articles and perhaps replacing them with other suitable links. Dtbrown 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is irrelevant if the hosting site is sanctioned, supportive or otherwise. I would look for longevity and stability. josh
buddy, talk 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is an important difference between 'accurately' and 'favourably'. Sites other than the official one may be able to take a more balanced approach, so it is appropriate that other sites be referenced unless they are actually non-factual. (I have no opinion on any specific sites related to 'Pastor' Russell.)--Jeffro77 13:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links from reexamine.org and reexamine.info 

message: Vinaq 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, they are a sect because of the nature of the religion's origins (regardless of how many exclamation marks one cares to use). However, the term 'sect' as used colloquially carries implications that are not appropriate for defining the group, so any use of the word should be used very carefully to avoid implied bias.--Jeffro77 07:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sect isn't really negative depending on where you live in the English speaking world.  A sect simply means a division in religion.  There are the Sunni and Shiite sects in Islam and the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform sects of Judaism.  Sects are simply divisions in a main religion.  The Jehovah's Witnesses are simply a sect of Christianity, much like the Catholic Church or the Episcopalian Church.  Only in some circles, the term "church" replaces "sect".
ColdRedRain 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just which 'plain statements' of Jesus do you believe they "deny"??--Jeffro77 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they a sect? 

message: I see that the article has been put i nthe category Adventist. That is, as I see it, completely wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses do not indentify themselves with the adventist movement, and the vast part of their beliefs are different from particular adventist beliefs. Even though The Bible Students originally were inspired by some of the theology of the movement, it will not be correct to state Jehovash's Witnesses as an adventist group today. Summer Song 10:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be just something from your POV.  Assuming that you're a Jehovah's Witness, you may think your religion is unique and has no other religion that's even quite like it.  However, looking from a historical perspective, Charles Russell shared many Adventist beliefs and many beliefs that modern day Adventists have, JW's have too.  For example, soul sleep, Christ's invisible return in a specific year and literal interpretation of many verses in Revelation.   The religion is clearly Adventist in its beliefs.  However, it doesn't make your religion less unique.  If it did, there wouldn't be separate Adventist churches and a Jehovah's Witness church, the movements in time would have merged to create one superchurch.  
ColdRedRain 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have mixed feelings on this. The Bible Student movement was influenced by William Miller and this is acknowleged in many of the older publications which point to him as being used by God. (See  as an example from The Finished Mystery.) So, there is a strong link to the original Adventist movement.  It is true that nowadays there are many differences between various Adventist groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and JWs but there is a connection between the various groups and William Miller. Most of Russell's early associates were from what is now called the Advent Christian Church. What do other editors say? Dtbrown 23:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a clear opinion. Jehovah's Witnesses should not be classified as belonging to the adventist 'church family'. They do not identify themselves that way, neither do they share any of the given characters that identify the adventist churches. They are not regarding Miller and his movement as a direct background (at least no longer), and they have clear theological breaks with the adventist churches. I think that if they are regarded as 'millenialists' or something together with the adventist movement, that would be closer to the truth.Summer Song 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Russell and his companions said that they were in some ways influenced by various preachers and religious movements before them. Nevertheless, the theological views they developed were in many aspecs unique. The Bible Students through many years still did call other christians 'their brothers'. The early Bible Students interacted with the adventist movement, but they did become something on their own. Anyway, I think that it would be completely wrong to call Jehovah's Witnesses today some part of the adventists. Jehovah's Witnesses have a faith that is clearly different from what adventist denominations have.Summer Song 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, Jehovah's Witnesses do not identify as Adventist. Yet, Russell's group did develop directly from the Adventist movement. George Storrs, who heavily influenced Russell, was one of William Miller's closest associates. Nelson Barbour was also a Millerite and an Adventist. When Barbour and Russell started saying that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874 is when the other Adventists started looking at them as heretical. So, while the faith today is different their origins are clearly tied to Adventism.Dtbrown 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aspects of their origin have ties to Adventism. However, in their present form, they do not, and inclusion of the Adventism category is misleading.--Jeffro77 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jehovah's Witnesses do not belong to the adventist 'church family'. Such a classification would be wrong. Their faith is clearly different from that of the adventists.Summer Song 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it's stronger than "aspects of their origin have ties to Adventism." Their origin was directly from the Millerite/Adventist movement. We also have the category "Restorationism" listed at the bottom of the main page. I would say one could make a stronger case for Adventist than Restorationism. I'm not necessarily arguing for retaining it. But, I think we owe it to the readers to find a way to categorize the origin. Dtbrown 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya know, JW and Adventist beliefs aren't all that dissimilar.  There's a reason some people still link these guys together. Just a comment, not making a case for one way for the other. Fcsuper 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And cow's milk is made from grass. Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Adventists. It can be stated as being part of their historical development, but not the category.--Jeffro77 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never argued that Jehovah's Witnesses are Adventists and I'm not necessarily opposed to your edit removing the category Adventist. I think, however, some category should be developed (just like Restorationism) that connects the various  movements that can tie their origin to William Miller and the Adventist movement. Dtbrown 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adventist? 

message: The lead section totally needs a statement about the JWs view of Jesus. It's way more definitive to them than the "name of God" business, or even that they don't believe in Hell. OK, it says they reject the trinity and see Jesus Christ as King, but does that make them binitarians, modalists, quadrinitarians, or what? It never says. The JWs see Jesus as the Logos, God's only begotten Son, Jehovah's appointed sacrifice, Savior, King, and Judge. They don't see him or the holy spirit as God. That's meaty stuff, and it belongs up front. Jonathan Tweet 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is "meaty stuff". Which is exactly why it does not belong in the lead.--Jeffro77 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me say that, on reading this lead again I'm really impressed how good it is. Jonathan Tweet 03:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  identity of Jesus 

message: Recent edits here and on other pages have suggested it's wrong to cite this book. One edit summary said listing it was violating copyrighted material. The book is a matter of public record. Occasionally copies are sold on ebay. To merely cite a page from the book is not a violation of copyright.Dtbrown 14:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing the 'secret' book is not a violation of copyright at all. And the suggestion that even listing the publication is a copyright violation is plainly stupid.--Jeffro77 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book "Pay Attention To Yourselves and To All The Flock" 

message: I would like to ask why the :Category:Jehovah's Witnesses magazines should exist. It includes no more than two articles. I think it should be deleted and that the two magazines should be in the categories :Category:Jehovah's Witnesses literature and :Category:Christian magazines. They do in no way need their own category.Summer Song 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree--Jeffro77 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gave it a try, and it was very quickly pointed out that the category is relevant to a broader hierarchy of religious magazines. So it should stay.--Jeffro77 10:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Jehovah's Witnesses magazines