Jump to content

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

I really do think this:

Throughout their history, many have found their doctrines and practices controversial. The public and extensive nature of their evangelizing work has escalated controversy against them to the point of mob action, government oppression--including being targeted in the Holocaust--and widespread criticism from members of other faiths. Such criticism has become an entire genre with the advent of the Web.

reads a lot better (and is more natural to the medium) than

Throughout their history, many have found their doctrines, beliefs, and practices controversial. (See Jehovah's Witness Doctrine, Jehovah's Witness Practices). Responses have included mob action, government oppression, including being targetted in the Holocaust (See Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust), and widespread criticism from Christians of other denominations. Such criticism has become an entire genre with the advent of the Web. (See Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses)

Any opinions?

yup, the top version is clearer to read. -- Tarquin
I agree, it's much clearer. Though I'm still not convinced the criticism needs to be broken out into a separate article. Wesley
Wesley, are you convinced that Holocaust Revisionism should be a separate article from Holocaust? Then you should have no problem with the existence of the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article. --63.231.52.76 07:49 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)
I prefer the Encyclopedia style of the second entry. It makes more sense to me. --63.231.52.76 07:49 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

Actually, I find these attempts to use the Holocaust as an excuse to remove the opposing links to be quite amusing.  :) Modemac

Do we let fundamentalist Christians censor our articles on Christianity and the Bible and baldly rewrite history, in the issue of "fairness"? Does an impartial encyclopaedia article on Christianity have to be written in accord with Christian theology? No, of course not. Do we let Orthodox Jews censor our articles on Judaism and the documentary hypothesis in the issue of "fairness"? Does an impartial encyclopaedia article on Judaism have to be written in accord with Orthodox Jewish theology? No, of course not. This is an encyclopaedia based on facts, and not a tool for religious propaganda - for any faith. However, we have been letting the pro-Jehovah's Witness crowd get away with murder here, as they keep censoring articles, deleting indisputable facts, and sometimes rewriting history to the point of lying. This is not a good sitatuion. We need a few more people to help keep an eye on this and related entries. Merely maintaining NPOV isn't the problem; it is outright academic dishonest and censorship that we need to fight against.

Opposing Views

Mr 63.* ; you're being a dickhead. Please stop it. NPOV demands that criticism be included. Stop deleting links to it.

Calling me a dickhead doesn't in any way support your thesis. There is an article for Criticism of JW's, just as there is an article for Holocaust Revisionism. --63.231.52.76 18:04 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

<yawn> If I must then I must, though you will simply deny this anyways and keep on deleting the links to the opposing viewpoints. There are many, many people and organizations worldwide that promote the fact of the existence and timeline of the Holocaust. Holocaust revisionism is only one minor facet of it, one that is nearly universally rejected because of the overwhelming evidence against it. On the other hand, as far as the Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, there is only one organization (the Witnesses themselves) promoting the point of view of the Jehovah's Witnesses; there are many organizations and groups worldwide who question that opinion and offer alternating viewpoints. This is why the opposing viewpoints are necessary. This is also why I call it "opposing viewpoints" and not "criticism" -- because that's what it is. Of course, you're simply going to go on deleting the opposing view links anyways, because as far as you are concerned, I am someone who thinks he knows more about the Jehovah's Witnesses than you do. By the way, where is our friend Clutch? Modemac

I think it's time to do away with the criticism article. In the text of the criticism article, it says it's a place to put criticism until what is factual can be hashed out and put in the main article. Well, that seems more the role of a talk page. Further, I think Mr. Clutch and Mr 63.* are misusing that page to suppress what is factual. It is a 'fact' that somebody has a criticism page at some URL. The whole point of NPOV is you report various views, and you attribute them to whoever feels that way. That's exactly what we do when we say "Opposing Views" above the links. q

Since there are pro-JW links and JW is a controversial religious movement there should also be links to websites that are critical of JW, no? Deleting valid links is very unwiki and edit wars are unproductive. If this war doesn't stop then the page may need to be temporarily frozen in order to give everybody some time to cool off. --mav 21:53 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

Suggested pages:

-Stevertigo

This is a fascinating debate, and to me, as an atheist, makes me more than aware of what a curiously half-baked affair religiosity in any of its forms actually is. I am interested in the initial assertion in the article as it currently stands that the Jehovah's Witnesses are classified as a Christian denomination despite worshipping Jehovah and not Christ. Anyone care to shed any light on this please? user:sjc

Have you read the Wikipedia article on Christianity, which is linked to in the article itself? The essential belief common to all Christians is that salvation comes through Christ. JW's assuredly hold that belief. --63.231.52.76 07:33 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)
This looks like a highly selective redefinition of reality to me. I think that one or two of Marx's ideas are interesting. This doesn't make me a Marxist, far from it, I am your archetypal laissez-faire capitalist. Similarly I think that one or two of J Christ's post-Platonic ramblings have a certain merit. That by the same token doesn't make me a Christian. I would need rather more convincing that the JWs were Christian than that to allow them to really be contained within the ambit of a Christian denomination. user:sjc
Atheism has nothing to do with your repeated removal of the links to the opposing viewpoints. You asked (or rather, you demanded) that I respond to your "charge" about Holocaust revisionism vs. the opposing viewpoint links, and I have done so. And you continue to remove the links without any further discussion, Mister "you refuse to answer my challenge." Where is your continuation of this discussion? Modemac

Furthermore, q has a good point. The text for "Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses" says: Criticism levelled against Jehovah's Witnesses can go here until what is factual and what is not can get hashed out sufficiently to be put in the article on Jehovah's Witnesses in a neutral manner. Isn't this what the Talk page is supposed to be about? Modemac

--

Evidently Mr. 63 has given up trying to have any sort of discussion, though he keeps trying to remove the opposing links. How much longer until we have cause to file a complaint to the Wikipedia sysops? (And how much longer after that before he starts crying "religious persecution"?) Modemac

Its not in the interest of an authoritative encyclodedia to have articles that speak in religious language: That is to say, terms within such religious discussion are usually couched in metaphor, so when people argue about minor quasilogical differences between denominations, it strikes the rest of the human world as boring, and utterly self-involved.

Christianity has three main branches, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and everyone fits into these boxes, like it or not. The Christianity article is need of some work as well.

A religious language is not English, therefore it belongs somewhere else. It may use English words, and look a lot like English, but its not.

Wouldn't religious "language" be best understood as just another set of jargon? A number of the more advanced articles on science and mathematics use some words I don't know either, because I'm not a mathematician. It seems to me that your argument would ban those words from the encyclopedia as well, since they're certainly not plain English to most people. Wesley

'Salvation through Christ' will mean nothing to the objective point of view, (we read encyclopedias for knowledge we do not have - religious knowledge belongs on a talk page, not the article)

The above metaphor and all the others should either be saved for teatime, or have to be reduced to their meaning i.e, '"with the belief in an unearthly spirit, comes also the belief in its immortality, through the continituity of life, represented by (insert metaphor here).

- Stevertigo

If "Salvation through Christ" means nothing from an objective point of view, then such an objective point of view means nothing in the discussion of religious topics. Substitute that kind of objective view point, and you will make clear to all religious people that you are not only disinterested in religion, but positively hostile to it. Mkmcconn
You are quite correct that this is a core concept within the terms of reference of this subject Mkmcconn. But it is a very intangible concept by its very nature and is evidently and manifestly insufficiently defined. Perhaps it needs clarification in an article on the subject, written from an appropriate NPOV of course. I would tend to argue that from my conversations with a number of "Christians", that "Salvation through Christ" is way down the order of precedence. But hey, maybe I'm just skeptical. user:sjc
The terms can be defined in such a way to be descriptive, instead of preferential, without resorting to the biased notion that non-religious terms are a more "objective" way of describing religion. Mkmcconn
There is nothing "biased" in objectivity nor do I see any problem in trying to accurately describe something nor using a terminology which is appropriate. That is the whole point of what we are doing here. Perhaps the problem is that religion and the associated semantics which underpin it are inherently non-objective and should be accurately described as such, e.g. in the way in which descriptions of fictional characters in articles are clearly ring-fenced with the word "fictional". The corollary of which, of course, is that all religious concepts should be clearly delineated as such. I have no problem with that. user:sjc


LOL, mkm.. you accuse me of being hostile to religion, but, i accuse any religion to be hostile towards the other. It is the lack of common language that has created this hostility, nitpicking, and inability to reconcile common values and core beliefs. You claim an allegiance to a family of religion that only exists as a unity against secularism. -stevertigo

This won't get far, I can see. No, I'm not talking about either, you or me, or what your hostilities are or what my allegiances are. The point is that the adoption of a secularized, "objective", scientific point of view such as has been described, would not be neutral when dealing with a religious subject. Mkmcconn

Perhaps this debate can continue in a more appropriate place: Talk:Controversy over religious semantics, objectivity, and play (esoteric) -q

This feud is exactly what I was afraid would happen to the Unification Church article, and it may be instructive to compare the current squabble here to the relative peace that has reigned over there.

  1. Although I am a member of the Unification Church, I have tried to digest any criticism at a leisurely pace, often preferring to leave in what I regard as a mistake.
  2. When I did feel it necessary to speak up, I would place a comment on the talk page first, and wait for replies.
  3. After several months of this, I'm more likely to hear about a "criticism" from another contributor than to see it myself: "Hey, Ed, why do you let them say that about your church?"

I feel that my determination not to make a fuss about what I believe has helped keep things smooth over there. At least, no one's ganging up on me. And user:Wesley has been unfailing kind and helpful.

Have I brought out any helpful insights that can ease the situation here? --Ed Poor

If someone actually has a good reason to delete the Opposing View links, that should be explained here on the Talk page before deleting them again. That's just standard Wikipedia etiquette to avoid editing wars. Wesley

OK, deleting the links is beginning to rise to the level of vandalism -- at the very least this is causing a lot of unproductive use of the this talk page and is draining our human resources. I suggest that the person doing so stop or risk a 24 hour block. --mav

I've stated my reason as to why the Opposing Viewpoints should remain on the main page: as far as the Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, there is only one organization (the Witnesses themselves) promoting the point of view of the Jehovah's Witnesses; there are many organizations and groups worldwide who question that opinion and offer alternating viewpoints. This is why the opposing viewpoints are necessary, to counter the "official" (sanitized) Jehovah's Witness links and offer genuine differing viewpoints. This is also why I call it "opposing viewpoints" and not "criticism" -- because that's what it is. If Clutch/63 could be so kind as to try talking things over and accepting the fact that the Jehovah's Witness worldview is not the only one allowed on Wikipedia, we could come to an amiable solution. And to Mr. Poor: As someone who has had less-than-satisfying experiences online with the Unification Church (a Moonie mouthpiece named Damian Anderson tried to wipe out the entire alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* newsgroup hierarchy on Usenet once), I appreciate your open-mindedness. Modemac

How interesting, the previous explanation of why the Opposing Views links were being removed has been erased from this Talk page. Now I wonder why someone who is self-proclaimedly "out to get" JW's would do that. Those links are strident, partisan, clearly biased, and mostly innaccurate and misleading. I stated clearly that if people can find factual articles, without innuendo, lies, and misleading statements filling them up, they are welcome to link them in. So far that has not happened. The people that want the "Opposing Views" in only seem to want the ones that trash the JW religion. This does not help anyone take the scholarly standards of the Wikipedia seriously. None of the anti-JW crowd has dealt with this issue, instead preferring to ignore it and say "We think the links should stay anyway". Responding to my comments dismissively is not the same as considering them thoughtfully. This article is for objective facts about the JW's, not for the unconfirmed, often innacurate subjective opinions of every Tom, Dick and Harry that feels he doesn't like them. I feel sad that some people feel such intense hatred that a neutral stating of objective facts is called "pro-JW propaganda" by them. Their own attempts at what they feel is "counter-propaganda" is even sadder. This article is about JW's, not "why I and some others hate them".

The kind of accusations those opposing views links make are similar in truthfulness to the accusations made on anti-Semite websites, accusing the Jews of mixing Gentile blood with their matzo every Ceder, raping little baby girls, and the like. One could refute them, but who has time? There are just too many. One or two examples of such bias should be enough to discredit these sites. Then if you find an unbiased article, you can link it in. For this reason I say, if you continue to post these links to the JW article, you must, in all conscience, post a link to the Zundelsite on the Holocaust page because it is equally factual and irrelevant. Handwaving and disagreement by Modemac doesn't change these facts. --63.231.52.76 20:08 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Dear anonymous; Your slander of all these people border on hatespeech. How dare you compare critics of JW's with murderers, and with anti-Semites. Your constant vandalizim of this encyclopaedia only proves that much of the criticism made against JW's is true. You and your peers here use unscrupulous tactics to slander others, censor material, promote bald-faced lies and literally rewrite history. Your actions only prove to the rest of us that the criticisms made against you are true. If you do not go away, you be banned from Wikipedia. Hopefully permanently. RK

Opposing Views

There are anti-global warming theory links in our global warming article and their are anti-viewpoint links in many other controversial articles. JW is a controverial sect and therefore opposing views are warrented here. Stop deleting the links or be blocked for 24 hours. --mav


Ok, I'm glad the links in question are listed here, so we can discuss them. For the record, earlier reasons for deleting these links has not been completely deleted, it can still be found here: Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/archive. I for one am glad that User:63.231.52.76 took the time to again explain his/her rationale for deleting the links.

After reviewing that discussion, I think an important question has yet to be answered: How should Wikipedia's NPOV standard be applied to external links? If an externally linked site does make unfounded accusations or huge factual misstatements, should the link to the site be removed from wikipedia articles? I'm not voicing an opinion on the sites in question, I haven't even visited them yet. I personally think the Jehovah's Witnesses are heretical, but that doesn't mean that every anti-JW site is therefore 100% accurate and upstanding. I think the question raised deserves a careful answer. Wesley

They are labeled as Opposing Views. We shouldn't concern ourselves too much with the accuracy of the info prestented there but only with the info preseneted here. The particular links may not be appropriate but there should be links to opposing viewpoints in an article like this, especially when pro-JW sites are already listed. --mav

Hey, 63.231.52.76, why not tone down the rhetoric a bit? Not everyone is "against you" here. Like me, for example. I'm an admin, and I can assure you that if you will just abide by a few simple guidelines there will be no more talk of banning.

Guideline #1: Signing in gives you an edge. Why not pick a nickname like "Bible Student" or something catchy like that?

Guideline #2: Bringing up the Holocaust is poor strategy. Instead of persuading, it alienates.

Guideline #3: Spend less time impugning the motives of your opponents -- if you see other contributors as opponents -- and more time writing what you know about the subject.

Guideline #4: Stop ignoring me. I'm trying to help you, but if you don't respond, I can only assume you'd rather go it alone.

--Ed Poor

I am far from home, and have to snatch what minutes I can to type things into the Wikipedia when I'm on my breaks. I don't wish you to think I'm ignoring you; I just lack the time and comforts I have at home to do more detailed research and responses, and I seem to be overwhelmed by the daytimers who are on fulltime editing and reverting articles; by the time I come back on my next break, several people have already jumped in saying I'm a vandal, calling for my banning, and that impression has set in because I wasn't in a position to defend myself or my edits.
In a few days I expect to renew editing with my user account. I don't remember my password; I keep it "remembered" by the web browser at home. Thank you for your fairness and even-handedness, Ed. Unless it is demonstrated the JW's have a history of lying and misleading people about themselves and their faith, and keeping parts of it hidden, it seems only reasonable to take the stance that JW's are acting in good faith when they wish to see their religion described accurately. Scientologists don't have that presumption of innocence for exactly those reasons. --63.225.184.165 02:42 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

I removed this link, because it's over the top.

Please check out the site yourself and comment here, rather than just reverting this deletion. It really hurts my feelings to see how nasty and one-sided their criticism is. --Ed Poor

I agree. The other two links are rational and should stay, but that one goes too far. Matthew Woodcraft

Perhaps all this started as an over-reaction to the first link. I agree with the removal of that link. The others should stay. --mav\



continuing from the above:

...the adoption of a secularized, "objective", scientific point of view such as has been described, would not be neutral when dealing with a religious subject. Mkmcconn

Yes, I agree, but from a secular point of view. Secularists often forget that its not the linguistics in religions that make them powerful, rather, their metaphorical symbolism. To ask 'religious' people to abandon these powerful symbolic languages in place of a secular humanist one is sort of short-sighted, and no doubt personally offensive. My point however is simply that religious speak is a separate language despite its similarities to a common tongue. Thus religious speak, by definition belongs not on the english WP, but rather a JH WP or a CU WP or whatever. Nes pa?

and... nice try quintessent. -Stevertigo

Like I said before, that's silly. Religious language is not a separate language in the sense that German or Chinese are separate languages. Many languages have a subset of vocabulary that have very specific meanings within a religious context, or that are coined especially to deal with religious topics. In other fields, this is called jargon. Wesley

Please stop the edit war. There is a huge difference between maintaining NPOV, which I am trying to, and wiping out indisuptable historical facts, to appease the pro-Jehovah;s Witness advocates. I understand that JW's today wish that their leadership didn't attempt to negotiate with the Nazis during World War II, and spewed anti-Allied and anti-Jewish propaganda to curry favor. But it happened, and it is dishonest to censor this fact. Similarly, many Jw' smight wish that many Christians accepted them as Christians. But their wishes simply don't carry any weight when it comes to writing an encyclopaedia. The fact of the matter is that practically all Christians reject JW's claims to be Christian, and there are many firm reasons for this. Please stop rewriting history to make the world conform to JW wishes. Unless you can give good and compelling reason to hide these facts (and I cannot imagine any) I will keep restoring these facts to the article. Please stop the pro-JW advocacy edit war.

Censored material that I will restore: Throughout their history, many have found their doctrines, beliefs, and practices controversial. Responses have included mob action (please specify or remove) and government oppression. During World War II the Nazi's targeted the Jehovah's Witnessed for persecution, despite the attempts of the Jehovah's Witnesses leadership to curry favor with the Nazis by siding against the Allies, and against Jews. There is much criticism of the Jehovah's witnesses by former members of the organization, from many Christian groups, and from a number of non-religious anti-cult organizations. + Throughout their history, many have found their doctrines, beliefs, and practices controversial. Responses have included mob action; government oppression, including being targeted in the Holocaust and widespread criticism from Christians of other denominations. Such criticism has become an entire genre with the advent of the Web. Some Christians do not consider the Jehovah's Witnesses to be a Christian organization because of their unusual beliefs and practices. Some go so far as to label the religion as a cult.

The vast majority of Christians (including Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians) hold that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. The dispute exists because the Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians, explicitly identifying themselves with Arius, a fourth-century priest who was condemned as a heretic at the First Ecumenical Council in 325 A.D. As such, they do not share most Christians' belief in the Trinity or any form of the Nicene Creed. Many Protestant Christians label the Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult.

End censored material

--RK

Hm. What was so wrong with the above text that it had to be removed? --mav

I think that the second paragraph is not controversial. These are facts describing the relationship between JWs, and the Protestants and Catholics, that all parties can acknowledge. Whoever doesn't want that paragraph is selling something. However, the first paragraph has a different character; not that it needs to be censored, but it does have a clear agenda (bias) doesn't it? It strikes me as being like a description of the history of the United States that places banner emphasis on the conquest of native Americans, enslavement of blacks, the cultural imperialism of American entertainment media, the decadence and hypocrisy of its people, the arrogance and insensitivity of American corporations, or whatever else you might discover from a newscast by the Taliban or the Pacifica news service. All factual - at the very least, it's all factual that people have these opinions - but too prominent a display of that kind of material draws attention to an agenda: someone wants you to know that there is something really wrong with JWs, and a lot of people agree. That's not quite as helpful in understanding what JWs are, as it is in gaining insight into the fact that people find much to criticize with JWs. (not sure why I think my comments are needed - but, it seems to be sharing time) Mkmcconn


truth hurts maybe - and it should sometimes, As I understand it, despite its current negative connotations, 'cult' is not in itself a derogatory term. It may be made that way by the major religions, but, we cant be blind to the fact that some religions are newer than others, and there is an associated heirarchy of what might be misnamed 'validity' associated with these.

the real issue with regard to the deletes, besides putting makeup on an old woman, is the degree to which facts carry sentiments, negative or otherwise. In the context of a religions language, censorship and edits are normal. why? because facts miss the point - the point is the faith. Here, however, faith is your business, and we just carry the facts. then, how much are these 'facts' merely sentiments, or opinion? well, my opinion may not be worth much, but a million or two similar opinions make public sentiment, which is valid to record, as long as its proportional and in a balanced context. not balanced in terms of whos right or wrong, cause who cares, but well written, and I think we all know what that is.... umm... SV

The Ontario Consultants' website says:

They have predicted that the start of Armageddon would occur in 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, and 1941. None of the prophecies have come true. Each failed estimate caused some disillusioned members to leave the organization.


Should we mention this, and other controversial points, in this article or at the controversies article (or a little of both: say, introduce it here, and go into detail there)? --Ed Poor

That group seems on the level, but maybe some more corroboration of facts ought be made with at least some other source, no doubt, the OC have some attribution. == And on a final note here, if one is so inclined to be critical of a religion, make it not feel so singled out: spread it around into other denominations as well, and when your'e done...do your own. == --Stevertigo p.s. which reminds me, there is no way to link an attribution number with a target on the bottom is there?

No. But the next best thing is:

  • Put each external link in single brackets, like: "[http://www.edpoor.com]" which shows up in the text as numbers [1]
  • At the end of the article repeat each external link with some descriptive text, like: "[http://www.edpoor.com Ed Poor's homepage]" which shows up as Ed Poor's homepage

--Ed Poor

I haven't cared much about what's going on here, but I have been watching. Most recently, I noticed that "Arian Christian" was changed to "Christian". What is the reason for that? The Jehovah's Witnesses that come to my door admit that they are Arians. They insist on it. To be Trinitarian is to be part of the great apostacy. Should I be correcting them? "No, Mr. JW proselytizer. That's not a neutral point of view, to describe yourself as Arian"? Mkmcconn

Okay, I will put it back. If they describe themselves that way, I see no reason not to do so. It sounded strange to me, as I connect Arianism with the very early church, and would prefer not to call a modern group 'Arian' even if it has very similar ideas. By the way, another problem I have is the connection I make with 'Aryan'. I have thought about changing it to Arianist, but I guess 'Arian' is too much more common to do so. Andre Engels 16:19 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
You're right, that Arian it doesn't communicate very well. I hadn't thought of it before, but you are right to want to remove the potential for confusion with Aryan. I placed an awkward parenthetical statement into the sentence, and added a link. Mkmcconn

Clutch, I can understand several of the rewordings; it makes sense to state the Jehovahs Witness position first, before stating any differing opinions. But is it really necessary to completely remove all mention of Arianism and Arius? Were the statements regarding Arianism factually inaccurate or misleading? Wesley

The word Arian is too close to Aryan in pronunciation for comfort. Despite a parenthetical explanation that Arianism is "not Aryanism", the word sinks into a persons consciousness immediately and makes it's "first impression" because of a lack of surrounding context that prepares them for the idea "this is a type of theology". I don't think it's proper for an Encyclopedia to be giving people subliminal impressions that this group or that group is anti-Semitic.
The statements themselves were not inaccurate. But I feel they are adequately explained on the Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses page, in a suitable context where misimpressions are unlikely to happen. In fact, the first paragraph on that page talks about the fact that they have an Arian christology. I feel that the information doesn't really need to be duplicated on multiple pages. --Clutch 17:37 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

I think the answers to our questions is clear: Some pro-JW advocates know that Arianism is considered heresy, yet they want to spread their faith to other Chrisitans. So they try and hide these facts as part of their scheme to get people to join their religion. This is not about different ways of presenting information; it is about people trying to hide information so that they can continue to convert people.

And who are you, that is posting comments here without attribution? Stand forward and be named. --Clutch 17:37 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
That was contributor 165.155.128.121, of course. Someone who like yourself, prefers not to give enough information to be easily identified -- Derek Ross 17:46 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
The Witnesses acknowledge that they hold Arian beliefs that most Christians hold to be heretical.

For reasons stated above (that information is already contained in another article), I don't see the need for that sentence in this article. It is redundant, and not quite appropriate without more context. If you think Arianism is important enough to go in the main article, then maybe it is time to fold the separate Doctrines page back into the main page as it was before. --Clutch 18:35 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

Some up-front mention of Arianism is necessary, in order to accurately identify what Jehovah's Witnesses are. If a single sentence of non-partisan description can't survive being cut, then is it reasonable to think that an extensive discussion of controversial material can be folded back in? Mkmcconn

In the context the sentence was placed, it wasn't balanced or non-partisan, although I think Wesley meant well. The material in the current Doctrines had stabilized to a large degree before Cunctator decided to break the article up into chunks. I see no reason why there would be a problem folding it back into the main article. --Clutch 19:17 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

I'm still confused. There is no success in getting a single mention of arianism mentioned in the article, without an edit war; but you are saying that there is enough of a consensus that we can take an article that mentions the offending word repeatedly, and this will bring peace. It seems unlikely. I have an alternative solution, that I'm going to post in the subject article in a moment. Let's see how that works. Mkmcconn

There is no need for confusion. The mention of Arianism in isolation wouldn't be balanced or neutral. In the context of talking about the whole body of JW doctrine, it is entirely appropriate.
That's absolutely false. It sounds to me like you are trying to hide something.
I am wondering, why single out Arianism? JW's have many other doctrines which conventional Christians disagree with equally vehemently, such as the belief that humans don't have an immortal soul. Why pick one doctrine that sounds so similar to something hated by the majority of people, and put it alone in the main article as being their distinctive doctrine? It's not as if it isn't covered adequately in the Doctrines article already. --Clutch 20:33 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
Please stop your dishonest attacks on us. No one is "singling out" Arianism. We are describing the theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which is Arianism. If you diapprove of this theology, then don't join this religion. If you agree with this theology, then by all means feel free to join this religion. But we shall not allow you to hide thes basic facts.

I do, by the way, think that the Doctrines article is quite good. But, apparently not everyone agrees with being explicit in the main article that, Christians generally agree with one another that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not know or teach the Christian faith. Mkmcconn

Many Muslims don't consider the Shi'ites to be proper Muslims. Should we then heavily emphasize in our article about them that "They consider themselves Muslims, but all other Muslims do not"? That is the sort of thing you seem to be suggesting is appropriate here. If Eusebius, widely considered a "Church Father" were brought forward in time to today, would he also be considered "not a Christian" because of his adherence to the Arian belief? --Clutch 20:33 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
Yes, this encyclopaedia should state that Sunni Mulims disagree with the validity of Shiite Islam! And this encyclopaedia already does so. Also, this encyclopaedia honestly points out that Ultra-Orthodox Jews hold that Modern Orthodox Jews and all non-Orthodox Jews are not really practicing Judaism. Why should this encyclopaedia be NPOV and non-partisan to all, except for when it comes to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Again, it sounds to me like you are trying to hide something.
Theologically, they identify with the views of Arius and his fourth century followers who agreed that Jesus was the son of God, but denied that they were one substance (see Arianism).

Phrased this way, I don't think there's much chance of Arius...Arianism being confounded for Hitler's "Arayanism". --Ed Poor

There is already a page for talking about their Doctrines; why focus on that one doctrine on the main page? It is not their most distinctive or representative doctrine, nor even their most controversial. Can someone explain what is so important about that particular fact making it to the main article, while a host of others go in sub-articles? --Clutch 20:33 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
I myself like having the Arius...Arianism thing in the article because (1) it distinguishes JWs from other Christian groups -- much as the male-only priesthood, 5-level hierarchy & papal infallibility distinguish Roman Catholics; (2) it's something JWs have somewhat in common with my other 2 favorite Christian groups: Latter-Day Saints and Unification Church. --Ed Poor
It would be (only roughly) comparable to erasing the qualifier "Protestant" from "Christian" from every article on protestant denominations. Many (most) catholics do not consider Protestants to be part of the Christian Church, and to eliminate the word "Protestant" from the definition leaves the reader without a clue about why this group is not in fellowship with other Christian groups. Here, we are talking about something distinct: not Protestant Christian, not Catholic Christian, not Orthodox Christian; the right name for it is, "Arian Christian". As far as Christianity is concerned this distinction is by far, very much by far, the most important and controversial of all of the things they teach. Mkmcconn
Stop joking. Arianism is indeed one of the most important doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses. That is one of the main reasons why they are not Catholics, or Orthodox, or Protestant Christians. Perhaps you personally don't like it, but that's not relevant to the article.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not Arian, although they share some similarities. For instance, Arian's worship Jesus Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses do not. Arians believed in a soul separate from the body, which Jehovah's Witnesses do not. A lot of doctrines hinge on the belief in a separate soul; this is something pretty fundamental. And why don't you ever attribute your comments so I can see what you wrote and what other people wrote? I shouldn't have to go through the history page to reply to your comments. --Clutch 21:37 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
Thank you; this is helpful, constructive information that goes a long ways towards advancing your position. Makes me want to look up exactly what Arians did believe regarding the soul. I still think some mention should be made about being non-trinitarian, but this makes me think the connection with Arius should probably be reserved for either much later in the article, or kept on the Doctrines page.
Are we right though in asserting that JW's agree with Arius regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ? (Just making sure...) Wesley 21:53 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
Yes. I think JW's do agree with the Arians on the nature of Christ, ie, that he was created, and is lesser than Yahweh. However, JW's have no position on WHAT Christ was made out of; Arians say God created Christ out of nothing. JW's have no stand on the matter; God could have made Christ out of anything. --Clutch 22:04 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

Clutch replaced:

Theologically, they identify with the views of Arius and his fourth century followers who agreed that Jesus was the son of God, but denied that they were one substance (see Arianism). They believe that the Bible is God's Word, and therefore consider from this that they are Christians, yet as they do not share most Christians' belief in the Trinity or any form of the Nicene Creed many Christians consider them "non-Christian".

with

They see themselves as the modern continuation of the Protestant Reformation, which considered mainstream Christianity to have strayed from the teachings of Christ less than 100 years after his death. Other Christian groups disagree with this; many don't consider the Witnesses to be Christian at all.

I wish he'd:

  • explain why the "son of God but not one substance" thing shouldn't be expressed in the article.
  • copy the disputed passage to talk himself, next time :-)
  • tell us which article is the place for this
  • move it there himself, next time :-)

--Ed Poor

Sorry Ed. I thought I covered that in my previous comments here. After reading up on Arianism I realized that JW's are not Arians, although they have some points of similarity. Since they aren't Arians, theres not much point saying that they are on any page, right? Now I'll have to update the Doctrines article. Thank you for not doing an instant revert on my change. --Clutch 21:47 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
While they may not be Arians, they do hold the same view of Jesus Christ that was the center of controversy in the fourth century, and ultimately condemned. It's the view that is explicitly rejected in the Nicene Creed, probably the most widely used Creed in Christendom. Even if that's the only point of similarity, it's historically significant to mention it because Christianity has already dealt so extensively with that question. Wesley 21:55 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
I have no objection to putting down that JW's reject part of the Nicene Creed. However I think the fact that they are described as "a non-trinitarian Christian denomination" in the first paragraph covers the needed detail nicely. Link to the Nicene Creed in the Doctrine subpage would be entirely appropriate. --Clutch 22:04 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)


  1. I avoided reverting your changes, because you're not a "vandal" (at least, you're innocent until proven guilty, heh heh). Please justify my faith in you, by cooperating with Wesley, me and others. I have no idea whether JWs are "Arians" or not, because I know only what's in the Wikipedia (grin)!
  2. Perhaps we can get out of this by describing more fully JW doctrine about Jesus, his divinity and his relationship to God. Is Jesus God? the son of God? part of God? independent of God? dependent on God? or what? I see no need to slap a label (like Arian) on a group, if no one is going to understand what that label means. That would be no more helpful than calling the Moonies a "cult", eh? --Ed Poor
I think I've summarized the main points of difference between JW's and Arians in the past few paragraphs. For instance, whereas Arius would teach that Jesus' human element is merely the material with the Logos being the soul (no human soul), the Jehovah's Witnesses would teach that Jesus was purely man, and as such, he did not possess a soul but he was a living soul. Also, Arius believed Jesus should be worshipped whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that since one is to worship God alone Jesus should not be worshipped, since he is merely a creature.
The words "cult" and "sect" are normally used as pejoratives, but based on the common definition, not only here in the Wikipedia, but in various dictionaries, these words could be applied to any religious group, and often are by those who don't like a particular religion. Does the following sentence really provide any useful information by being in the article then?
Most Christians consider the Jehovah's Witnesses a heretical sect, with some branding the religion a "cult".
I think it does not. If noone can justify it, I will be removing it soon. --Clutch 23:01 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
I'd leave the statement. It's not a case of Wikipedia calling it a "cult"; it's a case of expressing the fact that most Christian denominations call it that, and that's a simple, neutral, statement of fact. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of telling people what to think, but we are in the business of accurately reporting what they do in fact think, and most Christians see JWs as heretical. --LDC
I suppose, by that reasoning, it would be ok to go to an article on Pakistan, and write "most Rednecks think Pakis stink from the rancid butter in their hair and should stop stealing American jobs"? I mean, that is what many Rednecks think... I wonder why we don't put that in the Encyclopedia? I mean, it does represent the view of a large number of people about the fine citizens of Pakistan, whether it or not it actually corresponds to any known facts. Does that make any sense to you at all? --Clutch 23:14 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
The difference is whether or not the statement in question is made by a significant number of people and is relevant to the subject. JWs call themselves "Christian", so it's worth noting when the majority of others who call themselves Christian disagree. That's a significant and important fact. You simply cannot weasel your way out of that important and relevant fact and maintain any semblance of honesty. The opinions about Pakistan of a small number of people who probably couldn't spell it just aren't relevant. A statement like "In year xxxx, a large number of Pakistani immigrants caused fear of job loss among many Americans" might be relevant. --LDC
An encyclopedia should concern itself more with sticking to facts than to personal opinions. Do people feel witnesses are a cult? Fine, then they most likely know that already. I feel these sorts of comments are a subtle form of bigotry: "see, the MAJORITY feels this way..." with an implied "and you should too!". An Encyclopedias neutrality and sticking to facts are supposed to give people the information to make up their own minds, not to peer pressure them into the beliefs of whoever is the current majority. I'm sure Rednecks feel that their comments about "Pakis" are very relevant, since they have to live in the same neighborhoods with them, being too poor to move elsewhere. --Clutch 23:59 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, here, Clutch. The 'pedia has a lot of articles on evolution, which 95% of scientists in general (and 99.9% of biologists) believe in. However, only about 10% of the general public believe in it. The Wikipedia does not, however, maintain that readers should believe in evolution. And if you think people are picking on JWs, you should see what they say about the Unification Church. You think I don't get tired of hearing, "Oh, you're a Moonie? Funny, you don't look brainwashed!"

Here on Wikipedia, I have to be satisfied with "many Jews consider the Unification Church anti-semitic" -- which is true: that's what many Jews think. They're also wrong, but the Wikipedia can't say that. It can only say that the Unification Church denies being anti-Semitic (see Unification Church and anti-semitism). --Ed Poor

Why can't the Wikipedia say such a thing? All current encyclopedias seem to feel that objective facts should be placed ahead of subjective opinions in their reporting. People don't turn to encyclopedias to find out what other people think; they turn to Encyclopedias to find out *facts*, and then form their own opinions. The only time when it is important to include other peoples opinions is where the facts are NOT clear. Ed, can you think of any reason why the Wikipedia shouldn't adhere to that philosophy? --Clutch 01:55 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)


If that is the way you feel, then you should leave this project, because no one here works that way. Religion doesn't have objective and verifiable facts. If it did, then there wouldn't be any differences in religion; we'd all agree. Instead, all we have are opinions that we believe to be facts, but that the vast majority of us admit simply cannot be proved. Please stop your transparent agenda to censor the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, in order to make Wikipedia safe for JW proselytizing. Your non-stop attacks border on vandalism. And by the way, stop implying that Jews had it coming during the Holocaust, by taking non-historic events from 3000 years ago, and stuffing it into the entry on the Holocaust, in a "gotcha" way to the Jews. That's just beneath contempt.
By the way, after doing some more reading on the subject, I was thinking on revising this section. Maybe it would be better to say that many Jews feel that certain teachings of the Unification Church are anti-Semitic; this should be seen as a lesser claim than saying that Church itself, and/or its adherents, are anti-Semitic. This would still be accurately describing their views, but a little less strongly, and hopefully more fairly. RK

Regarding the claim that the Church strayed from the original teaching sometime in the 100 years after Christ's death, I'm curious as to whether the JW's point to any particular writers as representing this deviation? We have many writings from that time period available; see Anti-Nicene Fathers. If so, it would be great to identify those in the article. Wesley 22:44 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

Going back to early Christian writers like Eusebius, Polycarp, Clement, and Athanasius, JW's take any reference to a doctrine of an immortal soul separate from the body, and any reference to trinity, as evidence of apostacy setting in. They consider that these doctrines are not supported by the Tanach or the Gospels, and so are later additions. --Clutch 23:41 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
Hmm. Polycarp and Clement were much less than 100 years after Christ's death; Clement may have written his epistle before 100 A.D., IIRC. Polycarp was a disciple of the same John who wrote the Gospel of John. And of course Athanasius was the first to propose the same list of 27 books that later became officially canonized as the New Testament. If the Jehovah's Witnesses consider them apostates, what's their basis for accepting the New Testament? Suppose these apostates included the wrong books, left out some even better gospel accounts? Wesley

Is it true that the Jehovah's witnesses see themselves as a "continuation" of the protestant reformation? It would be very interesting to see proof of this. No doubt, they figure they are trying to do the same thing as the Protestant Reformation; but to find similarities, is usually different from "continuation". But if they do see themselves as a continuation, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they see themselves as a continuation of the primitive teachings of Jesus, before they were lost in the first few centuries? Or, is there some other reason that the group wants to associate itself with movements and people that otherwise they have little in common with? Mkmcconn

If one reads their early writings, the connection to the Protestant Reformation is very clear. Although doctrinally they have evolved, they keep the spirit of the Reformation is very much alive. For more information, see the "Doctrines" reference link. Similarly, most people don't see the link between Gangster Rap and the Muslim oral chant traditions, but if you go back to 1968 and look at what the Last Poets were doing, it's all there. --Clutch 23:41 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're just taking this way too far to be credible. Jehovah's Witnesses are an over-turning of the Reformation - that's exactly why they are so vigorously opposed by Protestants especially. They are, from a Protestant point of view, a full-circle return to the very things that the Reformation opposed, and worse. Please, consider how your edits look from the point of view of others, and for your own sake, try to avoid the appearance of attempting to deceive. Mkmcconn

I hope my latest edit, and removal of "Protestant Reformation" from the article entirely, has clarified things for you. --Clutch 05:52 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)

Please, get rid of the Hallmark card advertisement; JWs don't consider themselves part of the big happy Wyclif and Luther family. On the other hand, why not say what it is specifically that JWs are continuing? Are they willing to become martyrs to eliminate the practice of usury? Then, that's worth mentioning, rather than dropping the name of Waldo. Can they be described as the "Christ alone", the "By faith alone", and "Grace alone" movement? Then put that down, rather than dropping the name of Luther. And are JWs the guys who are respected even by your enemies for your skill in the original languages of Scripture? Then mention that, instead of dropping Wyclif's name. I hope you see my point. Mkmcconn

Are you aware that the Witnesses are a direct offshoot of the Adventism movement, which in turn derived from the Baptist and other Protestant denominations of early 19th century America? It's Protestant lineage is historically documented. Despite the evolution of more than 100 years, Witnesses have more in common with the Baptists and dissenter groups than they are usually ready to admit. As for the comment about Waldo, Wycliffe, and Luther, here is a quote from their own book: Studies in the Scriptures, Series VII. --Clutch

I don't question the historical continuity. It is the continuity of mission that is questionable. I admire Thomas Aquinas, and want to emulate his careful methods: but it would be deceptive if I said, especially to Catholics, that what I do in theology is simply a continuation of Aquinas, when in fact I will rejoice to see the removal Aristotle's influence, which Aquinas put in. Follow me? JWs see themselves as providing the world with a prophetic interpretation of the Bible purged of the errors of Catholicism and Protestantism, and standing alone against the idolators of our present age? Then say so; and say it in a way that leaves you blameless of appearing to cast the false impression that JWs embrace Luther as though he were a Jehovah's Witness. Spell out the connection. Is this unreasonable? -- Mkmcconn

How do you know that Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider Luther to have been one of them? I think they do consider him one of them. For the JWs it is the process of seeking the truth that is primary; only the Bible is infallible and interpretations of it can change as people grow in experience and knowledge; those who have God's blessing today can lose it tomorrow, and saints can become apostates in the blink of an eye. Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther, and many others all carried on the iterative process of approaching the truth of the Bible, which is a hallmark of the JW faith. --Clutch

Then why not mention as a point of descriptive fact, that Jehovah's Witnesses do not encourage their members read or discuss writings by Luther? Why not mention that those writings would be considered apostate? And if they list Luther as one of their prophets and that's why you list him (even if he is a Trinitarian apostate), then why is Arius not in your list, even though he is in theirs? -- Mkmcconn 


From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44 [gcide]:
 Apostate \A*pos"tate\, n. [L. apostata, Gr. ?, fr. ?. See
    {Apostasy}.]
    1. One who has forsaken the faith, principles, or party, to
       which he before adhered; esp., one who has forsaken his
       religion for another; a pervert; a renegade.
       [1913 Webster]
JW's use the standard definition of apostate. By that definition, Luther wasn't an apostate from original Christinity, since he had never been a part of original Christianity; he was doing his best to approach what his research told him was true Christianity by rejecting things that he conclusively knew were wrong, such as the infallibility of the Pope, and the ability of the Pope to grant forgiveness of sins. Neither do JW's consider any man or woman after the writer of the book of Revelation to be a prophet.
Should it be surprising JW's don't recommend their members read the works of Luther? Physics teachers rarely recommend their students read the Principia of Sir Isaac Newton either. --Clutch

I thought that Russell was called the Laodicean prophet. In fact, I'm sure I've seen that. Shall I look it up, or is it a moot point? (New light and all that). The difficulty here is that what the JWs think is so mercurial, that I'm not sure what good it does even to attempt to describe it. They are followers of Arius, but not Arians; in fact, they are Lutherans, who don't believe in the Trinity, they follow the Bible alone, but believe that the Bible is so full of errors that it needs to be edited to fit their doctrines. How can such a group be described without hostility, except to describe it with complete sympathy? Quite a challenge to the NPOV policy. I leave it to you. -- Mkmcconn(130.94.162.133)

The JWs teachings do evolve, but their core has remained constant since their beginning: a repudiation of the trinity, hellfire, and the idea of an immortal soul; an emphasis on the importance of God's name, that salvation only comes through Jesus sacrifice, adult baptism, free will, no priestly or saintly intercession between a worshipper and God, and that only the Bible is inspired of God and infallible. They arrived at their core body of beliefs early on, based on the King James Version of the Bible. They produced their own translation of the Bible more than 50 years after they had already arrived at their core doctrines using standard bibles. As to the charge of being mercurial, critics on the internet claim they change their teachings with "glacial slowness". Others, lacking first-hand information, claim JWs don't even admit they change. How much space should be given here to opinions that fly in the face of falsifiable (testable, according to Karl Popper) facts? --Clutch

I'm talking about how mercurial JW thinking is; their doctrine is another matter. In the blink of an eye, saints become apostates, and then saints again. On any issue that is addressed, JW thinking saves itself from attack by literally being in two places at once. It's not the evolution of doctrine that's as interesting as the selective use of facts, and the use of special jargon and circular reasoning. There must be some way to describe this in the entry without being cruel; because, it has to be the most fascinating thing about this group. -- Mkmcconn

Unless you back those assertions up, and stop misquoting me, I don't see how we can have any productive discussion here. I never said that a saint could become an apostate, then turn back into a saint again, in the twinkling of an eye. I said something rather different, although verbally similar-sounding: that even God's blessed can fall from Grace if their hearts turn away from his Truth. Only time can tell if one remains constant, or veers away. As for your "in two places at once" comment, I'd like to see you back that up with solid examples. --Clutch 14:15 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that it is difficult to know what you are saying, or to know if you are being misquoted or not. I'm not a JW, and that puts me at a disadvantage to know what you mean. I risk being disingenuous: I admit that you do irritate me, and trying to follow you is like swatting at swarms of insects or hallucinations. But, despite the mistakes that I make trying to figure out what you are saying (and I am sorry for so consistently getting it wrong), it still comes through clearly enough that in your argument there is both, a peculiar use of words and an inconstancy of meaning, that makes it quite challenging to pin down exactly what is being said. And my point is that, since you have taken such strong editorial control of the article, IMO you can avoid edit wars if you are more sensitive to the confusion your words and descriptions cause. So I do leave it to you, and I do give up. It seems obvious to me that facts, language and interpretation are so bound to one another here that there is only one way to write an 'objective' article on JWs and that's to write it as a JW would have it written - and I am not being sarcastic. -- Mkmcconn

I don't mean this to be a flame, but I think a case can be made for the Jehovah's Witnesses being a continuation or at least an indirect product of the Protestant Reformation. They've simply taken the principle of sola scriptura to a new extreme, interpreting it without any guidance whatever from tradition, including the interpretations of the people who canonized the New Testament. They keep the principle of adult baptism that the Anabaptists and later Baptists had; they are probably somewhere near the sola fide doctrine, though I don't know. From what I vaguely remember from years ago, I think their Bible translation and doctrine of a mortal soul are based on extensive critical research and scholarship, including research into original languages and reconstructing ancient cultural understandings, that is very roughly along the lines of a lot of the scholarship spawned by the Enlightenment; again, this is done without reference to Christian tradition, which of course is considered highly suspect. Wesley

This isn't a flame; it's a fact of historical continuity. But so are Montanism, Novatianism and Donatism historically continuous with Catholicism (the first is a heresy, the other two are schisms). Analogously, there is a (ever-weakening) consensus understanding of what Protestantism amounts to, and there is precisely one group that considers JWs to be a proper expression of it, and that is the JWs. To the extent that, after the devastation brought about by liberalism, Protestants are able to speak anymore of what "we believe", JWs have departed from "us", and attempt to draw converts from "us" to themselves, because they were not "of us" and do not share what "we believe". They do not hold to those elements of the positive faith that historically have defined Protestantism as a (broadly speaking) cohesive movement. Nevertheless, yes: just as Arianism is Catholic, JWs are Protestant. -- Mkmcconn
I agree with Mkmcconn. Historical continuity is not the same thing as equivalence. Heck, Christianity is historically continuous with Judaism, but it has evolved to the point where it is a different religion. Similarly, The JW's historically continuous with Protestant Christianity, but to the point where they are a different religion. (In fact, I would go further and say that it is dishonest and disingenuous to claim that the JW religion is Christianity.) This isn't an attack on their theology; rather it is a simple appeal to honesty in advertising. JW's reject Christian dogma, and have created a new form of religion similar to Arianism. Believe what one wants, but be honest about it. RK
While I agree that historical continuity and equivalence are not the same thing, I think both analogies are faulty. Protestantism has never been that cohesive and resigned itself to remaining disunited long ago; identifying unity is just a matter of deciding where to put the lowest common denominator, and that's an aribitrary point that can either include or exclude the Jehovah's Witnesses. Post-Temple Judaism also differs significantly from the Hebrew religion focused around Temple sacrifices. However, I won't push the point; I know I'm heavily biased here, and can't see a way to resolve the point objectively. :-( Wesley


Wesley, do you really see no big difference between Christians who accept the Nicene creed and those who reject it? I don't understand how you can claim that there is no difference, and out all Protestants in the same boat. As for rabbinic Judaism vs. the Israelite Biblical form of Judaism, you are totally correct to note that there are some major differences. However, it is a peculiarly Christian view to say that the pre-rabbinic form of Judaism was so totally centered on sacrifices. There is a vast amount of material in the Hebrew Bible, and the book of Leviticus is only one small part of it. What about the rest of the Bible? I think that Christian apologetics over-stressed this part of Judaism in order to make a distinction between ethics and ritual. RK
Between Protestants who accept or reject the Nicene creed, I see both similarities and differences. The chief similarity is that they consider themselves free to accept or reject the Nicene Creed or any other creed, depending on how their interpretation of the creed compares with their interpretation of the Bible. The Anabaptists for example are probably uncomfortable with it because it was formulated at a council called by the Emperor, and they mark Constantine's ending of persecution as the beginning of the Church's corruption. Of course most Protestants affirm either the Nicene or Apostle's Creed, or both, but the Bible is the only thing Protestants consider to be truly binding, and even there they revised the Old Testament canon early on. Some Protestant groups will depend more heavily on traditional teaching than others; most of these will only look back as far as the Reformers though, and will see older writings only through their eyes. So the foundation is laid to accept any teaching that still has a 'biblical basis' and in which Jesus figures prominently, a minimal standard that even the Jehovah's Witnesses can meet.
If Christian apologetics emphasize the role of sacrifices in the Hebrew religion, it is to more clearly connect them to Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, to their understanding of the Eucharist and related rituals, and so on. Sacrifices of one kind or another are mentioned prominently in Genesis beginning with Cain and Abel, and receive at least passing mention in the Psalms, in the prophets, and in the history books. I don't know, but I would guess that Jewish theologians would deemphasize the role of ritual and increase their emphasis on ethics because the chief Temple rituals cannot be practiced now, and they haven't developed acceptable alternatives for use in the synagogues. Of course, ethical principles can still be taught and practiced, and there are plenty of those. But that's just personal speculation, and probably cuts both ways equally. Wesley

I would like to see peace on talk pages that discuss religion and politics. This may be a foolish wish, but for the record that's what I want.

I do my best to avoid fueling edit wars on my own hot topics, mostly by:

  • abstaining from reverting an edit simply because I disagree
  • trying hard to understand why the 'opponent' made the edit
  • giving myself time off from the topic

If I really think an edit is wrong, I will sometimes move some text to the talk page. That is, after reverting I immediately copy the "offending text" to the talk page and explain what I think is wrong with the passage.

I think that my "ownership" of the Unification Church (UC) topic is a fairly good example of "agreeing to disagree". Remember, we seek not an endorsement of our own points of view (POV) but a balanced and neutral article that airs all major points of view.

Some people think the UC is a "cult", with zany doctrine, a corrupt leadership, and deluded followers. After a quarter-century of UC membership, I'm convinced this POV isn't going to disappear soon. So when an article says that some theologians or many people think that this or that teaching is false, misguided, self-serving, non-Biblical, non-Christian, et al., I refuse to let myself get upset about it. (They're simply wrong, the poor souls *sigh*.)

But a good Wikipedia article does more than say what a church teaches. It must go on to describe how others view its teachings. To non-Unificationists, UC doctrine looks like heresy. The Second Coming of the Messiah is a married Korean? Jesus didn't come to die? The Original Sin was sexual? Traditional Christians reject these ideas, and this encyclopedia is correct to report that they reject them.

On the other hand, saying that many (or most) others reject an idea is not the same as saying the idea is wrong. The Wikipedia, being neutral on all controversial issues, does not endorse or oppose any teaching of any church.

How does this relate to the current article? I think we should focus more on the following questions, either here or in a linked article:

  • what do Jehovah's Witnesses believe
  • in what way (if any) have those beliefs changed over time
  • how do other churches view the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses

If even these points are disputed, please handle it this way:

  • Theologian A says that Jehovah's Witnesses teach X, although B says they teach Y.
  • Source C says Jehovah's Witnesses changed P1 to P2 in this year, although Source D says there was no change (or it was really a "clarification" or whatever).

In other words, when there's a dispute, don't "resolve" it but just air it out: this source says one thing, while that source says another. Then leave it alone. The reader will just have to make up his own mind. --Ed Poor 16:36 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

Concisely stated - thesis and antithesis, but no synthesis - Khendon 18:01 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

[removed as requested] --- I can appreciate that the effort to describe this group accurately can seem to invite defensive essays of all sorts; but, can this memorial to Nana be removed without offending someone? preferrably, can it be removed by the author of it, who seems to have misunderstood what is going on here? -- Mkmcconn

Please be sensitive. I wouldn't remove it without archiving it someplace. Perhaps its author will move it to their own User page. Meanwhile, I suggest we look on it as a valuable source of information on how Jehovah's Witnesses view their own faith. There are several passages which could be copied almost verbatim into the article, because they describe aspects of JW belief or practice not fully covered elsewhere in the 'pedia. --Ed Poor
I agree with Ed. Let's try to chill a little here. It's one thing to remove something from a main article because it doesn't belong there, but we need to exercise some leeway in terms what goes into the Talk pages. The Talk pages provide useful background discussion, in my view, that help underlie what ultimately goes into the article. I am not in favor of censoring what people write in the Talk pages unless there is a really strong justification for it. soulpatch
I don't disagree with either of these comments. I think that the descriptions are particularly interesting and helpful. If its sentimental presentation style doesn't spark another flame-war, I will be most surprised and grateful. -- Mkmcconn
I apologize. I'd only found this site yesterday and assumed the talk pages were for open discussions. I'll remove it if I get a confirmation below this post. as for the 'memorial to Nana' I only meant to give some personal example of how the Witnesses I've known have all been wonderful people not deserving of ridicule. Questions and polite debate certainly, but derison, not from my viewpoint. Sorry if personal views are not appropriate...
No, your comment is fine, although it really could have used some paragraph breaks. Before doing more editing, I suggest reading the archived comments (link at the top of this page), then go through the History link of the Jehovah's Witnesses article and see who has been making what type of edits. Should give you a good feel for whats been going on. --Clutch 19:50 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)
Personal views on talk pages are fine. In general, to be 'on topic' they should have some bearing on how the article could be improved. Wikipedia articles should not ridicule anyone; are there specific sections of the article that you feel are ridiculing them? While I would count myself among those who are critical of their beliefs, I honestly don't want to even have the appearance of making any personal attacks, and I apologize if I have; speaking for myself, I don't think subscribing to a flawed theology or whatnot makes someone an evil or malicious person. Wesley 21:16 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)
Now thats the spirit of Christ talking. --Clutch 21:42 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

BakeSnake-- In general, talk focus on the content and proposed content of an article. Sometimes this has been known to turn into an idealogical debate on the merits of x or y, and particularly in religion, the meaning of word p or q. While there are guidelines, there are no fixed rules for what can go in a talk page, but people will comment when things get too off-target.

I feel your comment was an appropriate tangent to the recent debate over what JWs are and are not, because it made us stop and think. Clutch has a desire to protect the religion, while Mkmconn feels a desire to protect the collective protestant churches from being associated with (and tainted by) it. Several others want to see that well-established facts about the religion are included in the article, even if they may be "damning". Most everyone, including those I have mentioned, wants an article that fairly reports the facts in a way that all can agree on. This seems to be the highest ethic guiding Wikipedians.

Despite this push for peace, disagreements will and must occur, simply because we have different opinions about the matter. Working through these, we achieve an article that in some way represents all our views. Often this is done simply by saying "proponents say this, but opponents say this." But the "end" result is an article much more balanced and informative than any one of us could have written. Anyway, welcome to the site, and I hope you will stay.

Clutch-- I know you have felt stepped on a lot, to the point of frustration. Few others have been making pro-JW edits, so you have carried most of the weight of counterbalancing the rest of us. Without you, this would be quite a one-sided article, so I commend you for your continued participation. In spite of our strong disagreements, everyone has mostly tried to discuss content and understand everyone else, and to work toward concensus. Mkmconn and Wesley provide an invaluable perspective, given their deep knowledge of Christian history.

As for me, I was raised in the LDS Church. Along the way, I have been interested to learn about other religions, so I like to contribute here when I can. Thanks to all. -Q

Thanks for your comments, Quintessent. I think most JWs are afraid to edit this article for fear of being accused of bias. Not being a JW myself, I feel more free in making edits to restore balance. I found myself learning a lot from the comments of Mkmconn, and moreso from Wesley. Until their comments I wasn't aware of the phrases sola scriptura or of sola fide; yet both are cornerstones of the JW faith. JWs interpret fide differently from Baptists; where Baptists say it is enough to believe, JWs take the scripture faith without works is dead literally; so if a person isn't making a best-effort at living the Christian way of life, they aren't considered to be "faithful". Although they agree with Calvin on this, they disagree with his concept of predestination. I can't verify this, because I don't have an online, searchable copy of their bible, but I believe that in their theology, God is omnipotent, but not omniscient. *whistle*Always look on the bright side of life...*whistle* --Clutch 01:24 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)
Other Christian groups disagree with this; many don't consider the Witnesses to be Christian at all.

Could someone explain a few things?

  • Which Christian groups consider JW "not...Christian at all"?
  • For what reason or reasons?
    • Is it for their non-trinitarian views?
    • Are there other reasons (please specify)?

--Ed Poor

Given that they both sprang from the 19th century Adventism movement, and are very similar to each other, does anyone feel that the article on the Seventh Day Adventists should continue to say that they are Protestants, given that the concensus is that JWs are not? --Clutch 01:24 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

As I recall, some Protestant churches I went to called the Seventh Day Adventists a "cult", lumping them in with the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons in that sense. Others stopped just short of that, thinking the apparent differences weren't quite as severe. They seem to be a borderline case. In any case, if the Jehovah's Witneses sprang from the Adventism movement, shouldn't that go into the JW article? I don't think I was aware of that. Wesley
The designation, "cult", is a very variable thing that has much to do with the damage that the groups do, and the perceived dis-honesty of their practices. So, for example, the SDA is praised for their hospitals, Loma Linda university and their day schools. They are highly respected in some circles for their long and important influence on the development of nutrition science, and Creation Science. Their buildings are empty on Sundays, and many non-adventist churches get their first large meeting-place there. They are famous for the habits of reading the bible, which they promote in their schools and families. The Brimsmead segment was even theologically influential in some evangelical churches, although its gradual development of an extreme form of sola fide is often regarded as an over-reaction. Some admire their balanced resistance to extremely broad ecumenical movements, and their non-proselytizing encouragement of a godly life. Even their keeping of the Sabbath is admired by many, although their (mostly former) attachment to it as a principal article of salvation is not.
On the other hand, there are some SDA who speak in a way that is confusing to other Christians, about how they are "persecuted" for their Saturday beliefs and their vegetarianism; when its closer to the truth that they encounter strong disagreement and practical difficulties in maintaining their practices. Conflicts are rare between SDA and evangelicals. But if they come, it's over the Sabbath and "Sunday laws", and the unusual importance of Ellen G. White and the Spirit of Prophecy. For much of their history, it was different. They used to have a more adversarial posture toward all other Christians, and a greater emphasis on the central place for salvation of White's very peculiar teachings, and more public insistence on her status as a quasi-prophet. Her books have been edited a number of times, with entire new chapters inserted without obvious acknowledgement of change, while SDA members (through ignorance or deceit, outsiders couldn't tell), denied that the books had changed. It wasn't helpful to their relations with other Christians either, when they seemed characterized by constant accusations of Satanism, apostasy and "Babylon" wherever Sunday is kept as the Lord's Day. When they had this character, they were regarded much more as the JWs are, and were lumped together with them as a 'cult' by many 'cult-watch' groups. This is sometimes still done, but with obviously much greater reluctance, when speaking of the main body. The designation "cult" is now usually reserved for the numerous off-shoots of Adventism, like the Branch Davidians, and the Lord Our Righteousness movement (an offshoot of SDA reform, which reputedly teaches that it is impossible for believers to sin). The old path in the SDA continues to place extraordinary emphasis on the Spirit of Prophecy alongside the Bible, which is regarded with alarm by outsiders. The SDA has been unusually fruitful in producing dangerous off-shoot groups, usually led by some group or individual claiming to be a new prophet or messenger from God or angels, and some even claiming to be Christ or God. I hope that's helpful (and I hope it's accurate). -- Mkmcconn

Clutch, it is hard to understand your motive - please explain. When the same Jehovah's Witnesses sources which list the Waldo also list Arius as one of the heros, what is your reason for removing Arius from their list? What is your aim? Mkmcconn

http://www.revelation-today.com/rev/Ch2-Ephesus.htm Bible Student interpretation of the Seven Churches and Seven Trumpets lists Arius.

http://www.paulblizard.com/russ3.html Russell's gravesite lists Arius

http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/reorg.html The Finished Mystery lists Arius

http://www.food4jws.org/faq/ctr.htm includes Arius in the Bible Student list of leaders fulfilling prophecy

The Watch Tower of 15 November 1917, p 324 "The great drama of the Gospel age opened with the Apostle Paul as the chief messenger, or angel to the church. It closes with Pastor Russell as the seventh, and last, messenger of the church militant. For the other five epoches of the church the Lord provided messengers in the order named: St. John, Arius, Waldo, Wycliffe and Luther. Each in his turn bore the message due to be understood during the epoch he represented. The two most prominent messengers, however, are the first and the last-St. Paul and Pastor Russell."

"The great Pyramid of Egypt, standing as a silent and manimate witness of the Lord, is a messenger; and its testimony speaks with great eloquence concerning the divine plan (Isaiah 19:19).. Arius .. Waldo .. John Wycliffe .. Martin Luther [were all] part of God's Organization." (Watchtower, May 15, 1925, p. 149)

If these sources list Arius unapologetically, along with Paul, Waldo, and Luther - then why should Wiki resist listing Arius? What is the reason? Mkmcconn


Don't confuse a misleading similarity for an equivalence. What I wrote about Waldo, Wyclif and Luther is not a direct quote from anywhere, but is still a true statement, and better represents current JW thought than those 100 year old quotes. --Clutch
If your list is not based on any documentation, then why have you written Waldo, Wyclif and Luther? What is the source for that, besides these quoted sources? If you are not a Jehovah's Witness, why are you confident that you are speaking for them, when you provide no documentation? You call this a "misleading similarity", I am frankly astonished. You are the one who wants them called "evangelical" based on the similarity of the words "evangelism" and "evangelical". Concern for fairness is a commendable goal, but are you sure that you aren't telling half-truths, by what you leave out? Mkmcconn

I am a Jehovah's witness and I like the objectivity of the articles here. I have offered a few changes to the "doctrines of" page and since this is not a JW website I think it only natural that links to opposing views be presented, even though it is quite true that most of these sites either misinform or misrepresent. Some greater research by the management could prove useful.

george You may reply to me at yahoo group talk_critiques.

Here we go again...I just made a minor edit to the article. Now comes (probably) yet another edit war in which I have to fight tooth and nail to keep this minor edit in the article without being reverted. -- Modemac (I'd love to be proven wrong here.)

...but unfortunately I'm not wrong. Whoop-de-do, it's a "redundant link." I see nothing wrong with having links to related Wikipedia articles within the existing text of the article, as well as having more obvious links at the end of the article. Also, the final external links aren't "anti-Jehovah's Witness" links -- they're "Opposing Viewpoints," as I explained in detail more than a month ago. Modemac

Calling those pages "Opposing Viewpoints" is like linking the Zundelsite on the Holocaust page and labelling it "Opposing Viewpoints". If they try to be fair and even-handed, they belong in the main list of external links. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion, which people ascribe to or do not ascribe to. Everyone who doesn't ascribe to it (most of the world) can be described as having "Opposing Viewpoints". But considering the article is about JW's, it seems kind of odd to put in links to "every other religion and philosophy other than the JW's" in the JW article. --Clutch

You already played the "link the Zundelsite to the Holocaust page" card in our last discussion, Clutch. And you haven't bothered replying in regards to "redundant link," which is supposedly why you removed my edits in the first place. Maybe you should try understanding the meaning of "compromise" on Wikipedia, which could easily mean allowing this entry to become something more than "Clutch's view vs. everyone else."

Hi, if Clutch is making the same kind of malicious edits to this article as to the Richard Wagner article, please post to the wikien-l@wikipedia.org mailing list. There is currently discussion to ban Clutch or at least warn him, and any supporting arguments are needed. I've summarized the situation in this post. --Eloquence

I, for one, would object to calling his edits under this topic "malicious". I can't tell what he's doing, and don't want to guess. He screens the content to an uncommon extent, sometimes providing reasonable explanations - but with explanations or not, he is in control here. That is the fact. Mkmcconn

I will object to this, as it is not a fact. The idea of Wikipedia, if I understand correctly, is that no one is "in control" here (except for the sysops). Clutch is certainly free to offer his opinions and expertise on this or other subjects. The reason why a number of other folks are ticked off at him is because every single change made to this article has to be subject to his "approval," even though he is not "in control" here. If Clutch doesn't like it, he erases it - he doesn't change it, he erases it and reverts it back to his own chosen view. I would prefer to see this article based on compromise of all parties involved, but Clutch does not seem to be interested in compromise. I've already tried that approach. Modemac

I agree that Clutch is camping on this article trying to exclude other viewpoints. This is very unwiki. Howver, the sysops are not in control - we have the power to do a great many things but little authority to actually control things in the classical sense. We may temporarily protect an article to stop an edit war but this is a very controversial thing to do. Please do take your case to the Wikipedia mailing list (WikiEN-L not the general policy mailing list Wikipedia-L). --mav
The analogy to Respawn camping is appropriate. "Perceived unsportsmanlike" is a charming understatement. But "malicious" isn't the right word - not with regard to this article. (I'm done) Mkmcconn

To the Editor: In defense of your article, you wrote, "As for the comment about Waldo, Wycliffe, and Luther, here is a quote from their own book". The paragraph you refer to reads:

And the seven stars.- How each of the Lord's messengers was kept! St. Paul had (supposedly) eight years of liberty after his first imprisonment, planted the Gospel in Spain and revisited the scenes of earlier labors; St. John is said to have been thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, but escaped unharmed and died of old age; Arius died a natural death; as did Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther and Charles T. Russell, although all had reason to expect martyrdom at the hands of ecclesiasticism. The year that Peter Waldo died, his tenets were condemned by an ecumenical council. "Wycliffe preached nmolested; but the Council of Constance (May 5, 1415) condemned his doctrines, and in 1428 his remains were dug up and burned; the ashes were cast into the adjoining Swift, which, as Wordsworth poetically remarked, conveyed them through the Avon and the Seven into the sea, and thus disseminated them over the world. His doctrines, carried into Bohemia, originated the Hussite movement. The New Testament was published about 1378, and the entire Old Testament was completed shortly before his death."

Please note, Mr. Editor, that your justification for listing Waldo, Wycliffe and Luther also justifies listing Arius. Please consider listing Arius prominently among the heroes of the Jehovah's Witnesses in future editions of your article. Mkmcconn

It is to be mentioned that JW are opposed by other denominations because they are not participationg in any Ecumenical work or other kind of co-labouration with other christian groups. I can't understand why this is deleted over and over again. I think this is an important point to show what other christian denominations consider to be "peculiar" with JW. This is in my opinion a main point to show why JW often are called a "deviation" from main Christianity.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_2&oldid=842678959"