Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Talk page guidelines

• Please do not make disparaging remarks about individuals who do not agree with you.
• Please do not post long quotes of Jehovah's Witnesses publications here. If long quotes are necessary to support or counter a statement in the JW articles, create a subpage for the issue.

Rapid growth under Rutherford?

Afaik, the growth under Rutherford was very slow. (Especially when you factor in the 1925 fiasco and the massive leaving after that) Knorr was the one who really got things moving. Can this be corrected?

To be fair, based on the talk "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" which emphasized that the world had ended in 1914 and 1925 would be the year for the return of the "ancient worthies" the growth was incredibly rapid under Rutherford. The "negative growth" was far more rapid, as Memorial Attendance in 1926 fell back to fewer than attended in 1917. Many decided not to wait on Jehovah, apparently losing confidence in their God's ability to accurately communicate to His servants here on earth. Respectfully, Evident 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't me, it was somebody else. But to respond to the question, I don't have hard statistics in front of me, but didn't something like over 75% of Bible Students leave within a few years of Russell's death and Rutherford's shenanigans and general BS? Even if growth was monumental later, this is enough to warrant at least a qualification on any reports of astounding growth during his rule.Tommstein 02:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem of finding non-JW, JW Scholars

Konrad, the problem as I see it is that no one completely removed from Jehovah's Witnesses has ever cared enough to become scholarly and anyone who has ever had dealings with them is considered biased if they say anything negative later.

In my opinion, it will be difficult to find a non-JW scholar who cares enough about the religion one way or another to become an authority on the subject, the general public likely won't care and Jehovah's Witnesses won't either. A scholar without an audience or support for his work is a rare thing indeed. The only ones who would care are ex-JWs, and their support will automatically poison Witnesses against them. Respectfully, Evident 00:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The source of something is irrelevant, and it is an ad hominem logical fallacy to even consider that (strictly speaking, not that it can't be wise to not pay attention to some fruitcakes out there). Either you can back it up with good proof or you can't. Assertions that ex-Jehovah's Witnesses' facts are somehow less good than the same facts revealed by somebody else should be just plain ignored. They're the closest thing to non-Jehovah's Witness Jehovah's Witness experts we're gonna find, and have seen everything that active Jehovah's Witnesses have. Claims by active Jehovah's Witnesses of bias in their facts have to be proven with hard proof, not ad hominem attacks and general pissing and moaning about bias.Tommstein 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

HistoricalPisces and the removal of "that"

Fellows, something's gotta stop here. I have noticed a trend here where HistoricalPisces basically runs through the article (and other Jehovah's Witness-related ones) and does a 'search and destroy' for all occurrences of the word "that", often rendering sentences grammatically incorrect in the process (in my opinion, e.g., if you change "they believe that Armageddon" to "they believe Armageddon," one might wonder what exactly Armageddon said that they believe). We need to come to some agreement on whether to continue removing perfectly-good instances of the word "that", because what is going on now is just foolishness. I think they should stay, because at the very least they aid readability.Tommstein 23:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I see that Jeffro77 just said basically the same thing in the article in the time that it took me to type that, and even put them back in.Tommstein 23:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that my work was noticed in the time it took me to add something to the talk page. It appears that HistoricalPisces may not be intentionally vandalising the article, but may be confused about the correct use of the word 'that' as a conjunction (where, as Tommstein has correctly pointed out, it removes doubt about the subject of the verb), rather than its use as a pronoun.--Jeffro77 23:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC) (Corrected previous edit because I noticed that that had had omitted an 'as' as well. Well...)

I was too lazy to do anything about it myself. So thanks Jeffro77! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what all of the hype is about. What is the difference between, "that" and not having that? Seems to me like we are making Much Ado About Nothing! Эрон Кинней (TALK) 03:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

When 'that' is removed between a verb and its noun clause, the readability suffers because it is not obvious whether the verb refers to only the immediately following noun or the noun clause, which adds confusion to what follows the noun. Though this might not bother people who are used to writing things like "I luv u 4eva, l8r d00d", in an encyclopedia, it is preferable to maintain correct grammar.

Excuse me, I'm the editor in question here. I agree with Kinneyboy90. Tommstein should alert me if I've incorrectly edited anything; I just follow the ''Elements of Style'''s rule about the word.--HistoricalPisces 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Note this whole big section Tommstein created entitled "HistoricalPisces and the removal of 'that'" alerting about the issue. If someone said your removal of "that" is correct, I'm pretty sure they shouldn't be writing style manuals.Tommstein 21:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be a scandal section or page

ran-cam, un-ngo, pedaphiles, blood, 1975, 1914, 607bce-587bce, docturnal flip flops, and lawsuits just a small list of things that need to be addressed.--Greyfox 04:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of that is already mentioned on the various pages. What is ran-cam? The defense contractor they have (had?) stock in?Tommstein 07:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep --Greyfox 01:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

JW's, Sub-Conscious Inerrancy, and Epistemology

Jehovah's Witnesses, like many other religions, have failed to adequately address the issue of the rationality of non-belief and the nature of the "true" religion. In the book, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," the witnesses claim that their religion is the only true religion. Pg 203.

Given the soteriological implications of belief in the one true religion, one would expect to find a logically exhaustive account of what makes any given religion a true religion. Nowhere in the Reasoning book does one find the necessary and sufficient conditions for the true religion. They do not present an exclusive list of all and only true doctrines which make a religion the true religion.

Rational minds require a logical rule that would distinguish all cases of true religion from all cases of non-true religion (even hypothetical cases). Without even having the logical criteria for the true religion, it is impossible to decide logically both what the true religion is, and if there is a true religion, which one it is. You cannot distinguish the true and non-true religions unless you have all of the logical criteria for the existence of the true religion. Maybe it's there, hidden away, but they certainly have not done any one else a favor by hidding it. Why isn't it prominantly displayed for all to see?

This leads to my second point: some people are both rational and do not accept witness doctrine. Because of personal experience, idiosyncrasy, careful deliberation, or anything else, someone can be justified in their denial of witness belief. This is hard for many witnesses to accept. Witnesses cannot accept someone disbelieving on rational grounds. Many witnesses are justified in their beliefs and many non-witnesses are equally justified in their beliefs.

Why don't witness adopt a more considerate, self-aware approach to those who disagree with certain teachings? If one assumes that the logical criteria for the true religion is not there, and that the criteria that is used is "soft" or "mushy," then one must accept the beliefs of non-witnesses as justified.

Some people explain away doxastic differences with the "evil will" arguement. That is, if you disagree with a teaching, you must have an evil will because no rational person can disagree with the "truth." It assumes that the other person actually shares your reasons for belief, but somehow consistently refuses to believe what that one is justified in believing purely on moral grounds. This approach inevitably takes the discussion away from the realm of reason and argumentation and into the realm of moral judgment. It completes the circle back to the witnesses being true in the first place, such that they are able to interpret the moral criteria.

Finally, the witnesses allege that "they do not resort to philosophical arguments to evade [the bible's] clear statements of truth." Reasoning from the Scriptures Pg 204. Yet, in the "Creator" book, the writers used at least four or five well known philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God. The statement from the Reasoning book is itself evasive because it does not preclude philosophical arguments, but almost every witness interprets it that way.

When you talk to most witnesses, just the thought of "philosophy" or "accepting other people's views" is almost immediately dismissed out of hand (which is amusing given the "mushy" rationality of the belief)...that is why most are victims of sub-conscious inerrancy.

Any answers, or comments? I would appreciate it.

While you raise some valid points, this isn't really the place for them. The talk page for Wikipedia articles is for discussion related to the article itself. Do you want to include some of the things you mentioned in the article? If so, be bold and put them in! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to make rationalist arguments, and then have them posted on the main site, because most people think that if you don't cite some authority, that you have no grounds. I did post a one "Jehovah's witnesses believe that their reilgion is the only true one".

Wikipedia has a no original research policy, which does cover some of the things that you mentioned, so they would be excluded from the articles. However, some of the things you said are verifiable, such as what the Reasoning book says about philosophical arguments.

Some of the things you said that could be included are (obviously needing copyediting):

• Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only true religion.
• They do not cite the necessary and sufficient conditions to uniquely and identify or prove the true religion.
• They do not present an exclusive list of all and only true doctrines which make a religion the true religion.
• They claim that "they do not resort to philosophical arguments to evade [the bible's] clear statements of truth." Reasoning from the Scriptures Pg 204.
• In the "Creator" book, at least four or five philosophical arguments are used to argue for the existence of God.

All of these statements are verifiable, NPOV and not original research. You can put them in appropriate places if you like. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

How does using philosophical arguments for the existence of God go counter to what they said about not using them "to evade [the bible's] clear statements of truth?" Arguing for God's existence is clearly not evading the Bible. Unless the point is their double standard, the ignoring of philosophy when it's inconvenient and the usage of it when it's convenient. But the way I have seen this stuff expressed, it seems as if the main point is them doing what they said they don't (which is what I don't think they're guilty of in this case), as opposed to just having a double standard.Tommstein 05:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

First, there are many interpretations of that statement, one of which precludes the use of philosophical arguments. Many people interpret the statement to mean that they do not use philosophical arguments. The subheading defines the meaning of the statement. The subheading is "How do we arrive at our explanation of the bible?" Now, the meaning atomist might argue that the statement in question means that the witnesses only use philosophical arguments when they agree with the meaning of the bible, and do not use them when they disagree. I think this atomistic interpretation of the text is one possible understanding of it. But if you "factor in" many other presuppositions, including the subheading, and the common belief of the audience, you will usually find that the statement means that JW's do not use philosophical arguments.

Meaning holism is true. What you bring into the text determines what you get out of the text. Most interpreters do not see the linguistic atoms, they see the holistic meaning flash in their heads. But all things considered, i agree with you, you've spotted an alternative interpretation.

My opinion the average jw or religious persons wants someone to tell them what is the truth, and what the facts are. They either do not want to find out what the facts are, or can't find out for one reason or another. Anything there leader says is truth because their leader knows better in their opinion. Meanwhile the rest of the world looks to the facts to find truth, not a leader.

By the way this is not limited to religion look at the iraq war contraversy.--Greyfox 00:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me just say this, as a witness, as a person who is fully aware of the fallicious nature in which the "society" and the "organization" perpetrate(sp?) there beliefs, i have this one thing to say, every religion has it's faults, i get more confllcit over my religion than any thing else, but you don't see a devout catholic getting critisized for, his or her beliefs however illogical or unscriptually founded they are, but i have accepted this, i have my own reasons for believing what i believe, and it's not because i'm a lap dog that constant performs fellacio for my congregations elder body, just like a mormon would not be able to despute the fact that the first version of the "Book of mormon" gave a loose geographical location for the occurence of the majority of the events in the old testament as being jackson county, missouri, i can't refute some of the obnoxious gapping holes in my beliefs. but i can deal with it, the simple fact being, most anybody who chooses close association with any form of organized religion, is being mislead, religion is a system of control, that has been honed and mastered throughout the ages and nothing will be able the change that. the fact that some of you here tend to brand all witnesses as closed minded fools is rather offensive to me simply because i was expecting a more openminded view towards things, but looks like i was diappointed again. but anyways i have this to say, you say that were ignorant, that we have no comprehension of what is going on in our organization, thats false, alot of witnesses do, and they accept it. think about this, witnesses apparently are so very inflexible and closed minded however i lost some of my good non-witness friends because there pastor/priest/father encouraged them to cut off all contact with me, it wasn't like i wanted them to become witnesses, i liked them because of there personality, there individuality, you say witnesses are manipulated and controlled, i say thats simply because we are not in the mainstream of things, because everybody in the majority of religions today are manipulated and controlled. like i stated earlier all religion is a from of control, and a effective religion concerned with growth would be very stupid to allow it's members (who are obviously lacking intelligence themselves) to go about freely with out trying to safe guard there aquisitions( the members ) they would not keep there members very long now woold they? especially a repressive religion that holds ever so closely to traditional beliefs in this day and age(ie; Jehovah's Witnesses) all i'm saying is before you pull out that pirated version of the elders book, organized to do jehovah's will, and the reasoning book, go ask an elder how he'd feel if a witness get D'fed, or disassociated himself, then go ask a your near church pastor that same question, you might be surprised at the answer. btw tommstein, i'd love for you to tell my elders that i've been around some apostates, might finally get me that MS position i've been bucking for......... .--ALLreligion_is_a_sham_and_a_racket

What the hell was this? Paragraphs and proper capitalization, spelling, and grammar (or something approaching it) go a long way.... I know, we don't need perfect, professionally-edited stuff here, but Jesus. I'm not just saying this because I disagreed with what you said, because, well, I'm not actually sure what exactly your point was in there.Tommstein 07:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of what ALLreligion_is_a_sham_and_a_racket said doesn't make any sense at all. To admit to being aware of the "repressive religion's" "fallicious" nature with doctrinal "obnoxious gaping holes" and to stick with it suggests an arrangement of convenience rather than devotion. If most of his congregation read what he posted, I doubt they would be too openminded about the things said. He states that he didn't want his friends to become Witnesses, so either he expects that they are going to die at Armageddon, or doesn't really believe Armageddon will happen, so isn't really a genuine Witness by their own tenets. Either he is baiting readers for a response, is lacking the spine to leave the JW organization despite his true feelings, or has a cunning and devious plan to infiltrate the organization at its highest echalons (mwa ha ha ha haaaaa)--Jeffro77 08:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This section is a polemic against the rationality of religious exclusivism. If your an apologist of religious exclusivism, and more narrowly, JW exclusivism, then state the reasons that support an exclusivist worldview. Emotions rarely change the beliefs of others, but reasoning can and often does very well at altering belief. Allreligion, you must state your reasons, and exclude the rest of the chaff, if you want anyone to listen to you.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments and Tomm

Read the sentence man, it just doesn't make any damned sense at all: "While advocating freedoms of expression by religions as organizations, Jehovah's Witnesses view baptized members who freely express religious views that conflict with those they promote as being apostate and to be avoided/shunned... One minute it's talking about advocation of freedom of expression as religious organizations and all of a sudden it's talking about baptized Jehovah's Witnesses. I removed the untruthful parts of the original paragraph, when I did this, the paragraph no longer made any sense. So I deleted the first line "advocating freedoms.." and moved the rest of the paragraph. Why do you keep changing it back? Not only does it not make any sense, it's reduntant as one editor accuratly pointed out, see the final two points in Beliefs and practices that can be said to be distinctive of Jehovah's Witnesses include: under the heading Beliefs and Doctrines. --Duff

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? It's a compare-and-contrast of their attitudes towards freedom of expression for religious organizations versus for their own members. Is there some fine subtle point in there you don't get?

P.S. To sign posts, type ~~~~ at the end of them.Tommstein 07:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Advocation of "freedoms of expression by RELIGIONS AS ORGANIZATIONS" has absolutely nothing to do with baptized members. There's no compare/contrast, it's an unintelligible sentence. You could have it say: "While advocating freedom of expression, Jehovah's Witnesses view baptized members...", but then it would become a misleading sentence as we don't really advocate freedom of expression. We certainly don't emphasize it in any way. On top of that, expression of contrary views by baptised members is already on the page under the "Beliefs and Practices" heading. Duffer 22:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy, the question at the end of my last post was supposed to be rhetorical.... I'm glad you could make up a completely different sentence that would be misleading, but no one is advocating for the sentence you just made up out of the blue. If you think they don't emphasize freedom of religion for organizations, you must have missed the latest 'look at all we've done at the Supreme Court' rah rah session. The mention under Beliefs and Practices isn't contrasting their attitudes towards organizations versus individuals.Tommstein 06:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Fighting to survive as a fringe religion in a predominately (and often hostile) evangelical nation forced upon us the need for litigation and certain guarantees to religious freedom. That is our "attitude towards organizations" (in case you missed any one of our meetings). That, in no way, is tantamount to advocation of other religious organisations. We advocate freedom of religion for OUR right to worship as we choose. In essence the paragraph is saying: We defended our civil rights in courts around the globe thus ensuring religious freedom, contrary to that, we shun baptized members who continuously seek to teach a contrary view. There's no sense in that sentence, there's no congruity, there's no relevance. Besides, how can you equate freedom of expression as an organisation, to freedom of expression of an individual? Especially since the individual FREELY CHOOSES to be part of said religion? It doesn't make any sense. And really, how is that relevant to the 'Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments' section? Duffer 11:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Freely chooses? What a joke. People are talked into believing the religion by coercion and false promises. They are not free to leave without unfavourable consequences and so they feel like prisoners once they are made aware of the false teachings, such as 607BC. Therefore, it is not a free choice. In any case, the baptism question indicating recognition of the Society's supposed authority is invalid because there is no evidence of "God's spirit" directing the organization. It is an abuse of human rights the way former members are treated for refusing to live a lie.

If you can't play by the rules of the club, then get out. How is that not a free choice? "..coercion and false promises.." Sorry little Timmy, God took your daddy because he needed in him heaven, as for your mommy, she's going to hell because she was so grief stricken that she took her own life. She'll be punished there for all eternity in fire and brimstone, here's a complimentary bible, please drive through. "..unfavourable consequences", like what? You lose association with people who you no longer agree with anyways? If you call that an abuse of human rights then you better re-read your bible (2 Thess 3:36, 11, 13-15; 1 cor. 5:5, 11, 13; 2 John 9-11). Excuse us for creating a worldwide society based on biblical principles, rules, and guidelines to keep itself, and ourselves, morally clean (Catholicism anyone?). Duffer 10:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Knowing that something simply isn't true isn't quite the same as "not playing by the rules". (And throwing in some lame argument about how some other religion is also wrong (poor little Timmy) does not diminish any wrongdoing of the Witnesses and is just pathetic.) In the normal people world, people who don't share the same religious beliefs can still be friends, and are not faced with being ostracized by their family and supposed friends. None of the scriptures referred to have any relevance to a person who realises that there are errors in JW teachings, yet they are ostracized all the same, often by family members who are guilted by the organization into not talking to them.

How is following biblical guidelines and principles "pathetic" and "wrong", when a person knows full well what's what at baptism. The above scriptures are in regards to those worthy of excommunication, would you like me to post scriptures related to those who doubt their faith? Actually, yes those passages are directly related to ostracising excommunicated members (how could 2 Thess 3:13-15 be any clearer?). JWs have friends who hold differing religious views, however, the bible is very specific about people who have known the truth, then turned away from it. "..guilted by the organization.." to do what? Follow biblical guidelines? It is the biblically prescribed method of discipline, as a society that unflinchingly adheres to the guidelines, principles, rules set forth in the bible, we follow this one as well (obviously), lest we be hypocrites. Duffer 13:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is getting off topic. Regardless of our individual views on how great/awful JW doctrine/practices are, this isn't the place to discuss it. Let's focus on improving the articles. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 14:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I won't stop defending my faith regardless of venue. Duffer 17:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the bright side, you're creating more opportunities to defend your faith by causing people to ignore you for becoming a known spammer.Tommstein 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's more absurd than your paragraph. Since I was the one defending against provocation, what would that make Jeffro? Duffer 17:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I was clearly referring to your chest-thumping assertion that you "won't stop" in response to Konrad West's request to stop, not what you did before that. Please cease constructing straw men and insulting other users, it is wasteful of everyone's time.Tommstein 18:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bravado was not my intent; you have a peculiar way of reading intent into what I type. And I was clearly referring to your grammar: "you're creating more opportunities to defend your faithby causing people to ignore you.." makes as little sense as the paragraph you so adamantly defend(ed?). It would properly read something like: "You're losing more oppurtunities to defend your faith...", saying you were "clearly referring" to something, isn't exactly true. That's not a straw-man. Ironically, you accuse me of spamming (when I did nothing more than defend against an absurd, off-topic, allegation, (as I am right now.. again..) then you accuse me of being insulting to others. Duffer 18:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, please take up any reading comprehension problems elsewhere.Tommstein 18:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What ever happened to: "Please cease constructing straw men and insulting other users, it is wasteful of everyone's time."? I'm requesting arbitration, this war is counterproductive, and outright rediculous.Duffer 18:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Update*, apparently I am unable to request arbitration as it's the final option in conflict resolution, other options must be exhausted first. We need to avoid eachother, conduct a survey, get 3rd party input, request advocacy, request mediation, then finally, request arbitration. For the sake of accuracy and truth I would persure all of the above options if I had the time. My internet is getting shut off tomarrow. I hope you, Tomm, can come to some form of civility and reasonableness. Also, reverting more than 3 times within a 24 hour period (edit waring) is an officially bannable offense, something we are both guilty of. Duffer 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, please cease the slandering and insulting of other users.Tommstein 19:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In your latest revision: "(please address any literacy deficiencies you may have elsewhere; wikipedia cannot, and should not, be written at a third-grade level for the benefit of those who read at said level)". You are unbelievable man. Duffer 19:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Note both that I referred to any deficiencies "you may have," not that "you do have," and that the statements regarding being unable to read the sentence emanated from you yourself, not me.Tommstein 19:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There, I clarified that they only believe in freedom for themselves. Happy?Tommstein 03:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia Tom. Your newest addition is more misleading and inane than the original; and in no way fixes the substantial problems with the paragraph. You are not being reasonable or objective. Duffer 06:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You spent pretty much an entire paragraph above complaining that "We advocate freedom of religion for OUR right to worship as we choose," no one else's, and then, when that is inserted into the article, you complain that it is even worse? The only difference between the previous version and my newly-amended version is the insertion of that fact that you so adamantly complained about like three paragraphs up. You need to make up your mind. You can't have your cake and eat it too, at least around here.Tommstein 14:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You specifically stated: "If you think they don't emphasize freedom of religion for organizations.." that is a far cry from the generalized "freedom of religion" (which we do advocate). I was merely rebutting your rediculous bluster by pointing out to you we litigate in our behalf, we advocate religious freedom, we do NOT advocate other religious organizations. Now address the specifics of why I delete your paragraph:

1 - The first sentence is literally unintelligible (your latest version, and the original).

2 - The remainder of the paragraph can be found under the "Beliefs and Practices" heading. It is redundant and unnecessary.

3 - Not a single part of the paragraph has anything at all to do with the "Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments" topic.

Duffer 15:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So, you advocate "generalized 'freedom of religion'," but not freedom for other organizations? Pray tell, who exactly do you envision as recipients of this "generalized 'freedom of religion'," single Martians? Nevertheless, regardless of how bogus your story there is, I still changed the paragraph to reflect just what you said, that you advocate it for yourselves and yourselves alone. And now you still complain. Tough. Make up your mind. And again, this compare-and-contrast cannot be found elsewhere in the article. If you can think of a better section to put it in, tell us. If not, quit complaining about the section it's in. At present you're just flinging crap all over the walls, hoping something sticks, and complaining when something sticks somewhere you were really hoping it wouldn't.

Oh yeah, and it was probably wise of you to belatedly delete that "What's the matter with you?" remark.Tommstein 16:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed it to avoid further provocation of an unreasonable person. Don't put this on me, i've explained several times, in great detail, why this paragraph needs deletion. Two other wikipedians agree with me, yes they are JWs as well, but i'm certain any objective wikipedian, JW or not, would agree with me too. This is not a "make up your mind" scenario. I have not contradicted myself, there is nothing to make up my mind about. You've thrown up a smokescreen of obfuscation to circumlocute my rather valid points for deletion (is this what you tell yourself in your mind to validate your unreasonableness?). Any non-JW here care to set Tomm straight? Duffer 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

When you find it within yourself to respond to my points instead of engaging in name-calling and waving your arms around incoherently I might respond.Tommstein 18:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing Tomm. Since you've given up on defending your position, here, I hope you will likewise abandon your defence of unintelligible grammar and redundancy on the main article. Duffer 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take up any reading comprehension problems elsewhere.Tommstein 18:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreeing with Duffer on all three points. The first sentence is a mess and is misleading. JWs advocate religious freedom from governments, not other peoples' religious views. That distinction should be simple and clear but is totally obfuscated by that paragraph. Furthermore the paragraph is in the wrong place and is already covered elsewhere in the article. I agree that it should be removed. -- uberpenguin 15:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Who could have foreseen that the Jehovah's Witness contingent would agree with itself that an unflattering comparison has to go. What's next, KKK members being unanimous that black people suck? Five in five NAMBLA members condemning a condemnation of boy love? For a more substantial reply to things I have already replied to, read around the page.Tommstein 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Duffer and uberpenguin. The statement presents selected facts and utilizes sentence structure in such as way as to suggest a factual statement, when in reality it is comparing two realms of influence that are essentially exclusive. Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses volutarily accept the way in which the organization conducts itself internally, including the discipline and/or removal of members for violations they may commit. As an organization, Witnesses will fight for and defend their right to conduct themselves in this manner among voluntary participants. Witnesses do not attempt to impose legal sanctions on those not accepting their views; such a concept would be illegal in most countries, and likewise violate the Witness principle of separation from political entities. The terms of full membership are clear. Furthermore, religious and legal/civil views are separate, and especially so in the minds of Witnesses. Therefore, Tommstein's statement cannot be viewed as a neutral point of view OR factually accurate. - CobaltBlueTony 17:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Rarely have so many words been expended in saying so little of actual relevance. About the only thing I could gather that matters is that the two things are different. Well, who would have ever thought that when you compare and contrast two different things, the things would be different? I personally find comparing and contrasting the exact same thing with itself much funner. Apparently the compare-and-contrast is a literary technique that few Jehovah's Witnesses have ever come across in whatever reading they do.Tommstein 16:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to put in my two pence worth. I have kept out of this one, but I can see both points. If your grumble is with the wording/grammar style of Tom's paragraph, then why are you not just correcting it as you see, instead of deleting it altogether? The points he is trying to make, as I see it, is the hypocritical situation where the Watch Tower Society demands its rights to function, criticise, say and do as it pleases with all its freedoms intact, and no punitive or legislative restrictions on these "religious freedoms" put in place. The second even the smallest restriction appears they cry "persecution", but at the same time they strip their members of a large body of their human rights, and freedoms (members are not warned or aware of this at their naïve baptismal stage), the same rights the Watch Tower and JWs in general would term "persecution" if its done to them as a body by some government. This demand for "freedom of speech" at the same time of totally denying it for their own members is something hypocritical and deserves to have a mention, as it is a problem that ruins some lives, and breaks up family units, friendships, and has a massive impact on individuals, also the way the Watch Tower does this has little or no scriptural backing.

I hear people saying, "but they can just leave the religion", but you all know well this is not the case (and it's a straw man). To leave is to have half their life messed up, and if all their friends and relatives are JWs, this can be an isolating and devastating situation. I know a few JWs who do not believe in the Watch Tower's doctrines anymore, but they stay just to keep their families and loved ones together. If someone said to JWs in a hostile country, "well this is the law of the land, if you don't like it then you know where the airport is!" All the JWs here would protest the unreasonableness of that advice, but then blindly fail to see the same situation in their own religion, and the terrible things they do to each other fooling themselves "it's for Jehovah", when in fact, it's not a Biblical requirement to follow the unsubstantiated doctrines of the New York book publishing religious group, and therefore not for Jehovah at all. This one rule for the group's freedoms and another for the individual's is neither scriptural or reasonable, and should have a mention, as it is a major criticism of the religion, especially the slanderous way it deals with ex-members, but then it hypocritical screams martyrdom when any government or body dares to say the slightest non-flattering thing about JWs, or their Watch Tower Society. The paragraph could be like the one I have written below. Anyway, I've said my bit, I'm sure you can all deride it now, or pretend you didn't even see it.

"While Jehovah's Witnesses demand and defend well their freedom to preach, teach, and spread their doctrines throughout the countries of the world without persecution, or any kind of restrictions to personal liberties and human rights, this freedom is not equalled in their treatment of their own individual members' rights. Individuals who openly ask too many questions, who do not conform, or who disbelieve any of the accepted doctrines of the religion, often find their rights and freedom of speech are highly restricted, often with a real thread of excommunication and shunning by family and friends hanging over them if their choose to exercise their freedom of speech, or freedom of thought by not submissively conforming to the groups strict allegiance to officially accepted doctrinal interpretations. This has often lead to criticisms of hypocrisy in the religion, especially from members who have left, due to their ostracized and often slandered experiences and personal restrictive treatment from the religion, this in direct opposite contrast to what the religion demands are "its right and freedoms" as a body to say and believe as they wish, and fight for in the legal courts of the world to preserve these freedoms." Central 16:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said Central. As this issue won't die, I'm going to put my two cents in too. As Central mentioned, if a passage is disputed, the best way to resolve it is to rewrite it, not delete it. As uberpenguin mentioned, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to highlight irony or hypocrisy. However, as Central wrote in his suggested paragraph, ex-members and critics do claim the JW are hypocrtical. That is an encyclopedic fact that should be in the article. The matter really is how to word it.

A lot more progress would be made if the antagonism between active JWs and ex-JWs was put aside. Everyone, please assume good faith and work on rewriting, not stubbornly deleting or leaving in a disputed passage. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That paragraph looks fine to me, factually. Heck, I didn't write the paragraph in question, so I don't really care how it says what it says, I just had a problem with the comparison being removed, for ostensibly some of the most idiotic reasons and non-reasons ever beheld by man, woman, animal, or house plant. The problem I think your version has, though, is that it does actually seem to delve more into what the current version was accused of, of repeating too much stuff regarding their disfellowshipping policies that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Just my opinion, of course.Tommstein 03:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tom, feel free to improve it, and then post it up if you want to, as long as it states the double standards that's fine by me.

I also noticed someone (IP 70.120.194.51) has done a cheeky edit and removed the tax-free status paragraph of the Watch Tower, did everyone else miss that? It would also be improved if it stated that the Watch Tower is being prosecuted over its tax evasion in France, which's yet another double standard. They as a group try to dodge "paying Caesar's things to Caesar" at every opportunity and evade contributing to the community with needed taxes, but would hypocritically excommunicate members if they did the same as individuals. One other point in regards to taxes that is ironic, is that governments of the world according to JW doctrine are "allowed their place by decreed of Jehovah are used to merit out justice on his behalf", the rest of the world is satanic and not supposedly used by Jehovah. We have the situation in France where the Watch Tower have been done for tax evasion by "Jehovah's duly allowed governments", and they are running to Satan's European court of Human Rights, to do battle with God over His taxes! "Please help us Satan, as Jehovah is taxing us though his appointed governments, as we don't want to pay Him!" Regards. Central 10:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that edit, but I wasn't sure what to make of it, since I don't know much about the subject. I figured someone who knows more about it than me would come by and fix whatever needed fixing, but apparently either it doesn't need fixing or no one wants to do it.Tommstein 02:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the issues here is that the paragraph makes a big deal about something that is typical of almost every Christian denomination. I pose the question to you, what does, for example, the Catholic Church historically call any member who openly disagrees with their core doctrines and the direction of the Papacy? What notable Christian denominations allow their adherents to believe and preach whatever they want in opposition to the Church's doctrine, while still calling themselves adherents to that particular religion?

Making statements about the personal feelings of those who have been disfellowshiped for one reason or another is certainly a point of view and doesn't fall into line with Wikipedia's editing policy of using a "hopefully optimistic" tone, therefore I don't feel your paragraph is really an improvement over what is already being contested. This sort of thing would be tantamount to visiting the article on Catholicism and starting to add text explaining why some of those who have left that particular denomination believe the Church is hypocritical. I seriously doubt that would go over very well with the editors of that particular article, so why should it be considered here? I do apologise for using Catholicism as an example, and I appreciate your useful input so far. -- uberpenguin 20:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You made a point about Catholics. They (individual Catholics) would not be excommunicated for merely discussing, or even doubting some of the accepted doctrines of the Church. I know a few Catholics, and have met many more over the years who have all manner of beliefs, questions and opinions that are not church doctrines, and I have never heard any of them say they have been excommunicated, or even threatened with it for questioning or disagreeing on any particular church teaching. The Catholic Church allows free debate and doubt, without abusing the rights of members to think, question, doubt and make up their own minds, if they feel there is not enough evidence to back a particular teaching. That is in stark contrast to the Watch Tower Society, as you are well aware, and is reinforced with their latest mags for January about reading or seeing any material that is not from the Watch Tower is "of the devil and apostate", and must not even be considered, let alone read and discussed. Can you imagine how the Watch Tower Society would react if some government said that about them and their literature! The freedoms the Watch Tower demands are not the freedom they give, and that is grossly hypocritical, especially when they make such a big noise about how they have brought about this or that change for free speech. As for your comment on "personal feelings", you are creating a red-herring, as you are well aware of the facts of what happens to members who do not accept all the JW doctrines, and that many of the doctrines have little or no scriptural backup or validation. How members feel about this does not change the facts of how their rights are dealt with, viewed, and treated.

The most sincere Christians have been disfellowshipped and shunned for merely having private conversations about dates like 1914, the number 144,000 etc., and as you are aware this kind of mind control, and punishment is not found in the vast majority of Christendom (or the Bible), to use them as you brought them up, and this is not a "personal opinion" but factual. And since when do JWs mimic what other religions do as an acceptable norm? Regardless of personal feelings, the facts remain that there is a broad dichotomy of what Jehovah's Witnesses demand as "their human rights", and how they view those same rights for individual members. This is a major point that stands out all the more than most religions, especially due to the obsessing jumping to call on 'Satan's Worldly courts' to help them every two minutes when they feel they have had some real or imaginary restriction placed on their ability to vend their literature and spread their doctrines. Unfortunately the same freedoms and openness are hypocritically removed from individual members' rights, and this is a major point that deserves some publicity, and has massive personal consequences on members' lives and families, and also on JWs as a religion, with them often being labelled high control, manipulative, and cult-like in behaviour because of the way they treat their members. Central 21:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You raise a good point that the number of excommunications by the Catholic church in later days is low, probably oustandingly low. Let's be honest though, the number of JW disfellowshippings due to direct conflicts in doctrines and Biblical interpretation is also comparitively low. Of course it's unlikely that any person expressing doubt or discontent about some Catholic view would be excommunicated on the spot, and the same goes for JWs. Simply expressing doubt or a differing point of view isn't an instant disfellowshipping offense; it only becomes one when someone is continually teaching doctrine to other JWs that is in conflict with the WBTS. Again using the Catholic example, if a member of the Church disagreed with the authority of the Vatican or perhaps some core Catholic tradition and began to express his/her views to others in his Church and try to sway them to their point of view, would there be absolutely no reprocussions for him? Would the local priests sit by and tolerate that person's directly contradicting some of the Church's teachings? I'd imagine not. Religion is in itself a forfeit of some rights; you can't rightly call something 'worship' if it requires absolutely no changes in your actions. However, that's obviously not the point here. The point is that it isn't this article's job to attempt to point out the hypocrisy you perceive in JW practises. Making factual statements like "JWs who teach doctrine that conflict with that of the WBTS are disfellowshipped" is fine, making a statement like (if I may quote you), "... many of the doctrines have little or no scriptural backup or validation" is not acceptable since it is your own point of view. To directly address that point for just a moment, the entire principle of disfellowshipping those who go against God's established authority has plenty of scriptural prescent according to JWs; the story of Korah's rebellion in this context is often cited by JW literature and talks. I don't mean to digress, but the point is that JWs certainly DO find a scriptural backup in this principle, and I'd appreciate it if you would be more careful to stick to the matter at hand rather than going into asides about doctrines that you don't perceive as being Bible based.

So I'll do the same and stick to the point at hand. It is again, not the place of this article to make statements or collect things together in such a way as to point out what you perceive as hypocrisy. The article already states how JWs label apostates, and it also states how JWs defend their rights as an organization in court. That is sufficient and factual. It is not appropriate to try to show some contrast or irony in these two facts; the reader can draw their own conclusions. Our issue here hasn't been that the information isn't factual, but that it subdly suggests to the reader that there is some hypocrisy present, and that the text is out of place and redundant in the scope of the article.

As for the matter of 'mind control' that often comes up when we discuss things here, that is neither something that could be proved nor agreed upon. Obviously the JW editors here would object wholeheartedly to being labeled this way, and obviously you and other editors feel strongly about this. I would ask that you please don't keep trying to bring this up. We are all reasonable adults here, we all spend a lot of time watching and editing this and other articles, and I'm sure we'd all appreciate leaving labels and name calling out of this. I'm probably guilty of the same thing, and I'll do my best to do the same that I ask. Edit Note that I didn't quote you because I thought you might include that sentence in the article, and I realize that POV is fair game on talk pages. I was merely citing an example of the kind of verbiage that is unacceptable in the article. -- uberpenguin 00:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You said: "Let's be honest though, the number of JW disfellowshippings due to direct conflicts in doctrines and Biblical interpretation is also comparitively low." Yes, they are low due to the massive and crushing oppression that having all your family and friends turned against you, and labelled as a "wicked apostate", for daring to think for yourself. The Watch Tower's high control and devastating consequences are very real, just as they were in many communist countries (and still are in North Korea). One thought out of line and off you went to the Gulag concentration camp (if you were lucky), or shot in the head as an example if you were not so lucky. You made an incorrect statement by saying: "Simply expressing doubt or a differing point of view isn't an instant disfellowshipping offense; it only becomes one when someone is continually teaching doctrine to other JWs that is in conflict with the WBTS." This is not the case at all. One only has to believe something that is not in line with the interpretations and doctrines of the Watch Tower and this is enough to be labelled apostate and disfellowshipped if not immediately reversed. They do not have to teach or spread a non-subservient thought or belief. As the Governing Body states in their letter to district and circuit overseers: "Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. . . Therefore if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persist in believing other doctrines, . . .then he is apostatizing."-1 September 1980, letter to all Circuit and District overseers. As for your next point about the word, 'hypocrisy', are you saying it should be banned? It's just a word describing a situation where one thing is stated, and another contrary thing is practiced. It is a neutral and factual word you have already admitted is JW policy in regard to member's treatment compared to the group's demands: "Religion is in itself a forfeit of some rights" to quote you. Just because you do not like a word, does not make it POV. Murder, rape, and torture are all words, be they unpleasant, but that does not remove their usage if they are factually correct, nor make them POV.

You make another point: "the entire principle of disfellowshipping those who go against God's established authority has plenty of scriptural prescent according to JWs". The glaring mistake you have made is the fact that there is no established scriptural authority of the Watch Tower Society, they merely presumptuously claim authority as "God's mouthpiece", if they don't actually act as if they are God Himself. The scriptures speak of rebellion of Christ and God, not the unique and often contradictory doctrines of the New York publishing company. The precedent you speak of is not found anywhere in scriptures, as the Bible gives zero authority or loyalty to the opinions, prophecies and doctrines of men and their organizations over those of God and Christ. You go on: "It is not appropriate to try to show some contrast or irony in these two facts; the reader can draw their own conclusions." How can the reader draw a conclusion when the facts are missing? There are three paragraphs trumpeting the rights of JWs and their court battles, where is the balance? They make a very big noise and seek publicity in this regard, there should also be a clear section of information (not hidden in another section) demonstrating that although they have gained many freedoms, they refuse to give the same freedoms and treatment to their members, even seeking to control and litigate against freedom of thought, which by any standard is extremely cult-like and stinks of mind control, especially where the excommunication for a non-conforming thought can lead to the destruction of whole families, and lead in some cases to serve depression, nervous breakdowns and even suicide. If the way they treat the freedoms and rights of their members should be hidden (as you desire) then so should all this pile of information about their court battles, and trumpet blowing.

You say: "... 'many of the doctrines have little or no scriptural backup or validation' is not acceptable since it is your own point of view." Can you give some examples of where these dates and their meaning 1799, 1878, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, 1994 are found in scriptures? Many have been expelled for just questioning these dates, or not believing in them due to their lack of a scriptural foundation. Many excommunications were carried out due to Witnesses not believing many of the woolly teachings that have no scholarly backup, like the authority of an organization claiming to be a unique channel of God, 144,000/great crowd, two classes, and when the last days began etc., and yet not accepting the "unique doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses" will and does lead to expulsions, so please don't do down that road!

If the main article is to have three paragraphs on governments, and court battle for freedom of speech, then at least one paragraph of those should show the double standard, that they demand one set of "freedoms" (claiming its persecution and abuse of Human rights not have them) and then deny the very same things to their own members, this is not POV, but a fact based in their practices and doctrines. Central 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The way Jehovah's Witnesses treat ex-members, be they family, lifelong friends, or anything else, just might have something to do with why this aspect isn't treated like it is with less-extreme religions.Tommstein 04:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a very strong POV to compare socialization restrictions within a nonviolent religious group to MURDER, RAPE, TORTURE and other atrocities committed by dictatorial and communist political regimes.

Central, you said, "Many have been expelled for just questioning these dates, or not believing in them due to their lack of a scriptural foundation." Horsehockey! That is the biggest presumption of fact I've heard yet. I have two words for that: PROVE IT.

Here's two words for you. FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE.

This environment is an academic one; this is not a place for you to assume a stance based on opinions for which you have no facts. The only people claiming that JWs are a more extreme organization are those who cannot accept the terms of membership. You say so many are pressured by social forces to remain compliant; I say so many more are attracted by what they see as Biblical truth. But NEITHER opinion belongs in this article if they are not presented as facts. Are you suggesting that a signifcant percentage of the global, or even American, congregation secretly dissents? Baloney. When they joined, many of them distanced themselves from family, friends, and so forth. They felt the need based on their newfound faith. So now you say they have to go through it again because they no longer accept that faith? I say it stands to reason that if they felt so strongly in converting themselves the first time, little to nothing prevents them from repeating the process for something they feel more strongly about. Your arguments holds little weight, insomuch as you do not have a good read on the minds of every member of the congregations worldwide. You presume that those with whom you speak represent a greater number than you know for certain, either through their suggestion or your assumption. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Certainly it is factual to represent thier views, but it is not fair to suggest by means of precise or clever wording that one set of views is more prevalent when you do not have facts to support it. - CobaltBlueTony 16:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

On a completely different note, I have a question for uberpenguin. I recall you said about 7 – 8 weeks ago, that you were going to write to the Watch Tower Society in regard to the debate here about who will be spared at Armageddon. Did you get a reply from them, and if yes, what did it specifically say in regard to the subject? Central 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the consensus was that even a direct response from the WBTS wouldn't change the positions of the other editors, so I have not written. I still can if the response could potentially make a difference in others' minds. -- uberpenguin 20:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't asking in regard to the debate's conclusion changing, I was just interested in how they would respond, and I'm surprised you didn't write anyway, for your own peace of mind. I know I would have if I had your doubts. Where better to go than "the channel of God" directly! Central 21:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested in knowing how they would respond, you ought to write them yourself. If you write in a clear and non-argumentitive manner you have as much chance of getting a response as do I. As for my own peace of mind, I will probably get around to writing eventually as a matter of interest, though the answer wouldn't change any of my personal feelings, just my factual knowledge of current JW doctrine. -- uberpenguin 01:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)