Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bloodless Surgery

The claim that bloodless surgery is prefered by non-believers needs a source less biased than the Watchtower itself, which is of course a publication that proseltyses on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses 84.12.111.19 19:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section would benefit from a 3rd party source, however the video does provide testimony of medical professionals. Duffer 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that people should be kinder when saying about Jehovah's day. I'm from JW's BTW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.62.55 (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Origins

The article states: "their faith is a continually improving, imperfect restoration of first-century Christianity". This isn't strictly true, in that while the Witnesses do regard their beliefs to be more in line with first-century Christianity than 'Christendom', they also regard themselves as having a clearer understanding than first-century Christians about various doctrines, often citing 1 Corinthians 13:12 as a basis.--Jeffro77 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! BenC7 08:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Evangelism

The section should include something about the JW doctrine that only the 144,000 are commanded to preach "door to door", while other members (the "remnant") are "encouraged" to join with them. It is a central and expanding tenet of the faith that only a small portion of the membership (the 144,000 "anointed ones") have a direct relationship with Jesus, and are therefore the only ones bound by Jesus' commands to his followers (see recent Watchtower articles on "class"). Voideater 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Family Life

This section needs citations. Are these the goals officially promulgated by the organization? Is there evidence these beliefs make it into practice? For every OR example of "something wonderful" there's an OR example of horror. A single reference for one portion to the non-doctrinal Awake! is not useful. Voideater 18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Devil

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the devil? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.204.185 (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, they do. Often, when preaching at doors, they point out the problems in the world and then refer to the scripture in 1 John 5:19 where it states that the "whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one," namely Satan, the Devil. See http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2001/9/1/article_02.htm for more details in different aspets of their beliefs in this matter.

Charles Taze Russell

C.T Russell- founder of the jehova wittnesses, was tried and convicted in court for selling "Miracle Wheat" professing it had "powers" after the "miracle wheat" was tested it was proven it had no powers or healing affect just your state of mind! When asked about the jehova wittnesses bible they had asked "who translated your Bible from the HEBREW" he had said "myself" when asked to recite the hebrew aleph bet (HE WAS UNSUCCESSFUL). So where did he get the Jehova witness bible from? So how can you trust the Jehova Wittness bible? Have you ever compared the christian Bible to the Jehova Wittness' Bible (NWT)? They Look exactly the same except for the few commas that are changed to fit the jehova wittness' "cult" or "religion" or the words added here and there such as "they will be annhihilated" instead of "and they will be distroyed"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.157.237 (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Duffer 12:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have never claimed to be infallible, rather, we all are imperfect people who makes mistakes. That goes for C.T. Russell was well. In the "miracle wheat" situation, you are incorrect in claiming he was tried and convicted. Rather, according to the Wiki article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell - he was accused by a newspaper of fraud, but the only court action was him suing the paper for libel and losing.

As for him and the New World Translation, C.T. Russell died in 1916. Since work did not begin on the NWT until 1942, it safe to say he was not involved. Reference the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation for the history of the translation.

This is not the place for religious flaming. But I suppose everyone has the right to do so. I request though that we all try to use as correct grammar as we can. And we should site our sources. The above comment is a perfect example of a poorly thought out argument. Counter arguments can be found with only short research. The misspelling of "Jehovah's" and the use of parentheses around "HE WAS UNSUCCESFUL" makes this writer seem questionable. I don't mean to sound rude, but some people just don't even try to be convincing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.210.180 (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Chefjefe 17:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad link needs correcting - but to what?

I refer to the quotation in the article:

(For statistics of the number of partakers in relationship to non-partakers, see Jehovah's Witnesses (Membership).

The last three words are a link pointing to "Jehovah's Witnesses#Membership" - but this link does not exist; nor does "Jehovah's_Witnesses_(membership)".

Presumably this was intended to point to something specific, and was typed wrongly - but I cannot figure out what. So I just brings this to the attention of someone who can find the proper link. M.J.E. 09:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

An editor has removed the self-professed position taught by Jehovah's Witnesses that they alone are Christian to the exclusion of any and every other religion. Expressly, the Watchtower teaches that no other religion is Christian other than the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. In its place there is soft-peddling of this religious profession of Christianity. Why? Watchtower literature is very bold in this claim. Why should the article be any less bold?

I also see lots of theological rhetoric laced with JW POV. Information should reflect NPOV.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Brotherlawrence: The Section on JW beliefs about Christianity is not the place to iterate JW beleifs on other subjects such as war, use of titles, trinity etc. Beliefs on these subjects deserve their own Sections. If you believe these beliefs warrant attention then I recommend you build the sections so editors can take a look. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Brotherlawrence: In response to what you wrote on my User Page, it is entirely appropriate for a Section on Jehovah's Witnesses beleif on Christianity to include information about whatever are their beliefs on Christianity. But it is inappropriate to use the Section to launch into theological rhetoric removed from their belief on Christianity. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses hold that all our beliefs are somehow associated with Christianity. But were the Section on Christianity to expand to these then the whole theology of Jehovah's Witnesses would fall into this one sub-Section. Hence the need to keep to the point. If you see more information that addresses this particular belief then by all means add it. But, again, take care not to turn the Section into a theological lecture.

Oh, and by the way, please respond here so other editors can consider the dialogue. If you must communicate just with me please use my talk page rather than my user page. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer Re. your comment:"But it is inappropriate to use the Section to launch into theological rhetoric removed from their belief on Christianity." What I said on your user page was that I basically agree with that, and have no problem with your removal. My doing it again in the "Christianity" section was because the things added didn't seem to belong in the section where they were - "Nationalism." Should these be put back? --Brotherlawrence (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Circular Reference

It seems worth mentioning the circular reference involved in the JW's establishment of 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem. They believe that the Jews "evidently" returned in 537 because it is 70 years after 607, (though a comparison of Josephus with Ezra indicates 538) and they state that 607 is the year because it is 70 years prior to the alleged return of the Jews in 537. (Additionally, the "word of Jeremiah" referred to 'nations serving Babylon' at Jeremiah 25:12, and Jeremiah 29:10 can't be consistently interpreted as relating to Jewish exile instead. Also, Jeremiah 29:10 was written to exiles already in Babylon prior to the beginning of the JWs alleged '70 years of exile', invalidating the context of a 70 year exile.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: You make an astute observation. Adding to the problem you depict is that the Watchtower organization on one hand insists that a prophesied 70 year period is precisely 70 years, whereas in at least one other instance of a prophesied 70 year period it teaches the period is not precisely 70 years. Religious bias run amuck is an ugly thing to watch.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The intention of the comment, "Religious bias run amuck is an ugly thing to watch" is unclear. However, if it is directed at me, "It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion." (The Watchtower, 15 November 1963, page 688.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The remark of note is not directed at your astute observation. "Run amuck" is stated in reference to bias that tolerates the very circular reasoning you identify. This bias is expressed by the Watchtower organization's religious leaders. It is an ugly thing to watch.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from unknown source

The article says "As of December 15th, 2005 there were 1044 Witnesses imprisoned over this issue in South Korea." under Military. Source?

Voting

The currently stated view regarding voting is misleading. While the referenced article does state that JWs can attend a voting booth without penalty, and that 'what they do [anonymously] in the voting booth is their choice', JWs can be sanctioned if they are known to have voted in a political election. Pay Attention to Yourselves and to all the Flock (page 140) states: "Jehovah's Witnesses maintain neutrality with regard to the political and military affairs of the nations ... Since true dedicated Christians are "no part of the world," if a member of the congregation unrepentantly pursues a course in violation of his Christian neutrality, he thereby disassociates himself from the neutral Christian congregation. ... If he disregards the help proffered and pursues a course in violation of Christian neutrality, a committee should send the facts substantiating the disassociation to the branch office on the S-77 and S-79 forms."--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we know the reference above applies explicitly to voting? (i.e. does pursuing "a course in violation of his Christian neutrality" and maintaining "political neutrality" mean a Jehovah's Witness is forbidden to vote?) 75.171.249.210 (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Pay Attention book was written in 1991. The WT reference cited about voting being (arguably) a conscience decision was written in 1999. Does this override the 1991 instruction? LTSally (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The cited reference which is supposed to support the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses who vote are subject to sanctions does not specifically state that voting is a punishable offense: http://www.bible.cfmin.com/PAYATTENTION.pdf Also, as LTSally pointed out, it appears to be outdated anyway. Please revise this section so that is does not contain unverifiable speculation.75.171.249.210 (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Pay Attention book states that "if a member of the congregation unrepentantly pursues a course in violation of his Christian neutrality, he thereby disassociates himself from the neutral Christian congregation". The 1999 Watchtower article reiterates that "Being “no part of the world,” they are neutral in the political affairs of the world", that "Ambassadors are expected to be neutral". The Watchtower article is deliberately silent about the repercussions of a JW being known to have actually voted. However, if a member told the elders that they'd voted, it indeed "may" (as stated in the article) make them subject to religious sanctions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's good enough. The statement "... though a Witness who is known to have actually voted, or admits to doing so may face religious sanctions" sounds very much like a synthesis of published material which advances a position. I'd suggest it's fairer to accept what the 1999 WT article says at face value without comment, particularly in view of the fact that this was written eight years after the publication you use as your reference. You may be correct that witnesses who vote may face sanctions, but unless that is specifically stated in a publication (and the reference you cite doesn't do that), it is only an assumption and should be removed. LTSally (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That being the case, the article should also not state that JWs may vote (rather than simply go into the polling booth) with impunity, for exactly the same reason.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it lamentable that there seems to be no scholarly consensus on this matter. It is a matter of reading between the lines to conclude that "being no part of the world" and remaining "neutral in the political affairs of the world" is defined as refraining from voting. Until we can provide an authoritative reference stating either that Jehovah's Witnesses are proscribed from voting or else allowed to make a personal decision in the matter there should be no mention of it in the Wikipedia article.75.171.249.210 (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

hipocrytes

they say that the soul is destroyd affter death, but they also say that 144000 souls don't. that is discriminating. why should a man who has done nothing good to other, and only cept away from sin, go to heaven. but a man who has sinned and helped people, not!?Demothones (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Because going to heaven has nothing to do with how "good" you are or how many "good things" you have done. I am not a Jehovah's Witness; I would fall into the category of the Gospel Hall Brethren, but I agree with them on that- God has offered an extremely simple way to save yourself. All anyone has to do is accept that they're not worthy to go to heaven and realize that Jesus died so that they COULD go to heaven. If someone has done so-called "good works" but won't even accept that very easy way to go to heaven, then they certainly don't deserve to go. 71.10.48.39 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not as though it's actually true. It's just something that some people think will happen. Let them believe what they like.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a point here in understanding the Witnesses' definition of Soul. Also, it would be key here to understand that to a Witness, there is no glory in being resurrected to heaven. While most Christians see the purpose in life as becoming spiritual beings, Witnesses see their purpose as being on Earth to praise god forever. Try to understand their paradigm before accusing them of discrimination.

Incorrect. The Watchtower, 15 July, 2000, p. 18 par. 12: "12 As Paul said, human flesh differs from that of animals. Even animal flesh varies from one kind to another. (Genesis 1:20-25) The “heavenly bodies” of spirit creatures differ in glory from “earthly bodies” of flesh. There are also differences in the glory of the sun, moon, and stars. But resurrected anointed ones have far greater glory."--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Flawed phrasing

From 'The nature of God' onwards this article is seriously flawed in that none of the following statements are qualified with 'according to...' or 'Jehovah's witnesses believe'. This has the unfortunate consequence of making statements such as "The "last days" began in 1914,[52] but they will conclude at Armageddon," appear to be offered as statements of fact. Please rectify. Thanks.81.157.162.73 (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is unnecessary since the title and lede state clearly: The following reflects the current beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. As such, it reflects the point of view of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no need to keep repeating this and to do so would make the article less readable. I am removing the neutrality tag, if this point is the only reason for having it there. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness POV in article

I've tagged the article as disputed neutrality due to its current Jehovah's Witness POV. Every article must conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, regardless of the subject. --Explodicle (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I think there is an inherent lack of neutrality due to reliance on primary sources instead of secondary sources for article content (See also WP:SELFPUB #7), and also some specific wording like "God is the creator and supreme being." The wording issues I'm sure will be easier to correct, and if it's unclear what I mean, please say so below and I'll tag or fix each POV statement. --Explodicle (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are making a very basic but crucial mistake by incorrectly identifying what qualifies as POV. If the article conveyed the information that God is the creator and supreme being then, yes, it would violate NPOV very blatantly. However, this is not the case. The article states that the Wintesses hold the belief that God is the creator and supreme being. This is not POV because the Witnesses belief in God is not being challenged. The article is listing a set of beliefs which, by the very definition of the word belief, are not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. As commendable as it is that you're trying to conform to the WP:NPOV policy, you are misinterpreting the situation here. You would like to present all significant views that have been published by reliable sources but this is the only significant view! There are people and institutions out there who will argue that the Witnesses doctrine is flawed but we are not discussing the correctness of their doctrine, we are simply presenting what their doctrine is. That doctrine is not defined nor regulated nor imposed by anyone else other than the Witnesses themselves and their official publications.

And also, you are misinterpreting the meaning of primary versus secondary sources. In the very link you supplied above to explain the difference between the two, you should be able to clearly deduce that primary sources are things like raw data and religious scriptures. Secondary sources would be interpretations of that raw data or of those scriptures. The Watchtower and Awake! are one step removed from the primary source which, in this case, is the Bible because they actually interpret the Bible. Whether the intepretation is correct or grossly incorrect should not be debated here, rather this article's purpose is to accurately portray the interpretation itself. If the entire article was trying to push forward a view on the world and proposing a recipe for prosperity of mankind by interpreting The Book of Revelations, then we'd have a problem because that would mean we're using a primary source to write an article. In this case, secondary sources are most definitely being used.

I'm sorry, but I just believe that your arguments are flawed from the beginning because you're misinterpreting policies, guidelines and the purpose of the article itself. The tags placed in the article are erroneous and will not serve to bring about an improvement. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with the dispute resolution procedure I've asked for a few outside opinions at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Dispute regarding PSTS. --Explodicle (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on the rough consensus there, it looks like although these two publications are primary sources, they can be relied upon so long as anyone without specialist knowledge can verify their claims. One of the commenters at WP:NOR pointed out that although the article doesn't have WP:NOR problems, it may have problems with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I'm running this by Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#The Watchtower: A Questionable Source? to make sure The Watchtower and Awake! are definitely OK in this use before I go further, though. --Explodicle (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess the consensus is against me. When I get the chance I'll try to rephrase a few things to be less POV, and if anyone has a problem with those edits we can discuss them on a case-by-case basis. --Explodicle (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about drugs

The article currently says that although caffeine is a mind-altering substance, it is allowed because it is natural. Do they have a similar policy with coca leaves or Psilocybin mushrooms? I'm not trying to start an argument, but I think their reasoning could be further elaborated in the section. --Explodicle (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the Jehovah's Witness book, True Peace and Security--How Can You Find It? (1986), pages 159-160: "Jehovah's Witnesses . . . want no part of the use of drugs for thrills or to flee from reality." "Coca leaves" and "betel nut" are specifically condemned in the same chapter. I couldn't find a specific reference to hallucinogenic mushrooms, but they would fall under the category of drugs "used for thrills or to flee from reality."

On a different note, I would like to suggest that the last paragraph in the section "Drugs and Alcohol," which reads: The Witnesses also believe that certain mood-altering drugs are connected to spiritism. This also applies to cigarette smoking be changed to: "This also applies to the use of tobacco." I don't mean to be a pedant about this but the sentence leaves open the possibility that chewing tobacco or cigar and pipe smoking might be permissible.75.171.249.210 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

First Sentence of Intro (really bad)

Wow, that first sentense of the introduction is really intense POV. Anyone have any suggestions for its rewording to NPOV-ize it? --Fcsuper (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have rewritten the intro to state more explicitly, and with a referenced claim by a former member of the Governing Body, what the beliefs and practices are based on. That individual, incidentally, claims that in his experience decisions made by the Governing Body were rarely based on intense Bible study, but by majority votes based on oral discussions, with more frequent reference to previous Watchtower Society publications than the Bible itself. LTSally (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would put the Intro into a neutrality question. Why the statement that the decisions are made by "closed meetings"? Summer Song (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You dispute the neutrality of the entire intro? Or just the reference to the closed meetings? I would say it is highly relevant that decisions made by the Governing Body – on doctrines, beliefs and practices that become binding on every member of the religion – are made at closed meetings. Unlike decisions made by most governments, the United Nations, your local city council, church synods and even the body of Christians who discussed circumcision in the religious council described in Acts 15, members hear nothing of the debate and are presented only with decisions. The decisions then dictate every aspect of what follows in this article -- the beliefs and practices of members of the religion. There's no point of view in this statement. It's simply a relevant fact. LTSally (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'closed meetings' stuff is probably appropriate in the article, but not really necessary or appropriate in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reorder

I've changed the order of some of the sections, with an attempt to base the order on relevance. While the order is not set in stone, please keep beliefs and practices separate (i.e. Discipline is a practice, and Death is a belief, unlike the way they were listed before), and try to maintain logical flow.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)