Wikipedia

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hawstom (talk | contribs) at 17:30, 6 October 2004 (→Seeking a way forward: Outside comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 21 years ago by Mkmcconn in topic Remove "Disputed"

Writer Beware

Like entries on similar organizations such as Scientology or The Local Church of Witness Lee, no fair discussion can take place on this topic. If anyone dare edit this article, it will be swiftly and energetically reverted to reflect only the official point of view of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their headquarters, the Watchtower Society. Try it.

Darkness fears most the bright light of day.

Earlier discussions on this entry may be found in these discussion archives:

From an active Jehovah's Witness

I'm not sure anyone's going to see this, as I'm really new to Wikipedia and if it works the way it *appears* to work, then I'm more confused than ever, but I figured I would give it a shot anyway. I discovered the entry for Jehovah's Witnesses a few days ago, and I revisited it this morning. Increasingly, I am amazed at just how comprehensive, fair and correct it is. Being, as I am, a veteran of alt.religion.jehovahs-witn for a number of years, I am unable to fathom a free online community producing something as appropriate as this article. I reviewed the history of the page, and I see the evolution and the infighting, but I must admit, I'm still stunned at the veracity of the current result. I can't imagine how to improve it, and believe me, I'm a guy with plenty of opinions. Because of this, I would like to applaud those of you who have contributed to it. Pat yourselves on the back, folks - this is a great piece of work. Agentseven

Anonymity-I am, admitedly, nervous about this entire forum. I too am an active Jehovah's Witness. My nervosity stems from the premise of Wikipedia itself. Can a lake of opinions let us drink from the ocean of facts? Or are we to drown inside knowing not which way is up? I do, however, agree with Agentseven (which, until just now, I thought was a German name). This is a very admirable project you have set before yourselves. I read the article and was amazed by its accuracy. Some of the information is inaccessible to nonbelievers. It's not that we wouldn't give it; it's merely that nobody ever asks. I.e.: the MP3 comment in the article. Only recently have I myself been aware that MP3's were available through our headquarters. We received a letter to our congregation describing the new media forms available for our congregation to order. So, naturally, the fact that you contain this information is impressive and leads me to the conclusion that other Jehovah's Witnesses are contributing to the article. But then I clicked on the discussion tab and found what I was expecting to find. So many views, and each having the personal value of a child to his father. I do not want to step on toes or rend myself from objectivity. Nevertheless, it is apparent that some of you are sincerely curious about Jehovah's Witnesses and it is therefore my duty see to it that you receive whatever information you demand to know about this Christian faith (1 Peter 2:15). And, consequently, I am speaking in the second person perspective without having any particular individual in mind. Your online encyclopedia is the least slanderous to Jehovah's Witnesses I have observed save Watchtower.org itself! And that is saying a great deal in your favor. Take this as a mission statement, but I plan to humbly insert whatever contributions I can to this discussion page. I researched each of your bios and didn't find many if any Jehovah's Witnesses (except Agentseven who I can't link to, and those of you without a bio description). I thought it may be prudent to allow a Jehovah's Witness to represent Jehovah's Witnesses. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however.

Don't even bother noting that Jehovah's Witnesses are "controversial"

Such disclaimers will be censored.

The problem with the redundant links as I see it, is that the words that are highlighted are generic words. "controversy", "doctrine", "practices". Given the over-active linking that goes on in other parts of the Wiki, a regular user could be forgiven for thinking that those links were to generic word discussions, and not specific to Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore the links are not only redundant, but misleading. Since those articles are linked below in a way that is NOT ambiguous or misleading, we are better off without them. --Clutch

If this encyclopedia were paper, your reasoning would make sense. But it is not paper, and your thinking limits the value of this medium. Hyperlinking is not merely a footnote, but an aid to stream-of-consciousness. Links indicate an extended scope of intention, which the author recommends that the reader may follow in order to understand what cannot be expanded in the immediate context without making the sentence too difficult to comprehend. As a flat document, the article could be reasonably interpreted in a nonsensical way, because of how much cannot be said in one sentence. With a link in the appropriate context, however, the terms as they are being used in the context can be helpfully elucidated, and the reader comes to a better understanding of the fact that the entry is not a comprehensive explanation of the reasons that Jehovah's Witnesses have so many enemies, and indeed cannot be. For this reason, Clutch, you will very likely find that you have a lonely opinion. These links are not redundant, misleading, or ambiguous. They are a helpful use of A large part of peoples difficulty with Lir was that he was linking in unrelated words all over the place. And he wasn't the only one. The Wikipedia is full of articles where the links just point to generic terms, NOT to specific discussions of issues relevant to the article. Given that bad experience, people aren't going to look at the links, they will just see the generic words linked and view it as more kiddie unprofessionalism on our (the editors) part. The links are already at the bottom of the article, clearly marked as to what they are. If someone wants to read about JW practices, doctrines, or controversies, the links are clearly marked and available. Stream of consciousness at this time is best assisted by the links at the end of the article. --Clutch
Mr. Editor, I wish to withdraw my subscription to your editorial column. Where may I send my cancellation notice? I had not realized when I signed up for your tracts that they would present only one person's obscure perspective and idiomatic use of language. If my subscription for the "neutral" version produced by the cooperative process described in your literature has been misplaced, if such a publication exists, and if I may be assured of the product advertised, please disregard this request. Mkmcconn

The links in question are in an article about the Jehovah's Witnesses, and they link to other, related articles about the Jehovah's Witnesses. It's as simple as that, and thus it is appropriate. And the point of the links to the opposing Web sites is to provide links to "opposing viewpoints," not "anti-Jehovah's Witness" sites. In fact, the link to the Watchtower Observer was deletet, because that site was considered to be too biased by the users here. -- Modemac

Why don't you also then link to Luther's condemnation of the Catholic church in the Catholicism article? Or to the many Protestant websites that describe how Catholics are devil-worshipping "Papists"? Why not? Because it's not properly related to the article. Nor are those "Opposing Viewpoint" articles you insist on linking. --Clutch

Because, as has been said before, the Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed a controversial organization. They are viewed with suspicion by many other religious organizations, and the links to those sites are there as examples of such. The links in question offer viewpoints about the Jehovah's Witnesses that contrast with the "official" viewpoint of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Hence, they are opposing viewpoints. -- Modemac

Because, as has been said before, the Catholic Church is indeed a controversial organization. It is viewed with suspicion by many other religious organizations, and links to those sites are there as examples of such. The links in question offer viewpoints about the Catholic Church that contrast with the "official" viewpoint of the Catholic Church. Hence, they are opposing viewpoints.
You see how silly that sounds as a justification for linking Protestant websites to the Catholicism article? Why can't you see the similarity to what you are doing to the JW article? --Clutch

I already answered this, way up at the beginning of this page. I'll repeat this answer for convenience: "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 "anti-Jehovah's Witness" sites. If you want to go add opposing viewpoint links to the Catholicism article, then go ahead and do so -- this is Wikipedia, you can make any changes that you think are necessary. I'm not interested in the Catholicism article, I'm not interested in the Holocaust article; this discussion is about *this* article, and why opposing viewpoints are a legitimate entry here. -- Modemac

Links to criticisms of catholicism definitely have a place in the respective article. I will add relevant ones as soon as I find the time. --Eloquence

Anonymity-I will not get into the mistakes the Catholics have been condemned by society for, but the links themselves have special significance to what I am about to say. There was a discourse given to us a while back about the internet. While it is a wealth of information and resources, it is also a realm of near-anarchy; which in turn leads to frequent incredibility and incredulity. Our advice was to avoid giving much attention to religious web sites. Even those that claim to be hosted by fellow Jehovah's Witnesses (Romans 16:17). There is no gaurantee that anyone is who they claim to be on the internet. This opens the possibility of stumbling upon an "apostate"-those who actively and maliciously oppose our work. Quickly before I move on, I wanted to address the use of "point of view." Being a Jehovah's Witness does not mean having a viewpoint, it means having viewpoints. I would think this is the same in all religions, but a viewpoint about creed is a philosophy, while a cornucopia of viewpoints about creed is a religion. There is no one word, nor scripture, nor philosophy that equates an entire religion. There may very well be an organization that agrees with a viewpoint the Jehovah's Witnesses do, but there is none that agrees with every single one. If there was, there would be no need to call the two organizations different.

It's silly to keep reverting each other's changes. Should I just protect the article?

  • For protection: (vote here)
If this ends this ridiculous affair, then I'm for it. It's petty and unwanted, and I'm still keeping up my end of it because I believe Clutch is being unfair. -- Modemac
  • Against protection: (or vote here)
Not yet. Let's try to talk about this. Q 17:15 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

--Uncle Ed

This article is only getting half a dozen edits a day. So whatever the problem is, I don't think freezing it is the solution. Matthew Woodcraft

Anonymity-Certain statistics will change frequently. For example, there were an average of 709 baptized each day last year (2003). The peak publishers number is a lot more compelling. The membership section would be inaccurate relatively quickly. The different languages the various publications are translated into is ever-expanding. Basically, we are a growing people, maturing constantly, and statistical information especially is hard to keep up with. As regards the history, that wont change. I'm not going to suggest locking it, but I would suggest nonbelievers to not argue over what we believe; that IS silly! You can't make over six million people believe something different because you argue over it on a forum. If you can't decide what we believe, just ask. I'm glad you have the Watchtower.org site listed, it's a great place to find those answers.

Clutch, can you please offer more insight on your change to:

Throughout their history, their doctrines, beliefs, and practices resulted in widespread persecution.

Why the removal of contraversy? And why was your comment for that edit "sp. contraversy", which to me implies you corrected the spelling of contraversy?

Contraversy means people disagree and debate. Were the JW policies (past/present) on blood/vaccination/organs/military service/pledge of allegience/voting, and many others not a source of contraversy? Why have there been landmark court cases over issues if they were not contraversial? Why are there edit wars here if there is not contraversy? Why are there anti-JW sites if there is not contraversy? Was there not contraversy in Germany when JWs were targetted in the Holocaust? What does the word contraversy mean to you? Thanks. Q

The word controversy in this case was redundant; if someone doesn't get the idea that the Witnesses are controversial after reading about the First Amendment battles, or the persecution by mobs, they probably aren't members of the human race. Hammering the point unecessarily only serves to alienate and dehumanize the Witnesses, by indicating that the editors agree with the persecutors that they are just controversial nutballs, who deserve whatever they have coming. It does not serve to inform. --Clutch

I strongly object to the removal of the first amendment information from this article. Rejection of the power of the state is a fundamental part of JW doctrine and history and it belongs here, not segregated off in some other article where no one will bother to go to learn of the great benefit that American democracy has gained from the bravery and steadfastness of the JW in defending their religion. I am surprised that The Cunctator did not propose or even mention this change on the talk page and in fact only gave notice in the neutral summary comment of "refactoring". Ortolan88 18:13 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

You should tone doen the rhetoric. How is "In the United States, there have been several Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses to defend their practice of temporal disengagement (that is, non-participation in activities such as the Pledge of Allegiance), the most important being West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette." quietly tucking away the issue?

Putting information on different interlinked parts of Wikipedia is not segregation, except in a very literal sense.

Be bold in updating pages, and expect that everyone is working toward the same goal.

--The Cunctator

If I had been bold in updating, I would have updated the whole topic right back into this article where it belongs. Instead, I am (pretty much politely) discussing the move in the talk pages of this and the related article, which I very much would have preferred you do before making this arbitrary move (particularly considering all the funny business (not by you) that the JW article family has undergone). I am still waiting for some kind of reason for doing it. See the other talk page for my observations. Ortolan88

"Several Supreme Court cases" is not the same as "many Supreme Court cases". The latter is the case. There were 23 Supreme Court cases brought by witnesses in 8 years. That is many not several. I am not stupid enough to try to straighten this out while two combatants (neither of whom seem trustworthy) are duking it out, both with axes to grind and warehouses of edits to make against one another and both with unexpressed agendas, but I will be back to these articles after all the dust has died down. So long for now, Ortolan88

It wasn't arbitrary. The basic reason is that it's much easier for people to come to agreement through the editing process on a topic when it's broken up into discrete chunks, *especially for article families that undergo funny business*. This allows entries to be as specific and concise as possible.

For another example of this thinking, the explicit mention of other Christian heretics (and by heretic, I mean someone who rejects the Catholic Church) such as Luther and Peter Waldo doesn't belong on the Jehovah's Witnesses page because the statement that JW are like other heretics that believe that mainstream Christianity got it wrong is doubly superfluous. It's simply completing a syllogism from definitions:

  1. heretics believe that mainstream Christianity got it wrong
  2. JW, Luther, Waldo, Wycliffe are heretics
  3. JW, Luther, Waldo, Wycliffe believe mainstream Christianity got it wrong

That information belongs in pages about heresy and Christian reformation movements or the such.

That said, if I can't convince you, especially if you give yourself a little time to consider the changes, then you chould certainly feel free to change things to whatever situation makes sense to you. --The Cunctator

Characterising JW's as heretics is neither neutral, nor appropriate. Mentioning the other religious reformers like Luther and Waldo is appropriate, as the JW's view themselves as being in a line of descent, spiritually, from those men. Please undo your revert.

How is it neither neutral nor appropriate? It wasn't a revert; it was an edit. And the article doesn't even call the religion heretical. Specific discussion of how the JW appeal to Luther, Waldo, etc. should take place at doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Why do you keep taking out the fact that, of all the groups persecuted in the Holocaust, only the JW's were beheaded, a punishment usually reserved for traitors and people engaged in political subversion? Why do you take out the fact that mob violence against Witnesses continues today in places like Georgia? Why do you keep putting back in a statement that is not factual (JW's became a centralized organization under Rutherford)?

For the first, there's a entire entry for discussion about the treatment of the Witnesses in the Holocaust. The second needs to be put into context and clarified--what does "mob violence" mean, what other groups are threatened, how often, etc. References would help. For the third, I put it in because I didn't see any information to counter that. There needs to be more hard information on the history of JW presented.

Why do you keep putting a link to Arianism in the article? JW's are not Arians, and reject that categorization.

So what form of early Christianity does JW harken back to? They certainly seem to be in line with the Arianist rejection of trinitarianism.

What makes you think that your less informative lead paragraph is superior to the one it replaced? You replaced this:

Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by Charles Taze Russell in the 1870s as a Bible study group. The members are known for their racially diverse, close-knit brotherhood, door-to-door evangelizing and non-participation in government, including politics and military service.

With this:

Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination founded as a Bible study group in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell as the Bible Students.

Instead of deleting information, could you not have just inserted "are a Christian denomination" in the lead paragraph and left the rest of the information in?

That's simply not true. Look again.

Why did you replace the following paragraph:

In the United States, there have been many Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses which have broadened and increased First Amendment protections for all citizens. Some of the most significant of these cases involved their right to not pledge allegiance to the state, to not salute the flag, to refuse service in the military, and to preach in public. (See West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette).

With this:

In the United States, there have been several Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses which have shaped First Amendment law, to defend their practice of temporal disengagement (that is, non-participation in activities such as the Pledge of Allegiance), the most important being West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette.

What is your basis for saying there were NOT many Supreme Court cases involving JW's? Have you researched this? Why replace the more specific "broadened and increased First Amendment protections" with the less specific "shaped"? Did some of these Supreme Court cases narrow citizens rights and protections? Why did you replace the enumeration of what the cases were about with the single phrase "temporal disengagement"? Half the cases had nothing to do with temporal disengagement, and everything to do with the right to disseminate their literature and preach in public.

"several", "many"; I don't care. There needs to be more evidence presented to show exactly how the cases have shaped First Amendment law before it's proper to assert "broadened and increased First Amendment protections", which is a strong claim. I replaced the enumeration with the phrase "temporal disengagement" because none of the cases discussed had to do with public preaching. That is to say, more information needs to be added to Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses.

You seem to want to move from concrete statements of fact to general, more vague statements. I ask you; how does this benefit the article? How does such a policy benefit the Wikipedia?

Are you a JW? Were you a JW? How do you know the things you have been writing here Cunctator? What makes you THINK you know those things?

--Clutch

No need to raise your voice. All I'm doing is editing. That is to say, I read what is presented, then edit it to say what are the clearly explained points in (what I intend to be) a clear manner. I am not deliberately editing out useful information. If my edits state or imply something incorrect, then you should understand that means that the correct information was not presented well enough for me to understand (or find it plausible or important). --The Cunctator

I'm not getting involved in the theological debate, but one of your statements is incorrect. JWs were not the only victims of the Holocaust to be beheaded. It was a common form of execution in several camps (notably Klooga), and if we are to expand the scope to include victims of Nazi oppression, it was used against the members of the White Rose. Danny

Thank you for the clarification. Beheading was the punishment reserved for traitors and people involved in political subversion against the State. JW's were neither traitors, nor engaged in political work of any sort, subversive or not, but they were beheaded anyway. --Clutch
No problems, but it is still not accurately portrayed. Other people were, in fact beheaded (though hanging, shooting, and gassing were far more common). The fact that beheading was commonly (but not exclusively) used for political subversives actually indicates the sources of Nazism's opposition to JWs. Pacifism, failure to salute flags, etc. were deemed politically subversive acts, and punishment was meted out accordingly. This can be constrasted with the Nazis' racial policies against Jews and Gypsies (and to some degree, Slavs), which resulted in death for an accident of birth. In other words, JWs, like Communists, could denounce their beliefs and be accepted as Aryans. Others could not. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of JW victims by age. Were children killed or taken for reeducation, etc. (In no way is this meant to detract from the suffering of JWs under Nazism, but to understand the roots of that oppression.) Danny
The issue of beheading could be better explored and clarified, but I'd prefer not to distract Cunctator right now from replying to my complaints against his recent reverts of my edits. --Clutch
In Western Europe, beheading has been the form of execution for treason, from ancient times. Mkmcconn 06:46, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem here, Clutch, is that you seem to be determined to be the final authority on the Jehovah's Witnesses, and all edits to this article have to meet your approval. If not, you erase it and revert it back to your own edit. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The idea here is that users are supposed to improve upon each other's edits...and if the resulting edit is not *exactly* what you intended, then you work with that person to produce a suitable compromise. Working with the other users here does not mean deleting their edits entirely and repeatedly reverting them back to your own. If you ever realize that, then maybe you'll find yourself at the center of fewer edit wars, flame wars, and accusations of censorship. -- Modemac

You just indulged in an ad hominem. If instead you would stick to constructive criticism for the article itself, I'm sure the article would benefit from your input. --Clutch

As opposed to accusing the other users here of attacking your religion? -- Modemac

That comment makes no sense. --Clutch

Okay, then how about this quote from the top of this article: The people that want the "Opposing Views" in only seem to want the ones that trash the JW religion. -- Modemac

Now you are taking things out of context. I don't see that we have anything to say to each other right now. --Clutch

It's funny, Cunctator, that your "edits", trying to "clarify what is presented" consisted of reverting my edits to previous version of things, and changing the characterisation of various facts. Perhaps instead of assuming that what someone wrote was mistaken, and that what they wrote "probably isn't true" and reverting their edits, you could ask for clarification on the Talk page? --Clutch

You know, I was terribly excited at the prospects and future of Wikipedia when I first came across it. Looking at this page has certainly dulled my enthusiasm. I'm seeing a Usenet II developing here. --Michael 08:20 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I put the text about Arius back in because the statement is a true statement, and highly relevant. If you read the earlier comments on this talk page, you'll find several Jehovah's Witness sources cited which list Arius as someone who maintained the truth in the past. While JW's may not affirm all of Arius' beliefs, they do affirm the main belief which the First Ecumenical Council condemned, namely that Jesus Christ is a created being. From reading the past discussion on this page, it seems clear that the text about Arius was only removed earlier because Clutch was more persistent than the other editors. Wesley 13:17, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It seems evident from JW materials that (at least until some point) in writings that seem to be in some sense authoritative, Arius has been considered as much a hero for the Truth as Luther, Wyclif, Waldo, and Paul. So, we won't call JWs Arians for the same reason we don't call them Lutherans - I can understand that reasoning. But it's their connection to Arius, not to Luther, that is controversial. And in being controversial it describes their distinctive. How is that misleading? Mkmcconn \

Isn't the denial of that connection, more misleading? If the expressed intentional purpose of identification with Arius has been to distance JWs from Christendom (which has among other crimes repudiated their hero, Arius), does covering up that connection have the purpose of disguising the JW's repudiation of Christendom? How does that serve the purposes either of the JWs or of reporting the facts? Mkmcconn 05:50, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem with identifying JWs as "Arians" is that this is a label applied to them by people who disagree with them: "Oh, they're just like the Arians". Actually there's no evidence that they were influenced by Arian writing, nor do they consider themselves followers of Arius. If their beliefs agree with those of Arius only on the relationship between God and Jesus, that hardly makes them "Arians". To say "their hero, Arius" is misleading and would be vehemently denied by any JW.
As I said, "we won't call JWs Arians for the same reason we don't call them Lutherans". But their literature has repeatedly identified Arius as being on the good-guy side. That doesn't make them Arians; but it does make them sympathetic with Arius in exactly that respect in which trinitarian Christians repudiate Arius. (please sign your posts) Mkmcconn — 22:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

About the heresy, Mathew 7:13 says "Go in through the narrow gate; becuase broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramp is the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it."

Have the people of the god from the bible ever been the strongest, most widely respected people? Had you been a heretic in a good area of time in ancient Isreal, you would have been following him. Daniel, Habakuk, Isaiah, Jeremiah, they were all "heretics." Jesus himself was a "heretic" to the goings about of Isreal of the time. User:Fictisious Oddwobble

Anonymity-Lol! That's an interesting way to look at it. I prefer to think that everybody else was a heretic, and these were the righteous individuals. Heretics don't need to be a minority. Who's more qualified to label someone as a heretic? God or the masses? Jehovah said that the nation of Israel was sinful (Isaiah 1:4). The thing about Arius was that he disagreed with the majority, which doesn't always mean you're wrong. For this they called him a heretic. But that doesn't mean he was a heretic. If the Council of Nacaea was wrong about the origin of Christ, then that would mean they were also wrong about Arius being a heretic. Often in Biblical chronology, nations were as a whole heretical, and certain individuals were the righteous ones. Or...was that your point, Fictisious Oddwobble? That the word "Heretic" is rather pointless and subjective when used by men to other men?

True, being in the majority doesn't guarantee you're "right." At first Arianism was a minority view, but for much of the fourth century (including after Nicaea in 325) Arianism was actually in the majority. That's why the second ecumenical council had to condemn it again. There are other times later in the church's history when the "orthodox" position seemed to be in the minority, such as when an emperor was pushing iconoclasm. But this article doesn't need to decide whether JW's or Arians are heretics; the only question is whether it is neutral to note that JW's do agree with Arius on the point for which the first and second ecumenical councils condemned him. The reader is still free to conclude that either the councils were right or Arius was right, or that it's all a bunch of silliness that doesn't matter. AFAICT, this is how NPOV writing working in wikipedia. Wesley 16:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Controversial issues of Jehovah's witnesses

As a Jehovah's witness I can honestly say that our religion does evoke strong reactions from people - There is actually book entitled "The Evocative Religion of Jehovah's Witnesses" (by Matthew Alfs). The inclusion of a section on this topic in this work seems reasonable, whether it is better referred to as "evocative" or "controversial" I don't know. Perhaps "evocative" is a better word?

Unfortunately, many of those who work against J's ws use misinformation, but the good reputation of J's ws is well known by the majority of people and only the most vehement of opposers will refuse to admit so. Therefore it seems to me that whatever links or comments may be included here, the reputation of our religion as a whole will not be damaged.

This is a good work, all the hard work involved is greatly appreciated. (At least by me.)

george


This entry: "To those who would like to make sure whether there are any totalitarian tendencies in their religion or not some useful hints are given in Totalitarian religious group." 

should either be removed or placed in every article representing a religion,
because facets of the definition listed under "Totalitarian religious group"
could be applied to every religion in existence. I intend to delete it unless
someone replies.

george m

russell's "successor"

The comment: "the Jehovah's Witnesses adopted their current name in 1931 under the direction of Charles Taze Russell's successor, Joseph Franklin Rutherford."

Implies a line of succesion. Russell never named a successor and Rutherford was elected. I believe the statement: "the Jehovah's Witnesses adopted their current name in 1931 under the direction of the Watchtower Society's second president, Joseph Franklin Rutherford." is better. I am making the change today, please comment here if you have any objections or advice.


should the page be protected?

I am considering deleting the text of the page until this current problem can be resolved. Someone continues to chop up an already concise and accurate article for personal reasons I can find no academic reasons for the actions being taken by this anonymous invidual. Since I am not an admin, Some help please.

I think this page should be protected, because it is corrupt by anti-JW. K.M. 01:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone wrote this:

By faith, Jehovah's Witnesses believe their unique religion to be a restoration of original first-century Christianity as revealed to Mr. Russell. They are known for predicting the exact date of Jesus' physical return to earth. The last prediction was 1974, after which they gave up predicting since it caused a serious loss of membership and business.

I'm JW but I don't know Jesus' phisycal return. Jehovah's Witnesses didn't believe it. Certainly, some people thought Armagedon would come in 1914 or 1974, but Watch Tower Society denied it. Primarily, JW don't believe Jesus's phisycal return, they believe Jesus's presence. K.M. 07:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anonymity-"being taken by this anonymous invidual." It wasn't me in case you were wondering. Anyway, the 1914 thing: 1914 was, as many should know, the start of WW1. More than that, however, it was the time that the Kingdom of God was established and the "last days" began. It wasn't a physical returning of Christ, however. There are newspapers and magazine quotes before and after 1914 that say the Jehovah's Witnesses predicted a time of unrest and an end to peace at 1914. All that being said, 1975 was not the same (it was 1975 by the way). The current president, Brother Franz, told another who asked about 1975 that Armageddon may or may not happen, but that the point was to not slow down or let up, time was running out for this world. It was not an official prediction or anything like that. 1975 was, some figured out, was 6000 years beyond Adam's birth. Some thought that meant that the end of the seventh day was then. But the sixth creative day didn't end until Eve was created, and the Bible gives no mention of when that happened. It's a case of anxiety. When you wait your entire life for something to come and you don't know when it will, it's a challenge not to put faith into any date people throw out there. The 1975 issue did reassure one thing, though, that nobody knows the day or the hour. Armed with the evidenced fact that there's no way of knowing, we haven't had any more false alarms. It's not that we haven't bothered making any more predictions because we were worried of loosing people.

"Nontrinitarian" qualifier

Latest comment: 21 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It seems that it is unneccessary to put this description here wher it is dealt with later in the article. It seemed frivolous to have it in the introduction. We might as well describe JEhova's Witnesses as a nontrintarian, politically neutral, religiously isolated, morally strict, biblically adherant, evangelistic... you get my point? Anyway, if you want the Non T qualifier so much I'll leave it alone, can't say if anyone else will though. george m

Doesn't seem unnecessary to me, whoever you are. Wesley 03:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)Reply
Usually the "disputed" note is put up when there is an actual dispute. Is it disputed that this group is not Trinitarian? What are your grounds for adding the "disputed" notice? Mkmcconn — 06:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

I didn't put the disputed messasge in, it was the "administer". georgem BTW is that person an admin or just using a play on words?

Remove "Disputed"

Latest comment: 21 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Who objects to the removal of the "disputed" notice? Please speak up. Mkmcconn — 15:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

June 22, 2004 revert

Was there a particular reason for the June 22, 2004 revert of my edits of a few days earlier? --Gary D 20:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the absence of a reason, I reverted their revert to restore your changes. Sorry about that, Gary -- seems an odd edit to revert. Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Jwrosenzweig. Even as against an anonymous editor, I didn't want to do a quick reversion myself without having a third-party "referee" editor do it or myself allowing some time to pass first, since that smells of starting an edit war. I do understand that these can be touchy topics to edit. To the anonymous editor, I say that I am willing to discuss the reasons for my recent edits. --Gary D 20:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A great attitude, Gary -- you have the right perspective about this. Exactly what I would have done under the circumstance. I hope it all ends happily, as it seems to have. Perhaps the anon was simply testing out reversion to see if it worked? Jwrosenzweig 21:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Mebbee. Thanks again. --Gary D 22:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aha! Our reverter speaks! He or she asks, "why would you delete [from the "see also" section] links to relevant links of doctrine and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses?" I deleted these because they are already wikified up in the section, "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses," and I understand the general Wikipedia policy to be not to duplicate text-wikified terms in the "see also" section. However, these being fairly central matters and this being the main article on the topic, I can see why an exception might be made here.

I didn't do the other edits you reverted, except for adding the category "New religious movements", which was defined upon its creation [by me, that's how I know] as including movements back to the mid-nineteenth century. The Mormon guys removed themselves from my category, and I didn't put up too much of a fuss, at least for the time being (I imagine everyone would like their religion considered as established rather than new, and besides, the category is still rather amorphous). I wouldn't put up too much of a fuss here, either, if you gave me a reason to exclude JW. --Gary D 23:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, I have moved the mis-capitalized page to Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, so that the amended, properly-capitalized link on this page now works. Please know, I am not trying to work against you. --Gary D 00:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 28, 2004 edit

I support the June 28th edit. Moving controversy out of the context-establishing top paragraph is in line with WP style on controversial topics. --Gary D 18:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

nontrinitarian (again and again)

I revert the lead sentence to include "Nontrinitarian", not because Jehovah's Witnesses describe themselves this way, but because this important qualifier renders neutral the claim that they are Christian. Mkmcconn — 22:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-- It is not necessary. The 3nd paragraph already notes they are not trinitarian.

And the first paragraph says that they are Christian with a difference - so I'll remove it from the third paragraph. This qualifier explains why it is controversial to call them "Christian" at all. To those who care about such things, it is the most important thing about them, and explains a great deal. To those who care nothing about such things, it barely registers as being "helpful" (as Gary D puts it). To those for whom it is a problem to call them "Christian", it is not a problem to call them them "nontrinitarian Christian". Mkmcconn — 21:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't yet know whether I care about it or not. Somebody explain to me (and the rest of WP's readers) its significance. Why is it controversial to call JWs "Christian" at all? How does the "nontrinitarian" qualifier alleviate that? Help! Hoo! Whoa! I'm sinking in a pool of insider code and shared but unspoken premises! Throw the poor reader an exegesical life preserver! Glurb...Glug...Blub... --Gary D 22:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
When someone denies belief in the Trinity, it goes to the heart of what Christianity is, boiled down: the salvation revealed in Jesus Christ. They are saying that the salvation that they are looking for is not the one other people who call themselves Christians are looking for. From there, they may differ in a thousand other ways, but what really matters to those "other Christians" is that their difference begins with a denial of the Trinity. Their idea of unity with God is affected, thereby; and consequently they think differently about Christians' union with one another despite other differences; and so on, and on. I can see your problem, but I don't see clearly how to economically help. 22:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You will see the same discussion going on between Mormons and trinitarian Christians (but the Mormons are much more conversational, by far). 22:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let us turn passion into explication

I have been watching the slow motion revert war regarding "nontrinitarian" for some time now, and I finally decided to click the links to see what all the doctrinal fuss is about. To my surprise, both trinitarian and nontrinitarian are unhelpful stubs, so I still don't know what all the doctrinal fuss is about. However, there are apparently several Wikipedians to whom this distinction is passionately important, so may I suggest we convert this passionate energy into explanatory power by having some of your folks tie into one or both of these linked articles, if not into the body of text in this article, to explain what these concepts mean in context of Jehovah's Witnesses and why the distinction is so important. A revert war over a cryptic stub seems a waste (sort of "Bele and Lokai" for you Star Trek types). --Gary D 20:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The fuss isn't over the stubs, of course. "Nontrinitarian" is not cryptic to anyone who cares about the distinction. Isn't the sum of what you say here, that you do not care? Mkmcconn — 21:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm saying I do not understand, given the body of text I currently have before me. I might very well care about the distinction. You, for example, are telling me it's very, very important. If it's important, I do care, and I want to know all about it! I am gleaning that anyone who doesn't believe in trinitarianism probably can't be a Christian. That certainly sounds important! So--why? What's it all about? I take it this has to do with God as one versus God as three, but how does that tie in with JWs and how does it all manifest? Examples and diagrams welcome! "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" worked well for Laura Petrie during marital arguments on the old Dick Van Dyke Show, but it's not a very good theme for an encyclopedia. Tell us! --Gary D 22:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since most of the first four centuries of the Christian Church deal with this, it's a bit of a challenge to boil it down, don't you think? Read the Trinity article. It has some rudimentary explanation of why trinitarian Christians think that this is important. Mkmcconn — 22:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, especially your explanatory paragraph in the section above this one. Keep your eye on trinitarian and nontrinitarian, and maybe I can do something in those articles armed with your paragraph that might answer a reader with my questions. --Gary D 19:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're welcome. I look forward to what you might offer. Mkmcconn — 20:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---"When someone denies belief in the Trinity, it goes to the heart of what Christianity is, boiled down: the salvation revealed in Jesus Christ." So 'nontrnitarian" should be put up? This is not a neutral position. The trinity issue should be addressed but not on the first paragraph. Not like that.

Neutral in what sense? It is descriptive. It is true. It is a non-controversial fact. It explains plainly in what sense they are Christian. And since they want to make it clear that they are not Christians like those they seek to convert to their religion, it is very confusing to me why it is impossible to plainly state the truth on this page! Neutral? It's not for the sake of neutrality or factuality, that you revert this repeatedly; it's in order to let stand unqualified the claim that JWs are Christians, even though you know that they mean by this something completely different than that word ordinarily means. Mkmcconn — 03:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So what? Just because you believe they are not Christians you are going to add "untrinitarian"? Who would take Wikipedia serious as an encyclopedia having somebody who adds to an article his or her thoughts?

My motivations are not really relevant, here; although I can understand why you read my actions through the motives that I reveal. More exactly, I put "nontrinitarian" there because it explains the sense in which they are called Christians - like calling another group, "fundamentalist Christian", "Protestant Christian", or "New Age Christian". These are intended to be neutral, factual and descriptive - although any one of these groups may prefer to call themselves merely, "Christian". It is not my opinion that JWs are nontrinitarian. It is a meaningful, informative fact.
Anyway, your comment is obsolete and irrelevant. It does not interact with the edits that I actually made. Mkmcconn — 00:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ecumenical movement

Also persistent is something showing up about the "ecumenical movement"; as though "it" were something that had a negative opinion about those that do not participate in "it". Since the most vocal critics of the JWs are critical precisely in the sense that they wish to exclude JWs from anything ecumenical, I can't even tell if the parties are being ironic, who are complaining about criticism from the "ecumenical movement" to the effect that JWs are wrong because they don't want to be part of it. Anyway, it makes little sense to me, and so I've removed it several times; and without some explanation here, I can't see why I shouldn't remove it whenever it appears. Mkmcconn — 20:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Two little points

Firstly; in the article section covering common opposition to this religion, I notice that the most common or initial reason that some people react adversely to Jehovah's Witnesses or similarally stereotyped religions is not mentioned. That is: up-front evangelizing methods. People are reluctant to be exposed to new or differing thoughts or concepts on their doorsteps. E.g. Charity drives, Religions, Sales-people. While mentioned indirectly in the section "...a permit in order to preach from door to door...", it perhaps should be mentioned more explicitally in the opposition section that most people's adverse reactions to Jehovah's Witnesses stem from this door-to-door evangelizing rather than JW doctrine considering that most people 'turn off/tune out' prior to learning any of the JW precepts because of their initial reaction - a reaction that they justify or reenforce by learning and stating JW concepts and practices that they don't like.

Secondly; for a Wiki article to have at the top of the talk page a statement saying 'writers beware' and that edits can't be applied because of an official gangland version is... worrying. Even if it is sardonic. The article doesn't flow quite right and is bit too short for the possible content matter (sub-articles aside) which, considering the Wiki skillbase availiable, is only likely because POVs are tearing at this article like a pack of dogs with a single bone. You should sit back and think 'If I didn't know anything about Jehovah's Witnesses and I wanted a Wiki to help me learn - what should that article explain and how?' When you think about it that way; the way the article doesn't flow right just leaps out at you.

But Religion isn't my primary Wiki forte; so I'll leave to you. - 25th July 2004. (A person)

doubtful cause of opposition

What critics are being described by

"Much criticism has also come from the Watchtower Society's reference to itself being the "Faithful and Discrete Slave" of Matthew 24:45-47."

They claim all sorts of provocative things for themselves. I doubt that this claim gets much more attention than anything else. Who thinks that it does? or, is this just more advertizing masquerading as something else? Mkmcconn — 04:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits

Is it just me, or have recent edits(past couple of weeks) serverely modified this article, and not in a good way. I don't know, but it just feels lacking compared to when I read it a few weeks ago. Anyone else notice this? -- elykyllek 17:19, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it has been chopped up like it always does. A few months ago it was a thoroughly informative article but it got cut up and any time someone makes a positive or neutral addition about JW's to the article eventually someone with a beef throws in just enough deletions and changes to ruin it. george m

Could you be a little more vague please? < /sarcasm > Wesley 04:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anonymity-I too am curious what changes you are implying. It is the first time today that I stumbled upon Wikipedia, and I'm still here because I find it fascinating that the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses are uniquely accurate. While, given, there are some connotations of words that hide a subtle disapproval of what is being written. Nonetheless there is nothing obviously wrong in the article sections. It's a great step in encyclopedia creation to give everyone an equal authority while retaining the option of ambiguity. I've heard cable documentaries that say Jehovah's Witnesses primarily target poor, middle aged, black women, who are single parents. We preach in countries that don't even have poor, middle aged, black women, who are single parents! The lies about our faith exceed that of any other, to a point that I doubted any nonbeliever really knew what we believed at all. Sometimes succinctness is good; the more information you try to give about a group of people, the more chances you have of being a liar.


Pardon my muddy water. This article was extensive and got tore apart by someone a few months ago. People have done a good job of rewriting it. The comment above caused me to remember it and it obivously helped me into a stupid moment. Apologies. george m

Neutrality & libel Disputes

There has been a lot of talk about the introduction. Now I ask: Isn't it good just saying: "Jehovah's Witnesses are a nontrinitarion christian religious group." This is neutral and clean, I think.

Mr. Olsen

That they are Christian is one POV, that they are not is another; both are widely held as far as I can tell. The previous version was an attempt to include or accomodate both points of view: Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are a religious group that describes itself as Christian, and based on the teachings of the Bible. Thanks for signing your post btw. Wesley 16:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I always thought that being christian was just that you held the belief in Jesus' ransom sacrifice, and believe that through him there was the future hope, I never before realised that many people think that you need to believe in Christ's divinity in order to be christian. Very interesting, learn something new every day. -- elykyllek 18:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The current intro contains redundant statements:

"Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are a nontrinitarian religious group. They consider themselves Christians, but many Christians regard them as a non-Christian religious group because they deny that Jesus was an incarnation of God."

Problems I have with this also include the use of the word "deny". This carries a negative and accusatory tone. EX: "Do you deny the evidence mr X?" The statment also implies that Jesus is God, because JW's DENY it. We are not writing a text book for an "orthodox" theology school, are we?

There has been so much argument over this, I propose we eliminate this controversial intro and go with the second pargraph as the beginning of the article with the heading Jehovah's Witnesses at the top.george m

I think Jehovah's Witnesses are Christianity group. They encourage faith in Jesus Christ in The Watchtower, their organ. Also many search engines define them as Christianity group. So, it's a libel to JW that JW is not Christianity group. Rantaro 23:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rantaro, I am a Jehovah's Witness, so you can see that accuseing me of libelous activity is quite ridiculous. I agree that it is a lie to say JW's are not Christian. The reason I edited that part out was to avoid a conflict with people who would remove it and place something negative instead. If you go through the page histories you will understand what I am saying regardless of whether you agree with my opinion or not. Please try to control your temper. george m

I can't see why the introduction should be such a big problem. I must say I am tired by doing things with the intro. I think it should be written something like this:

Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian christian religious group. Being such, it is often considered as breaking with the mainstream. The modern denomination traces back to some Bible study groups founded by Charles Taze Russell.

Mr. Olsen, Norway

I think so, too. In fact, many search engines includes Yahoo! and Google ,AltaVista regard them as Christianity group,and many dictionaries in Japan also do so. Undoubtedly, Wikipedia need to write on neutral point, but it also need to write factually. It is obviously based on Catholic & Protestant church doctorines that deny christianity of Jehovah's Witnesses and it's POV. Rantaro 11:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, we should write factually. Throughout most of history, being "Christian" has included holding a belief that Jesus is God (and more than that of course). It appears to be misleading and disingenuous to ignore what most of the rest of Christendom, at present and throughout history, regards as a huge difference. At the very least, they should be called a nontrinitarian Christian group, or else a religious group that calls itself Christian, or some variation of one of those. Wesley 15:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again I would pay attention to the introduction. Why shouldn't the following statement be included: "Russell founded some Bible study groups, which multiplied...." The text without this information seems really confucing. Mr. Olsen

I just amended the second sentence to be closer to what you suggest. It may not make sense any more to keep the "During Russell's lifetime" in the new context. Go ahead and edit boldly if you see a way to make this better. Wesley 16:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is extremley biased in favor of JWs

It is written very obviously by an active JW, with only positive viewpoints about JWism represented. This would be like an article about the Democratic party spouting only wonderful things about them, and never raising popular controversial issues.

The article praises JW involvement in the holocaust, but fails to mention that the JWs themselves were praising hitler in their 1934 yearbook and saying that they also despised jews and jewry. It fails to discuss the controversialness of blood transfusions, or that many children have died because of that particular dogma.

JW Nazi Conciliation

For one thing this article is edited by many who are and are not JW's. Second, Former JW's keep trying to use a few words in a single publication produced during a time of extreme duress as the official position of JW's. Ridiculous. The US government and the historians who worked on the US holocaust museum as well as = every other credible historian = have not found this to be an important issue to address. Thirdly you are bringing up issues about subjects dealt with on other pages. george m
And is it true that MANY children HAVE DIED because of JW doctrines? In Japanese Wikipedia, that controversy is occured. But it has no evidence. Rantaro 11:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is a Christian ?

  1. The word Christ means savior
  2. Christians accept that there is a Savior
  3. Jesus has been identified as the Christ
  4. Jesus said: "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes onto the Father except by means of me"
  5. The Bible says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
  6. Jesus says: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

If your faith honestly comports to this and does not add in things which contradict it, then "Christian" is a fair word.

However, the issue of being "Born Again" is entirely another thing. Each person must make their own personal apprehension of faith. Those that make one in Jesus's name and by His blood are born again.

Therefore, persons attending or particpating in a Christian religion/denomination who have not made a personal apprehension of faith, are not Born Again Christians

Hopefully this clears things up.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 05:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think your theory is partly different from Bible teachings. The word "Christ" (Heb.Messiah) means "anointed one", not savior. (See Christ) This proves that there is one who anointed Jesus Christ. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is a savior. But they think He is and was not Almighty God.
Almighty God is only Jehovah God, and Jesus is His Christ (anointed one).
Second, Jehovah's Witnesses think John 1:1 in most translations is wrong. They translated it:" In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT) because the former God and the latter god are different in original Greek words. Rantaro 08:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
These two comments nicely highlight how Jehovah's Witnesses both translate and interpret the first chapter of John differently than pretty much the rest of Christendom, past and present. Notable exceptions of course include Arianism, which also believed that Jesus was a highly exalted being, but still a creature created by God. This fundamental difference concerning the nature of God and the identity of Jesus Christ is why when Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves "Christian," what they mean is not what is usually meant by the term. BTW your description above raises an honest question for me: do JW's worship Jesus? If so, do they consider themselves polytheists, since they Jesus as a separate god from Jehovah? Wesley 16:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
JW's are not unique in their Bible's rendering of the verse J1:1. Most of the founding fathers of the USA rejected the trinity as an errant doctrine. There have been other groups throughout the history of Christianity, not much discussed, who held these beleifs as well. NO, Jw's do not consider themselves polytheists in the sense that they recognize only one Creator, the same being the only God deserving of worship. This logically is Jehovah of the Hebrew bible. We do not worship Jesus. The Bible says that there are "many gods", therefore believing that many spiritual creatures exist does not make one a polytheist in the abovementioned sense. If JW's are to be considered polytheists, then by the same coin so are all those who claim to be Christians, as they believe in angels and demons. george m
To say definitely, Jehovah's Witnesses DON'T worship Jesus Christ, but only Jesus' Father Jehovah God (Matt.22:37)through Jesus Christ(John 14:6). They think that Jesus Christ is Jehovah's Son (Matt.16:16) and their mediator. This view is based on Jesus teaching(Matt. 4:10; 23:9; 24:36; John 4:24; 14:28) and His Apostles view (Acts 4:30; 1 Cor.11:3) They receive Bible teaching instead of Christianity theology that based on Greek philosophy(Col.2:8), because they think that Jesus Christ is their only teacher(Matt.23:8) and He taught that Christians should keep away from their traditions not based on Bible.(Matt.15:3-9)Rantaro 01:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It does appear that JW's are not polytheists. I would say that they do differ from "mainstream" historic Christianity by not worshipping Jesus, even though Jesus' own disciples did so without being rebuked (Matthew 14:33, 15:25). Jesus told his disciples that whoever saw Him, saw the Father (John 14:7-11), since He is the "image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). All things were created through Jesus (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3), so therefore Jesus Himself cannot have been created, and must Himself be God. In Matthew 15:3-9, Jesus says nothing about traditions "not based on the Bible", but rather forbids doctrines and commandments of men that are contrary to the commandments of God.
No doubt we could argue and prooftext back and forth all day without either of us convincing the other. That's not what wikipedia is for. I asked my question above to learn more precisely how JW's differ from other Christians for the purpose of keeping the article accurate and improving it, not to start an argument. I do think this difference (worshipping Christ or not) is a key distinctive that deserves some mention in the article. Wesley 16:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know you said you didn't want to go back and forth trying to convince one another but I just couldn't help myself :)
First (Matthew 14:33,15:25) in both cases someone was doing Obeisance to Jesus, this is not a form of worship, rather is a show of respect and sometimes submission.
(John 14:7-11) Speaks of Jesus being like God in appearance, and verse 6 says that anyone getting to the Father has to go through Jesus, JW's believe this as well.
(Colossians 1:15) Funny you mention this scripture, if you notice in the latter part it describes Jesus as the firstborn of every creature, ie the first creation, then all things were created through him.
(John 14:28) explicitly states I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. It seems to me that if Jesus was God, then there couldn't be someone greater than him. -- elykyllek 18:36, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Matt.28:9-20

Regarding Matthew, if you make that distinction, you should have no problems venerating the cross, icons, the saints, etc. The distinction you make between "worship" and "obeisance" is essentially the same distinction Orthodox and Catholics make between "worship" and "veneration" (which often includes obeisances". As for what these passages mean, we can either turn to the Greek, or look at how they have been read and understood by the Church through the centuries. Matthew 28:9-20 gives two more examples of Jesus' followers worshipping him after his resurrection, along with the command baptize his followers "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Not in the name of the Father only, much less in the name of "Jehovah." Wesley \

A "name" can mean something other than a personal name. When, in English, we say, "in the name of the law," or "in the name of common sense," we have no reference to a person as such. By "name" in these expressions we mean 'what the law stands for or its authority' and 'what common sense represents or calls for.' The Greek term for "name" (onoma) also can have this sense. Thus, while some translations (KJ, AS) follow the Greek text at Matthew 10:41 literally and say that the one that "receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward," more modern translations say, "receives a prophet because he is a prophet" and "receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man," or similar. (RS, AT, JB, NW) Thus, Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930, Vol. I, p. 245) says on Matthew 28:19: "The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority."
Hense, Jehovah's Witnesses think that baptism "in the name of the Father" means to recognize our heavenly Father (Jehovah)'s office and authority, and that the baptism "in the name of the Son" means to recognize Jesus' office and authority as God's only-begotten Son. (1 John 4:9), and that the baptism " in the name of the holy spirit" means to recognize that the holy spirit is Jehovah's active force, used in various ways in harmony with his purpose. (Genesis 1:2; 2 Samuel 23:1, 2; 2 Peter 1:21) Rantaro 04:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you were to apply your interpretation of "in the name of..." consistently, you would certainly say that "in the name of the Father" means to recognize the Father's office and authority, "in the name of the Son" means to recognize the Son's office and authority, and "to recognize the Holy Spirit" means to recognize the Holy Spirit's office and authority. You become internally inconsistent with regard to the Holy Spirit. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To recognize the holy spirit's office and authority doesn't mean to think that holy spirit is God. It's the same that to recognize the Son's office and authority doesn't mean to think the Son is God. This scripture means that the holy spirit helps those who qualify baptism to understand "the deep things of God", to carry on the Kingdom-preaching work, and to display the spirit's fruitage of "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control." - 1 Corinthians 2:10; Galatians 5:22, 23; Joel 2:28, 29. Rantaro 04:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joh 14:7-11

John 14:7-11, we're clearly interpreting differently. If you mean that Jesus is like God "in appearance", do you believe that God the Father has a physical body and a physical appearance, as do the Mormons?? Wesley \

Jehovah's Witnesses think God the Father (Jehovah) is a spirit person like his son Jesus Christ. God is invisible to human eyes (Ex 33:20; Joh 1:18; 1Ti 1:17), and he is alive and exercises unsurpassed force throughout the universe. (2Co 3:3; Isa 40:25-31) Christ Jesus states: "God is a Spirit [Greek, Pneuma]." The apostle writes: "Now Jehovah is the Spirit." (Joh 4:24; 2Co 3:17, 18; NWT) The temple built on Christ as foundation cornerstone is "a place for God to inhabit by spirit."-Eph 2:22.
If God the Father is invisible and has no body, then what sort of appearance does He have? If he has no appearance, then how can Jesus be like God in appearance? As an aside, I very much doubt that John and Paul use the word "Jehovah" in the passages you cited last. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The disciples 'seeing' the Father in Jesus can be understood in the light of other Scriptural examples. Jacob, for instance, said to Esau: "I have seen your face as though seeing God's face in that you received me with pleasure." He said this because Esau's reaction had been in harmony with Jacob's prayer to God. (Ge 33:9-11; 32:9-12) After God's interrogation of Job out of a windstorm had clarified that man's understanding, Job said: "In hearsay I have heard about you, but now my own eye does see you." (Job 38:1; 42:5; see also Jg 13:21, 22.) The 'eyes of his heart' had been enlightened. (Compare Eph 1:18.) That Jesus' statement about seeing the Father was meant to be understood figuratively and not literally is evident from his own statement at John 6:45 as well as from the fact that John, long after Jesus' death, wrote: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."-Joh 1:18; 1Jo 4:12.
God's firstborn Son, who later became the man Jesus, is in his Father's image. (2Co 4:4) Inasmuch as that Son was obviously the one to whom God spoke in saying, "Let us make man in our image," this likeness of the Son to his Father, the Creator, existed from when the Son was created. (Ge 1:26; Joh 1:1-3; Col 1:15, 16) When on earth as a perfect man, Jesus reflected his Father's qualities and personality to the fullest extent possible within human limitations, so he could say that "he that has seen me has seen the Father also." (Joh 14:9; 5:17, 19, 30, 36; 8:28, 38, 42) Rantaro 12:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Bible repeatedly refer to Jesus Christ as the one "sent" from God as his chief representative. (See, for example, John 3:17, 28, 34; 5:23, 24, 30, 37.) Interestingly, the Bible often describes persons who represent others as if they were the ones represented. Consider two examples:
(1) Matthew's Gospel relates that, after delivering the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus entered into Capernaum, where "a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him" to heal his slave. (Matt. 8:5-13) Yet from the parallel account at Luke 7:1-10 we learn that the centurion "sent to [Jesus] elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave."
(2) In the Gospel of Mark we read that "James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him," asking: "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory." (Mark 10:35-37) However, Matthew relates that this request to Jesus actually was made by "the mother of the sons of Zebedee," as their representative.-Matt. 20:20, 21.
Of course, no one would conclude from these Bible accounts that those Jewish elders were coequal with the centurion, or the mother of James and John coequal with her sons. Similarly, no one should conclude that Jesus is coequal with God simply because things stated about Jehovah God in certain parts of the Bible are applied to Jesus Christ in others. The real reason for this is that Jesus represents God. Further instances of representatives being spoken of as the ones they represent are found at Matthew 10:40; 18:5; Luke 9:48; John 4:1, 2.
Jehovah's Witnesses think that is why the Son of God said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father", and more is involved in that expression than mere representation. The request, "Lord, show us the Father," suggests that Philip wanted Jesus to provide for his disciples a visible manifestation of God, such as was granted in visions to Moses, Elijah and Isaiah in ancient times. (Ex. 24:10; 1 Ki. 19:9-13; Isa. 6:1-5) However, in such visions God's servants saw, not God himself, but symbolic representations of him. (Ex. 33:17-22; John 1:18) Jesus' reply indicated that Philip already had something better than visions of that type. Since Jesus perfectly reflected the personality of his Father, whom only the Son fully 'knew', seeing Jesus Christ was like seeing God himself. - Matt. 11:27.
The miracles of the Son of God, for example, manifested the love and tender concern for human welfare that is characteristic of Jehovah God. It is no wonder that, after Jesus resurrected the dead son of a widow from the Galilean city of Nain, observers exclaimed: "God has visited his people!"-Luke 7:11-16.
Further opportunities for people to 'see the Father' (that is, to perceive his personality, will and purpose) were afforded by what Jesus said, both as to content and manner of utterance. Persons who listened to Jesus learned that God judges people according to their heart condition, rather than by external circumstances, such as wealth, education, ceremonial cleanness or national origin. (Matt. 5:8; 8:11, 12; 23:25-28; John 8:33-44) How different from the viewpoint fostered by the Jewish religious leaders!-Note John 7:48, 49.
The way Jesus spoke, too, made his hearers realize that they were hearing a message from God, "for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." (Matt. 7:29) Rather than speaking indirectly, in the name of other human teachers (as was customary among the scribes), Jesus often spoke in the first person, with the phrases: "I tell you," "Truly, I say to you," and "Truly, truly, I say to you." (Note Matthew 5:20, 22; 6:2, 5, 16; John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25.) On occasion Jesus even declared the sins of certain persons forgiven, which led some to accuse him of blasphemously usurping a sole prerogative of God.--Mark 2:1-7; Luke 5:17-21; 7:47-49.
But Jesus never usurped the position of God. He readily admitted that the authority with which he spoke and acted did not originate with him. It was a delegated authority, for "the Father had given all things into his hands." (John 13:3; compare Matthew 11:27; 28:18; John 3:35; 17:2.) Hence, Jesus declared: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise." -- John 5:19; compare John 5:30; 8:28, 42.
Since everything that Jesus did was in full harmony with the will of God, persons who observed Jesus were in a sense observing God in action. In his notes on John 14:9, Bible commentator Albert Barnes expresses it nicely: "Hath seen the Father. This cannot refer to the essence or substance of God, for he is invisible, and in that respect no man has seen God at any time. All that is meant when it is said that God is seen, is, that some manifestation of Him has been made; or some such exhibition as that we may learn his character, his will, and his plans ... The knowledge of the Son was itself, of course, the knowledge of the Father. There was such an intimate union in their nature and design, that he who understood the one did also the other." -- Compare John 10:30. Rantaro 05:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Col. 1:15

Colossians passage, the NKJV renders it "firstborn over all creation" rather than "firstborn of every creature". He is a begotten Son, but eternally begotten, begotten from eternity outside of Time, before Time began. This better fits with both the rest of Colossians 1 and John 1:3.

In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"? (1) Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of "firstborn," it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah's family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies-the firstborn is part of the group. "The firstborn of Israel" is one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of Pharaoh's family; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"? The Greek word here rendered "all things" is 'panta', an inflected form of 'pas'. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this "all...other"; JB reads "any other"; NE says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to 'panta' at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created...All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God. Rantaro 05:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joh. 14:28

John 14:28, Here Jesus is comforting his disciples. At this point their faith in the Father was greater than their faith in Jesus, and so Jesus reminds them that He is going to the Father to put their minds at ease. See John Chrysostom's homily at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-79.htm#TopOfPage. Wesley 16:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.) states: "We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For 'the Father,' says He, 'is greater than I.' The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge." - Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8. Rantaro 05:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In that book, Saint Irenaeus is emphasizing that some things remain unknown to us. Yet Irenaeus clearly believes that Jesus is God, and speaks of him at greater length in the same Against Heresies, Book III Chapter XVI., entitled "Proofs from the Apostolic Writings, that Jesus Christ Was One and the Same, the Only Begotten Son of God, Perfect God and Perfect Man." Verse four reads, 4. But Simeon also — he who had received an intimation from the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, until first he had beheld Christ Jesus-taking Him, the first-begotten of the Virgin, into his hands, blessed God, and said, "Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word: because mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel; " confessing thus, that the infant whom he was holding in his hands, Jesus, born of Mary, was Christ Himself, the Son of God, the light of all, the glory of Israel itself, and the peace and refreshing of those who had fallen asleep. Wesley \
Chapter 19 of the same book is entitled, "Chapter XIX.-Jesus Christ Was Not a Mere Man, Begotten from Joseph in the Ordinary Course of Nature, But Was Very God, Begotten of the Father Most High, and Very Man, Born' Of the Virgin." Verse two says, For I have shown from the Scriptures,365 that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin,366 the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering;367 that He sat upon the foal of an ass;368 that He received for drink, vinegar and gall;369 that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God,370 coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;371 -all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him. Wesley \
Elsewhere, in chapters 2-4 of book III, Irenaeus also condemns as heretics any who cannot trace their teachings back to the apostles. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses don't accept Irenaeus' theology, but interpret John 14:28 literally just as Irenaeus's words that I quated above. Rantaro 05:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think the most important topic is whether Jehovah's Witnesses accept that Jesus is Christ or don't. JW do so, then we can say that they are Christians. It's another story whether Jesus is God or not, isn't it? I know it is important for trinitarians, but I think it is not for NPOV documents like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that describe the fact, not describe trinitarians' views for JW. If it is based on trinitarians' views that JW are not Christians, I should say this article is POV. Rantaro 06:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is Worshipping Jesus as God fundamental?

I wonder, do Muslims believe that Jesus is Christ? I know they believe in him as a great prophet, so it wouldn't surprise me if they believe Jesus was also the Christ, anointed by God. If so, then it clearly is not a valid test for determining Christianity. Honestly, worshipping Jesus as God is pretty fundamental. This is based on the dominant, historical understanding of Christianity down through the centuries, which ought to carry some objective weight even in an encyclopedia.

"I wonder, do Muslims believe that Jesus is Christ?"

-- No. They beleive he was no more than a prophet like Moses. george m

Worshipping Jesus as God is only fundamental for trinitarians. It isn't related to Christianity definition. Jesus didn't command to worship him. He ordered only to worship his Father, not him.(Matt.4:10) Obviously, he quoted from Deutronomy 5:9; 6:13; 10:20 in Matt.4:10. Deuteronomy's God is Jehovah, not Jesus. He repeated it in Matt.22:37, quoted from Deutronomy 6:5; 10:12. If Jesus was Almighty God or God the Father, he didn't need to pray alone (Matt. 14:23), to be strengthened by his angel (Luke 22:43), and to be resurrected by the other (Matt.28:7). And If so, I can't understand why the Son Jesus didn't know the great tribution's day and time (Matt.24:36), and why his Apostles called him as God's holy servant (Acts 4:30). Rantaro 06:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it NPOV that JWs are Christians?

The article should not just be the trinitarians' view about JW's, but neither should it just be the JW's views about the JW's, which is what the article is mostly now. (See comments elsewhere on this page, near the top.) Where there are contrasting or opposing views on the same subject, both views need to be given with proper attribution. This is the classic wikipedia methodology for achieving NPOV. Wesley 16:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that since we are involved in something NOT produced exclusively by JW's that all OPINIONS should be considered for input. I would point out however that only the most reliable and authoritative sources of information be used. The ONLY website listed under the library channel's directory for JW's is [www.watchtower.org their official website]. Theology changes constantly, and to dismiss JW's as unchristian because current "christian" theology schools say we are a cult is bad. Do you think Tom Jefferson or John Hancock were not Christians? Try telling your fellow churchgoers you do! To be honest most who teach or are taught in theology schools do not believe the Bible is reliable, therefore basing their arguments for the doctrines they teach on the Bible seems quite strange.
It is not only JW's view but Internet Serch Engines view (Yahoo! and Lycos) that JW is a Christianity group. Rantaro 06:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were deists; Thomas Jefferson in particular is well known for literally using a scissors to cut out the parts of the Bible he didn't like. I think most of my fellow churchgoers would agree. Our doctrines are based on the Bible and the tradition of the Church in an unbroken, public line of apostolic succession. I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church, not Rome. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am not familiar with that information about Jefferson. JW's doctrines are based solely on the bible, none on tradition. Who are claiming to be Apostles today in the Eastern Orthodox Church? Have you inserted a "nontrinitarian" intro into the mormon article?
Regarding Jefferson, see Thomas Jefferson and the Jefferson Bible articles. Of course JW's doctrines are based on tradition, including the belief that Jesus and God are two entirely separate beings. That tradition informs the way you interpret the Bible, just as the traditions of every other denomination inform the way they interpret the Bible, my own included. Your tradition probably also includes well accepted truth about how God revealed the true Gospel to humanity in these latter days through Charles Russell, more or less. Having a tradition per se is nothing to be ashamed of. You are welcome to read the intro to the Mormonism article and judge for yourself. The word "nontrinitarian" does not appear there, but neither does the intro call it "Christian". Most of the controversy about whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity has been pulled out and moved to the Mormonism and Christianity page. I don't know if you would prefer to do something like that here? You might also wish to confer with some of the Mormons who have worked on the Mormonism and Christianity article. Wesley \
I think that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where write the fact neutrally and without libel, not where controvert what is a Christian. I think you should controvert about JW in other sites. Rantaro 05:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

libel?? All I have said is that many people do not consider JW's Christians, while others do. It is a fact that this is controversial. I think you should also write the facts neutrally, and admit that the JW's Christianity is something about which a great many people disagree. Both POV's need to be represented. Wesley 16:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have requested for mediation with you. But mediation committe are negative about this matter, and I plan to request for page protection Rantaro 00:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church's apostolic succession, this is preserved by all of her bishops, particularly her patriarchs and metropolitans (subset of bishops). For instance, see Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. By apostolic succession is meant both that the list of their teachers is ultimately traced back to Jesus Christ, and that they continue to teach the same things that Jesus Christ and His apostles taught. They may elaborate on those teachings, or explain them more fully, but should not and dare not contradict them. Individual bishops or priests may err and indeed have erred, but these errors have ultimately been refuted and defeated in every age, by the grace of God. Wesley 02:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses think that apostolic succession don't come from Jesus' Apostles or Bible, but from posterity apostate Christians.(2 Thessalonians 2:3) Many historians also think so.

I'm well aware of this. The subject is somewhat covered in the Great Apostasy article, but perhaps you could also improve that article. If it isn't already mentioned at apostolic succession, I would also invite you to note the controversy there. See? Balance is good. Wesley 16:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Children who died

No evidence that many children have died due to JW doctrine? How about the May 22, 1994 Awake! magazine showing photos of 26 children, with the caption: "Youths Who Put God First."

Inside the magazine glorifies Witness children who died supporting WTS policy...that's not evidence enough?

This magazine insist that many children have died in the PAST (or Biblical age), not now. Rantaro 06:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seeking a way forward

It appears that I have offended and upset a number of editors of this talk page and of the article in the last few weeks. This is at least partly because of the back and forth debate earlier on this page. For that part of the debate that was over the question of whether Jehovah's Witnesses are truly Christians, I apologize for my part in it. Wikipedia articles and discussion pages are not a proper forum to attempt to persuade people of such opinions, much less to settle such issues. Given my experience with wikipedia, I should have known better, did know better, and proceeded anyway. Please accept my humble apology, and forgive me, poor sinner that I am. Wesley \

I would ask that we agree to use this forum to discuss the improvement of the article, and the best way to apply Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy to the subject matter. Hopefully we can arrive at some compromise that we can all at least live with, even if none of us is really happy with it in the end. Wesley 02:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize to anyone, but I wish you consider minor religions just as major religions. I think nobody is angry with you. If we are Christians truely, I think we need to have Christian love (Matt.5:43-48; Jo.13:35). Of course, we also have to have wiki-love as Wikipedians. We can see you are an administrator, and we wish you deal with everything fairly. Thank you. -With Christian love and Wiki-love, Rantaro 06:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm trying to be fair. For instance, at one time I hoped (as did at least one or two other editors) that "nontrinitarian" would be an acceptable compromise word, much more so than "non-Christian" for instance: since JW's don't claim to be trinitarian, I didn't expect it to be this objectionable. It's a word that will mean different things to different readers, and that leaves the interpretation up to the reader. What this article cannot be is nothing but the straight party line from the Watchtower Society. Official information should certainly be included and considered a strong source, but not the only one, any more than the Vatican should be the only acceptable source of information about Roman Catholicism. Wesley 17:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV demands that somewhere in the encyclopedia it be explained that according to one POV, JW are not a branch of Christianity. And also that said reference be pointed to as needed. NPOV demands that all significant POVs on a subject be explained, and that disputes be characterized. This subject cannot be resolved until the key parties read carefully and commit to follow the WP:NPOV article. I am not familiar with this corner of Wikipedia, but I would guess there may be a long, bumpy road ahead before this is resolved. Tom - Talk

Having said all that, I ask the JW editors how they would characterize fairly the dispute between JW and nominal Christianity. Tom - Talk 17:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=6383828"