Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is being written collaboratively by people from around the world.

Help:Contents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is being written collaboratively by people from around the world."

---

Once a page gets locked it no longer falls under any category of open to the public for editing type venue. Since this particular page seems to get edited or hacked by unfriendlies on a frequent basis, perhaps you should just write all sections yourselves or write the society and let them write it for you. After either way is done, lock down the pages indefinitely and write up a document with the amendments that state that all pages pertaining to Jehovah's Witnesses fall under a new category.

This will resolve the whole issue of what is fact and what is not. It will also give you folks a break from having to check and recheck everything to the Watchtower Library CD in your possession.7

The way the pages came together is just unbelievable. People input what we know first hand and then you people compare it to articles that are older than the information that the brothers know. Then one of us has to go back to the CD and find a newer article that shows you a different name or reference than the article that you have been referencing.

The CD doesn't have the latest articles. The CD always has the next years information compared to the version year that it is.

You folks will be editing this page locked by yourselves for the duration this online encyclopedia is afloat. Jesus said true Christian's would be persecuted but you folks are just an online book!

The alternate way to resolve this entire fiasco, which I see by the many archives present, would be for one of you to contact a Kingdom Hall nearest you and have the presiding overseer of that Kingdom Hall write up everything you want and mail it to you or fax it to you. - 13:14, 30 Jan 2005 12.32.221.123

---

Dear Correspondent: Thanks so much for hanging in with us. I apologize that we have appeared to ignore you. It is difficult to respond appropriately to your suggestions and concerns for a few reasons. First, without a name to refer to, we have a hard time recognizing a continuous thread of conversation. Second, there is a lot of background, convention, and policy that you are doing a valiant job of interpreting and understanding, but I think you still need a bit more time and reading to understand the goals and process here. Perhaps I can clear up a few items that may help you get your arms around all this. Tom H.

• Danny Muse, George m, Polemotheos, and most of the editors who have worked on this page are Jehovah's Witnesses (I assume most of them baptized). Some of them are locally prominent members, and some of them have generational background with the Witnesses. I am a Latter-day Saint and am assisting here as an outside observer and facilitator. I am a Wikipedia system administrator. Tom H.
• Wikipedia thrives and accomplishes certain things that no other encyclopedia can because of its open model of content development. It would unfortunately run counter to this model for us to have the society write for us, or to keep the page protected, and so we say "protection is harmful". The list of protected pages is amazingly short. Our goal, rather than protection, is to write articles that all reasonable people must admit are unbiased and accurate. I believe we have accomplished this in some very difficult areas where I personally have been involved: see Human and Mormonism and Christianity. I belive edit problems merely indicate we simply have not yet discovered the proper presentation. Tom H.

Please continue to dialogue with us, and we hope you will become a regular contributor. Tom H. 19:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm also going to leave the page protected until more consensus has been reached. -Visorstuff 23:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Smart move. Tom H. 07:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Lack of examples; blood question

The whole section Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses, in my humble opinion, lacks specific examples. In its current state, it portrays the Witnesses as the victims of some kind of blind government and mob action motivated by religious doctrinal opposition or totalitarism but, outside of the Holocaust (which targeted many groups), no specific example is given.

The article would be considerably stronger if well-documented examples were given. This means, additionally, documenting the reasons behind the opposition to Witnesses. The claim that opposition is due to doctrinal differences is likely to be simplistic and inaccurate in many cases. David.Monniaux 09:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough... I'll start us off with a few articles about the ongoing problems JWs are facing in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. The first link is to an official WBTS-sponsored page, the rest are independant news sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] -- uberpenguin 13:36, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

I agree that the article is considerably stronger when well-documented examples are given. We definitely want to avoid Weasel words. Could you please supply some specific examples of what you meant by the terms "some societies" and "some jurisdictions" in your 4 Feb 2005 edits involving blood transfusion issues. Thanks. --DannyMuse 06:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some local associations supporting the JW faith had trouble getting tax-exempt status under the 1905 law in France, for two reasons:

- they mixed in the same legal entity activities that fell under that status, and activities that did not (the obvious solution, adopted by other faiths, is simply to have one association for the purely religious activities, and another for other activities, with separate accounting)

- their strong advocacy of the refusal of blood transfusions, even in the case of minor children, or of people in danger of death, was deemed adverse to public order; this advocacy was construed to incite people to fail to assist other humans in jeopardy, which is a felony; however, a recent court case judged that the threat to public order was not established in the case of some JW association was not established, because the said association had not been prosecuted for crimes, nor did it incite its members to commit felonies.

I think the first matter can be fixed really easily. The second matter was more serious (but the courts had a significantly narrower reading of the notion of threat to public order compared to the ministry of finances).

The question whether the JWs associations are bona fide associations supporting religious worship under the 1905 law, or simple associations under the 1901 law, has far-reaching fiscal implications. In the former case, donations (this is a legal term for certain kinds of financial gifts) are tax-exempt; in the second case, they are taxed, unless the association is recognized of public usefulness. If the association is found to trouble public order, it cannot be in the former category.

You may read about the matter from the JW point of view in this article. Note, however, that the article fails to explain why exactly the fiscal services did not recognize some of the JW associations to fall under the 1905 law. The allusions to the parliamentary report are unconvincing: it is not a source of law or regulation.

Some of the articles written on the topic [5] largely tried to convey the idea that the question was whether the government recognized the JW faith as a religion or not, whereas, legally, the French government recognizes no religion (furthermore, there is no Ministry of the Interior and of Religion). You should therefore be prudent before citing such documents.

The US government has more documentation [6] [7] on this. David.Monniaux 09:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added some info re bloodless surgery and alternatives to transfusions. Probably the majority of this belongs somewhere else. But I felt that at least some of this needed to be added to balance some recent additions that seemed very slanted against the JW stance on transfusions. --DannyMuse 17:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think my additions were slanted. The previous text more or less said that Jehovah Witnesses were persecuted for religious and political reasons. I just stated one very obvious non-religious and non-political reason why Jehovah Witnesses are considered with suspicion, and why their organizations were occasionally consider to promote behaviors adverse to public order.

The total refusal of blood transfusions, even when the life of a patient is at stake and there are no alternatives available, is very probably reason #1 why Jehovah Witnesses' beliefs are viewed with suspicion where I live. This is also one reason why they had trouble getting the tax-exempt status of association supporting worship, because this status supposes good standing with respect to public order (the other reason was the mixing of activities that could not claim this status into the same legal entity).

Then, I'm quite suspicious about your statement about this being increasingly rare in industrialized countries, or perhaps you have a specific definition of industrialized countries. But I'm not a medical doctor. David.Monniaux 17:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, welcome to Wikipedia's JW page. I'm curious about one of your comments above. You stated that the JW position on "blood transfusions ... is very probably [the] reason #1 why Jehovah Witnesses' beliefs are viewed with suspicion where I live." Here in the USA, the JW position on blood has historically been a controversial issue. But it most certainly would NOT qualify for the the #1 spot of controversial beliefs, especially not currently. I myself have been reminded on more than one occasion that my editorial contributions must address the world scene as much as is relevant. Where exactly DO you live?

France. It seems, though, that there are fewer cases nowadays of clashes between medical practicioners and JW beliefs than 15 years ago, probably because nowadays, substitutes for blood are more available. However, occasionally, cases have surfaced (example).

Whether the problem applies nowadays is perhaps not much of an issue for public perception. People nowadays remember the events of 20 or so years ago.

According to you, what is the #1 issue? (I think that #2 in France should be the door-to-door prozelytizing, which many consider intrusive.)

Regarding your "suspicion" of my edits regarding the changes in medical procedures in "industrialized countries" I encourage you to go the weblinks I added to the article. I am confident they will answer your concerns. Additionally, try a Google search using the key phrase "bloodless surgery" and I'm sure you'll see what I am driving at. Quite frankly, my research shows that, at least here in the United States and in most of the major European cities, blood transfusions are for the most part a non-issue any more.

As far as I know, this is the case for surgery that can be prepared in advanced. For emergencies, I would not be that affirmative.

As far as what I meant by the term "industrialized countries", that is a fairly common expression here in the USA and is widely understood to mean the more technologically advanced nations in contrast to the so-called Third World countries. If you can think of a more accurate term please feel free to make a suggestion. I look forward to your further contributions. --DannyMuse 05:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm just usually skeptical with broad statements like "in all industrial countries, X". For instance, is bloodless surgery available in Japan? How about Spain? Neither of those countries have large JW minorities. David.Monniaux 08:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on bloodless surgery. Some questions of mine:

• Do you have substantial references in peer-refeered journals about such questions? So far, all I see is self-praising information from certain hospitals.
• Aren't bloodless surgery techniques sometimes difficult to apply in cases of emergencies?
• How about acute anemia and other conditions sometimes treated by blood products?

In the current state, this section looks like a long advertisement for certain hospitals. David.Monniaux 08:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oups, sorry, I just realised that I edited a part which was discussed here. Just to explain what I did: the paragraph looked a little bit like an advertisement for some particular hospital, so I tried to make it a little bit more concise. I removed the references to "noblood.org" sites (the mere name make them questionable sources...). I also added, out of personal experience, the part about emergencies (If somebody is really motivated, he could try to draft a footnote about whether such or such legal system allows the intervening physician to overrule the refusal of a patient, or even of a patient's parents (in the case of children)).

Also, I noted that all the references mention hospitals in the USA... I will take it as this practice might me reasonably available in the USA, and perhaps Europe or Japan, but we really have no information about developping countries; I assume they don't make this available, right ? Cheers ! Rama 10:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the section should not be worded to sound like an advertisement for any particular hospital. However, the point of including those links was to PROVE that bloodless surgery is a viable alternative in many locales. (The referenced cites were to serve as examples.) Why would you delete the study from the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Center for Bloodless Surgery and Medicine? That was vital information!!! After I've digested the recent edits I intend to replace that as well as other relevent data supporting the premise that blood transfusions are not the controversial issue they once were.

Also, please avoid Weasel words!!! --DannyMuse 17:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One problem is that a study by one hospital about the works performed in the same hospital may not be highly objective. Would you blindly trust a study by, say, a corporation, or sponsored by that corporation, showing that their technique is very efficient, and even superior to other techniques? I suspect you'd be prudent.

To be clear: I do not accuse the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Center for Bloodless Surgery and Medicine of lying. I'd just prefer some more perspective over the field, rather than the point of view of some entity which has an interest in promoting itself. David.Monniaux 19:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, what then would you consider to constitute adequate perspective? In the meantime I believe it is still relevant to include the study. Although the objectivity of a single study may be questioned, that does not mean it is invalid. Rather than deleting it, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it's validity and/or offer counter arguments. This is in keeping with WP's NPOV policy. Deleting text that we disagree with is not. Additional, my reason for including it is in accordance with WP's admonition to cite your sources. I would think you would agree with this practice considering your initial posting here was regarding the lack specific examples. --DannyMuse 19:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the aforementioned study which was linked to the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Center website was conducted at 12 hospitals. Did you even read the text in questions? --DannyMuse 08:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, a note: I did not delete the extended reporting of study results. Rama did. :-)

Sorry, I checked the history and must have mistaken who made the edit. With all the recent edits going on it's hard to keep track. --DannyMuse 07:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your discussion on "burden of proof": I disagree with your appreciation of Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. If you read the policy, NPOV means that diverse points of view should not be disproportionally represented, even if that requires, to quote the policy, writing for the enemy. This means that one cannot just paste his opinions and assert that the burden falls on other contributors to bring a balance in the point of view.

Furthermore, I note that the current version of the article does cite the sources. It just does not quote them at length. David.Monniaux 21:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I take it French is your native language and that English is not. Although I am conversant in Spanish and know a smattering of phrases in several other languages I wouldn't even think of trying to write on the level of that required here. So I applaud your efforts. That being said, perhaps you'll appreciate why I am compelled to say that, try as I might, I find much of what you write here very hard to understand. I read the above paragraphs several times and, frankly, the point is really hard to understand.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else (like I made the mistake of thinking you deleted text which was cut by another editor). I NEVER write my opinions or assertions on the JW main page. I will ALWAYS cite my sources whenever it seems necessary. For example is something seems that it is controversial or not common knowledge. If asked I can ALWAYS document and support my reasons for ANY and ALL of the edits and contributions that I make. You may not agree with what I write, which is fine. But please don't confuse that with whether or not my contributions are factually based. --DannyMuse 07:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the quotation because it was very directly available on the reference, and was a little bit disproportionate for this article, I though. On Transfusion or something like this, fair enough, but here it seems too much to me.

In any case, this was not an extended reporting, it was "a X seller saying that his new X is very good, fulfills all the functions of the X of the competitors, and studies even tend to indicate that our X is better". He'd be selling brushes the same way; show me an article in the Lancet, for instance, that will be a scientific thing, which will have its place -- on transfusion. Rama 21:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rama, the point of adding the text of the study was to show evidence that some very reputable medical professionals do NOT share the view that refusing blood transfusions is dangerous. In fact, the study shows that there appeared to be benefits of not having transfusions in the cases studied. This was in direct response to the text added by David.Monniaux that asserted that refusing transfusions is somehow "adverse to public order".

I added an example I heard about of rejection of JW that seems to be, to some extent, based on prejudice rather than objective argumentation. David.Monniaux 21:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS: Also, as it is, there is a disproportionate (I think) emphasis on predicted surgery, and it seems that accidents and Third World countries are annecdotical.

Another problem I see is that with the emphasis like this, we're switching to a technical discussion about the effects of transfusion in medical environment, which is completely out of the scope of this article. This belongs, at best, to transfusion, not here. Rama 22:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rama, I respectfully disagree. The point here is JWs and the Question (or Issue) of Blood. If some want to argue that the beliefs/practices of JWs regarding blood are dangerous than it is perfectly reasonable and in keeping with WP's NPOV policy to offer balancing counter-perspectives. Deleting points that you disagree with is not. BTW, please keep in mind that this particular discussion thread is titled, "Lack of examples; blood question". Frankly, I'm more than a little frustrated by the fact that several of the specific examples I have included along with supporting links has been deleted. --DannyMuse 07:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll first try to rephrase my understanding of NPOV. Danny states, about some text that he pasted, that rather than deleting it, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it's validity and/or offer counter arguments. To me, Danny appears to think that NPOV means that contributors should be able to paste any length of content supporting a particular opinion, from any kind of source, even if it makes the article unbalanced, and it is up to other contributors to find information supporting other points of view. That is not what I understand from reading Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which actually advocates that all contributors should be balanced in what they add, even to the point of writing for the enemy.

Now, about the quotations for the hospital. I fully appreciate that information supporting the possibility of surgery without use of blood should be pasted. I'm not quite satisfied that this information should be a self-praising study from a hospital, because that naturally puts in doub the objectivity of the study.

I've read Rama's remarks and I think he has a point about predicted surgery vs emergencies. I'm not a medical doctor, so I may be wrong here, but my impression is that a large share of blood products used in medicine is used for emergencies. That is, you have a person who is severely wounded and has a significant share of his or her own blood, and she is at risk of dying or other severe consequences should her blood supply not be adequately supplemented. As far as I know, even as of 2005, there does not exist blood substitutes that can work for all such cases. I'd like more information on this. Focusing on predicted surgery, to me, seems to ignore a large share of the problem.

This is also very much related to the notion of "public order". When a physician receives a critically wounded patient in an emergency room, should he try to save him, or let him die because of the patient's religious wishes? How about minor patients? David.Monniaux 08:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I moved one of your recent edits to the JW article here. I realize that this is a Google-generated translation, but unfortunately it is totally incoherent in English. I am not qualified to translate it into English from French, but this doesn't make any sense as currently worded. Any ideas about how to clarify it?

however, the Council judged that there does not exist, for the doctor, of abstract and intangible hierarchy between the obligation to treat the patient, and that to respect the will of the patient

Thanks. --DannyMuse 09:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, right. Actually, the original text was actually quite abstract too (this is legal commentary, after all), but I think my newer translation and explanation of it are probably both understandable. It basically means that there's no clear predefined legal answer as to whether a physician should decide to treat a patient against his wishes and whether he should stop treating him or her (they later talk about the question of proportion of the measures taken by the physicians and the state of health of the patient).

Note that the situation may have changed since this ruling; I think that a recent statute changed/clarified the rules in those cases. David.Monniaux 09:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, yes that's much better. BTW I fixed two spelling errors. You might want to check it. --DannyMuse 09:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legal matters

Danny, I think you should be more prudent when commenting on the legal matters of foreign countries whose language you do not speak and whose legal framework you do not know; especially, copying the claims of one of the involved parties as fact does not fit NPOV.

First, I very much doubt that the legal reason for denying tax exempt status under the 1905 law to some of the JW's associations is the 1996 report. The reason is, as anybody who knows the French legal system knows, that a governmental authority has to base its decisions on statutory and regulatory instruments (otherwise, the decision is very likely to be quashed by the administrative courts, should the person effected decide to sue; sueing is very easy for administrative matters). A parliamentary report is not a statutory, nor a regulatory instrument.

Thus, until we are shown the exact wording of the decision of the tax services regarding the JWs, we should err on the side of caution and attribute the JW's claims to the JWs.

Second, "religious organization" is not synonymous with association cultuelle. The second is a legal category, while the former is not. Many religious organizations are not associations cultuelles; for instance, an association organizing group meals for the faithful a Catholic parish would certainly be a religious organization by any reasonable informal definition, but would not legally be an association cultuelle. This confusion between "religion" and "religion-supporting organization" in the legal sense is, I think, the source of many misunderstandings when foreign discuss the legal situation of religions in France. David.Monniaux 08:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, First, I got my info from a number of sources, not just JW sources. So you're jumping to conclusions. Google the text "France Jehovah Tax" and you'll come up with a LOT of references to check that re NOT JW related. For one example check the article FRANCE_ATTACKS ON NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS on the Religious Tolerance.org website. Be sure to note the EXTENSIVE references at the bottom of the page, which include:

• U.S. State Department
• Reuters
• The Independent (London UK)
• The Washington Times
• CNSNews.com

Several of these references have links to the original French documents, which I'm sure you'll get more out of than I.

Ah, at least there is a quotation: the association of Jehovah's Witnesses forbids its members to defend the nation, to take part in public life, to give blood transfusions to their minor children and that the parliamentary commission on cults has listed them as a cult which can disturb public order. This is a far cry from being denied tax-exempted status "because of the report" - note that the report is only quoted as a last argument, after specific arguments were stated.

Apart from this, FRANCE_ATTACKS ON NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS does not sound to me like a very objective page.

For instance, they say According to data published in 1993 by the Interior Ministry, only 149 out of a total of 1,053 Protestant associations and only 2 out of thousands of Muslim associations in France are currently entitled to tax exempt status.. This implies that minority religion are denied tax-exempt status because of their minority status. However, they do not even say that a vast majority of the Catholic associations (Roman Catholicism being the first religion of the country) do not enjoy this status. Indeed, according to the report by the US dept of State: According to the Ministry of the Interior, 109 of 1,138 Protestant associations, 15 of 147 Jewish associations, and approximately 30 of 1,050 Muslim associations have tax-free status. Approximately 100 Catholic associations are tax-exempt; a representative of the Ministry of Interior reports that the number of nontax-exempt Catholic associations is too numerous to estimate accurately. More than 50 associations of the Jehovah's Witnesses have tax-free status.. To me, this indicates biased reporting.

This alarmist statement is followed by the hysterical All of the groups which are not recognized are presumably now at risk of losing their freedom of religion and of assembly.. Ahem. David.Monniaux 09:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Second, I changed "religion-supporting organization" to "religious organizaton" because the former has no meaning in English while the second does. I never thought that "religious organization" is synonymous with association cultuelle. I'm not sure why you would have thought I did. --DannyMuse 09:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that not all religious organizations are granted tax exemptions. Only those that support religious activity, in the legal sense, are granted such exemptions. David.Monniaux 09:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is actually a very general problem when commenting on the institutions of another country: one often does not have exact translations; at the same time, legal matters are to be discussed with precision. For instance, "Cour d'appel du neuvième circuit" (Court of appeals for the ninth circuit) does not mean much in French, but is usually used to translate the US legal denomination. Similarly, French says "sheriff" for sheriff, even though the institution does not exist in any French-speaking country. What you suggest somehow amounts to forcefully translating sheriff into 'gendarme. David.Monniaux 09:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I appreciate that your recent additions regarding the tax angle have added to the scope of the content. But I believe that the details go way beyond what is appropriate for this section: JW's and the Question of Blood. Perhaps a new section or a new article is merited and this one should be pared down and the new one linked. What do you think? --DannyMuse 09:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I had the same idea at the same time. Moved to legal matters. David.Monniaux 09:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's good. At least we agree on some things! :) BTW are you a lawyer or in the legal profession? You write like you might be. --DannyMuse 10:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Medical study

I do not object to the medical study, but giving the detailed name and address of the hospital, even though its name is repeated in the quote, sounds to me too much like advertisement. That's why I removed it. David.Monniaux 10:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but I do think the doctor's name should be in the reference as it adds authority. --DannyMuse 10:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The doctor's name is written twice in the quotation of the summary of the study. David.Monniaux 10:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I can read you know. I meant in the intro to the quote. But it's not a big deal as it would probably be to awkward to include it above. --DannyMuse 10:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding blood tranfusions and emergency procedures as compared to elective (predicted) surgery, note this reference from the RWJUH website:

Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital is one of the elite academic health centers in the United States that offers bloodless techniques in every surgical and medical specialty, including emergency care delivered at the Level I Trauma Center.

Located in New Brunswick, NJ, the hospital's Center for Innovations in Bloodless Surgery and Medicine offers a multidisciplinary team of physicians, nurses and healthcare professionals who set a national standard in providing bloodless treatment approaches for a variety of elective as well as emergency procedures. This outstanding team is committed to ensuring community access to superior medical and surgical care without blood transfusions.

Note that this is typical of Bloodless Surgery programs in the US. --DannyMuse 10:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question would not be hospital emergencies, but ambulance emergencies. What happens if a patient suffers a massive loss of blood in an accident ? The USA have a different system than Europe for emergencies, so I really don't know. I do know for certain that in France, Germany, Swtzerland, and probably in Italy and Spain, such a patient would recieve an immediate transfusion from the SMUR.

Does anybody familiar with the US emergency system know whether patients get their transfusion on the scene, or in emergency department of the hospital ? (I imagine that immediate transfusion makes more sense, but again, I'm not trained for the US system) Rama 10:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why should the question not be hospital emergencies, but ambulance emergencies? No one framed it that way before! If you want to state it that way then do so. But when the word "emergency" or the phrase "medical emergency" is used no such distinction is made or could accurately be inferred.

Regarding the questions of ambulances and differences between the US and the rest of the world, all I can say is that would be an interesting question for research. Which is exactly what we should do before we dogmatically state things about which we are not certain.

For the time being note the following from Tampa General Hospital:

"Bloodless care can be applied to nearly every medical and surgical specialty as shown from the following list of services we offer: "

• Anesthesiology
• Burns
• Cancer Surgery
• Cardiology
• Cardiovascular Surgery
• Critical Care
• Dentistry
• Emergency Services
• Gastroenterology
• General Surgery
• Hematology
• Infectious Disease
• Intensive and Critical Care
• Internal Medicine
• Nephrology
• Neurology
• Neurosurgery
• Obstetrics/Gynecology
• Oncology
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedic Services/Surgery
• Otolaryngology
• Outpatient Surgery
• Pediatric Critical Care
• Pediatric Surgery
• Pediatrics/Neonatology
• Plastic/Reconstructive Surgery
• Pulmonary Disease
• Radiology
• Thoracic Surgery
• Transplant Services
• Trauma
• Urology
• Vascular Surgery

Conclusion: Emergencies do not always automatically require a blood transfusion! --DannyMuse 11:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that anybody pretended that all emergencies automatically required a transfusion. I think that the argument was that in some emergencies, esp. those with massive blood loss, they were often the only available, perhaps the only known, method available.

This is especially important since, at least in my impression, a large proportion of the blood transfusions, nowadays, are used for these kinds of emergencies (think car crashes with massive blood losses). David.Monniaux 11:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well if that's what you mean then that's what you should say. --DannyMuse 12:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Background info: The USA have a different system than Europe for emergencies, so I really don't know. I think that what Rama alludes to is the following (but, contrary to Rama, I don't have EMT training, so...): in the United States, the ambulances have mere paramedics on board, and apply a "scoop and run" technique: they take the patient back to the hospital in minimal time. The up side of this technique is that the patient is at the hospital quickly; the down side is that many patients die during transportation. In France, the emergency ambulances carry doctors who apply a "stay and play" technique: the patient is treated and stabilized so that transportation is safer. The down side of this technique is that occasionally it would be better to be in a fully equipped hospital room. See Emergency medical services#Prehospital Care Strategies: "Scoop and run", "stay and play" or "play and run"? for a detailed discussion.

Not all techniques that can be applied inside a hospital (French or American) can be applied inside an emergency ambulance, for obvious reasons. David.Monniaux 11:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to the info on the WP Emergency medical services article:

• ... natural blood is rarely available for field transfusions outside military medicine due to scarcity and fragility.[Emphasis added]

It's not mentioned, but the issue of blood type compatibility is another factor that also must limit the efficacy of emergency transfusions by EMS personnel. --DannyMuse 12:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Put it back into the context: "The future development of an artificial blood substitute that will carry oxygen will greatly enhance the provision of emergency medical services, as natural blood is rarely available for field transfusions outside military medicine due to scarcity and fragility." This sentence basically says that having a fully efficient artificial blood would be better than having to rely on donors, not that blood transfusion is not a good option on the field (the sentence could actually be better shaped).

As far as I remember, there's not so much of a penury since any SMUR unit will carry blood complement (perhaps the United States of America are in a particularly difficult situation because of their present foreign policy, but this is something special). I'm currently checking this out.

The blood type is not so much an issue, since a whole range of sample will typically be available; also, negative rhesus is very rare, and as you know, o type can be administrated to A, B or AB types in an emergency. The main difficulty with blood is that the samples have a limited life span and that the stock are typically insufficient for the needs, even more if there is a major catastrophe. This is the reason why so much research is put into artificial blood. Rama 14:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rama, Thanks for the response. I did not know some of the facts that your wrote--so it was informative. That being said, I don't see how "putting it back in context" changes anything relative to the points I made or its significance in the current article. The statement is made in the current version of the article:

However, in cases of certain medical emergencies, or if bloodless medicine is not available, blood transfusions are sometimes the only available way to save a life.

No distinction is being made as to this being cared for in a hospital or by EMS personnel in an ambulance. As the sources I've cited show:

• In hospitals emergencies do not always automatically require a blood transfusion; and,
• natural blood is rarely available for field transfusions '

Therefore, I submit that the statement in the article as it is current worded is inaccurate and needs to be revised to reflect the reality of the situation. If you or David would care to do that you could possibly find a wording that suits us all. If not, I will. --DannyMuse 16:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the present formulation is accurate. In the case of certain emergencies (particularly those where a massive loss of blood has occured), or if bloodless medicine is not available, blood transfusions are sometimes the only available way to save a life.

Seems to me like medical fact. Contrary to what you seem to imply, this sentence does not imply that all emergencies require a blood transfusion (this would be a ridiculous affirmation!). It implies that some of them require them. David.Monniaux 17:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not a medical doctor, but a simple Google search gave me this page (sorry for the page in French, but I think you can trust my translation) which mentions blood transfusions:

• "Emergency transfusions in SMUR concern a minority of patients, but they need important quantities of blood for each patient, and they imply having stocks of a variety of blood products."
• "Road accidents: a person suffering multiple trauma may need several dozen units of red cells."
• "Cancers: platelets cannot be dispensed with when treating leukemia, especially when chemotherapy destroys blood cells."
• "Genetic illnesses: certain genetic illnesses such as thalassemia imply the need for regular transfusions throughout life."

Etc. They do not mention hip replacements and other major surgeries, presumably because, with these kind of surgeries, it is often possible to reduce blood losses and act without transfused blood. They focus on blood illnesses and wounds that result in massive blood losses. David.Monniaux 17:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We could make the sentence even more explicit by stating something like

"in the case of a massive loss of blood, a transfusion of plasma and red globules will be necessary to limitate the hemostatic shock and maintain a sufficient pressure. Severe cases might require a transfusion even at the hospital. In the case of on-field medical intervention (according to the "stay and play" doctrine), the limitations of available equipement can make transfusion indispensable even sooner."

However, I am not a physician, so I wouldn't like to put such technical information before it has been reviewed by a fully qualified doctor. I have asked for a confirmation, I'll let you know when we have more info.

In any case, I think that the "natural blood is rarely available for field transfusions" should be taken with precautions: perhaps it's always true and I was especially lucky or have an imprecise remebering of the cases I was on; perhaps the person who wrote that was refering to his particular area, where this is true for technical or doctrinal reasons, but is not correct for other parts of the world; perhaps he was only speaking generally to explain why people want to produce synthese blood. It is hardly a reference. Rama 17:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, it just occured to me that the JW mush have opposed transfusions from the time the technology was available -- thus at a time when bloobless medical technology was not available; am I correct ? Probably a good way to introduce the matter would be followin the historical state of the art, something like "introduction of transfusion (we oculd take 1916 as an "official" start of the technique), opposition of the JW (reasons for the opposition), perhaps examples of statistics or striking cases (like [8]), and then we could mention the emergence of bloodless medecine and the tendency of some JW to accept transfusions, like in [9]. What would you think of this ? I'll try to draft something when I have a minute to do so. Cheers ! Rama 09:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to summerise the matter in a brief paragraph. As of today, I haven't been able to get a professional testimony about blood unit (actually more like plasma units) being carried by ambulances or SMUR; most of them probably do not carry them -- it seems that the procedure is to compensate the loss of liquid by salted and sugared water additioned with oxygen (letting what remaining red cells do what they can, and helping them by adding oxygen and reduced hemastatic shock). On the other hand, I still have had several confirmations that a case of massive blood loss will be given fairly large quantities of blood at the hospital (http://www.rhonealpes.dondusang.net/don/pourqui2.asp#) mentions a case of a 42 year old man with a ulcere problem getting 32 units of concentrated red globules, and 17 plasma units, for instance.

Although these cases are (hopefully) not extremely common, they do occure, and since they can result in the death of the patient, their importance is extreme.

I dont' quite understand what the following part means:

Jehovah's Witnesses view life as "God's gift" represented by blood and accordingly want the best medical care possible. But they also believe that their eternal life prospects rest with Jehovah God and they would not want to compromise that by violating what they understand to be God's laws respecting blood.

In any case, this isn't much of a legal argument, is it ? Shouln't it be moved somewhere else or dropped ?

I have also shortened the section about bloodless chirurgy, since it would now mainly illustrate what is said in the summerising paragraph.

Cheers ! Rama 11:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vague content in the article

It would be nice to have examples of these. David.Monniaux 11:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's coming. It's now 4:30 am in California and I'm ready for sleep. Think WWII ... Eleanor Roosevelt. --DannyMuse 12:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talking about weasel words, here's a list of "facts" that I would like to be made precise. Not that I doubt that they are mostly true! David.Monniaux 14:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Throughout their history, their beliefs, doctrines and practices have met controversy and opposition among societies and other religions, including Christian groups. Which religions? Which Christian groups?

Many religious groups consider the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses to be a false teaching. Which groups? Do JWs consider that the teachings of other Christian groups are false teachings?

Political and religious animosity against them has at times led to mob action and government oppression, including the targeting of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Holocaust and widespread criticism from those of other faiths. Here, the question about mob action. Which other faiths? Were JWs oppressed and criticized by agnostics and atheists?

Hostility from traditional, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians has been common, allegedly because of this group's rejection of many of the doctrines of mainstream Christian groups. For example, they teach that Jesus Christ is God's first creation and that the Holy Spirit is not a person but God's active force. Many have been critical of their opinion that our current time period is "the last days." Who teaches that? JWs or "traditional Christians"? What are "traditional Christians"?

Depending on geographic location, Jehovah's Witnesses have been accused of misleading youth, engaging in satanic worship or supporting zionism, communism, fascism or pacifism. Examples mapping geographic locations to specific accusations would be great.

Because of their neutral political stand, What is a "neutral political stand"? This concept is alluded to several times in the article, but never explained. Does this mean that Witnesses refrain from participating in public debate? From making public decisions? From voting for elected officials?

Jehovah's Witnesses have often been accused of being disloyal to the state in both totalitarian and "free" nations. They have been sent to prisons, concentration camps, and even been executed. Which totalitarian nations? Which "free" nations? Why the quotes? What were they accused of, exactly, in those nations?

At times non-Witness family members and acquaintences have presented stiff, even violent opposition to their faith. That's probably also true for many other religious affiliations. Try converting to Islam in a Catholic family, or the converse.

Although uncommon, hate crimes have occurred against Jehovah's Witnesses because of their beliefs and practices. Where? For which beliefs and practices? How is that different from any other religious group?

On the other hand, many people are cordial to the Witnesses. Who? I'm myself cordial in general, do I could as "cordial to the Witnesses"?

David, you raise some good points. These could all be more specific. I'd welcome anything you could do to make them so. (It's not as if I wrote any of this content.) Since you're getting my sense of frustration at "weasely words and phrases" maybe you'll try to fix them where you can and avoid adding them in your new edits. Thanks! --DannyMuse 16:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In most cases that you pointed out of alleged "weasel words" in my edits, the specifics were addressed in other sections of the article. You may note that I tend to provide detailed specifics, including quotes from actual legal text. In comparison, I have many reservations about your own edits, which, in my humble opinion, tend to quote from opinion sites and to make unsubstantiated general claims ("leaders in health care" etc.). David.Monniaux 16:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, in fact, overall I think that your more recent contributions to the article have been excellent. But I think your above reply is just plain ornery. If you don't acknowledge that University Hospitals in major US metropolitan centers qualify as "leaders in health care" then your own objectivity is clearly in question. There's no need to get testy here. We are obviously both intending to stay with this project. We can either try to work together--in spite of our differences--or not. Your call. --DannyMuse 16:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two things I want to point out about these recent edits are:

1. this view of the French government re blood transfusions is today a minority view. It is getting way too much billing on this page. It belongs on the Supreme court cases page. I am not sure mention of it is even important enough for this page. Is it more important than Moscow denying registration to JW's? Also, a discussion of this subject should consider the possibility of a general dislike of JW's within the French government as a reason for their actions. eg, they are looking for ways to give Jw's a hard time.
2. Much of the research David is asking for is in the archived pages of this discussion, I encourage David to look there, as we shouldn't have to rehash every debate when someone new arrives.

george 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, the discussion of the views of the French government regarding blood transfusion was prompted by Danny's assertion that some of my statements lacked substance. I agree that they now take a disproportionate size of the article. Maybe a new article titled Jehovah Witnesses: legal issues should be started.

David, wait a second. You are the one that started the "Vague content in the article" section on this talk page are you not? I definitely agree with that position. Naturally I expect ALL editors to maintain that high standard, myself included. --DannyMuse 06:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, a discussion of this subject should consider the possibility of a general dislike of JW's within the French government as a reason for their actions. eg, they are looking for ways to give Jw's a hard time. – very difficult to do; you're essentially asking for "hidden motives" in people; in general, discussing "hidden motives" is basically a question of opposing opinions. It is much easier and neutral to discuss about the actual legal cases rather than to comment on supposed intentions.

Second, many assertions written in the article are very vague, lack substance, use weasel words, and exhibit a certain point of view. Readers should be able to read the article and get a good understanding of the issues without having to read through 11 pages of lengthy talk archives. Remember that the talk pages are not meant to hold content for the end readers. David.Monniaux 21:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I am sorry. I got the impression you have some personal problem with JW's. I am probably wrong. Much of the problem I have is that your additions seem to imply that the French gov are correct or right in their actions.

Overly sensitive, george 00:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er... Actually, I do not know any JW (or, at least, any person who has told me to be a JW – I normally don't ask other people their religion). My contributions were mainly with a motive of NPOV. Previously, the article essentially said that JWs were persecuted or at least viewed with suspicion for political and religious reasons. It totally ignored other reasons why people could be suspicious of the JWs. To me, this was incredibly one-sided. Especially, the total refusal of blood transfusions (as opposed to "refusal of blood transfusions except when there's no other known/available treatment") is seen, I think, by most people in this country as excessive.

I'm not discussing whether the French government is "right" in the moral sense; "right" according to which morality? As for correction, correction is defined by the judgments of the courts responsible for the actions in question, and I think that I gave a detailed legal explanation of the matter (but I am not a lawyer nor do I have all the documents pertaining to those cases, so I may have committed mistakes).

Apart from that, as I said, it is very difficult to discuss "hidden motivations" of the government. Perhaps, indeed, some people in the tax services thought it a good idea to bankrupt the JWs through the legal construction that was applied. That's possible, but that's speculation. Of course, we must report that it is the JW's appreciation that they were unfairly targeted.

Apart from that, I wonder what you call a minority view? Minority in the sense of "applicable in a minority of countries"? Obviously, the exact views of the French government only apply in France, exactly as the exact views of the US government apply only in the US (and in countries they occupy). Or do you mean that the opinion that advocating total refusal of transfusion for minors is held by a minority in France? In the last case, I don't have poll results, but my experience tells me that it's rather the vast majority of the population that holds such views. David.Monniaux 08:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, all. I think we share a general sense that we just have not quite "arrived" with this article, and with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses in general. There are just too many nagging problems as we read. Did we say the most significant things? Are we fair to all POVs? Alas, we just don't yet know what the solution is. D Mo, all your points are valid, and I'm sure D Muse shares your concerns and desires for improvements in the article. Bottom line, nobody here is, to my knowledge, defending the status quo. So let's all work together on incremental improvement or ultimately a major rework. p.s. When I read this off-site article [10], it refreshed in my mind again how far we are from being neutrally informative. This linked article answers many more questions than our articles. Sad. Tom Haws 23:25, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, once again you present a voice of reason. You are totally right about how superior the article on JWs at the University of Virginia is compared to our current efforts here at WP. You'd think with all our combined knowledge and experience we could do better. I think it's obvious that a lack of a spirit of cooperation is preventing us from achieving a superior article.

David, whether you think so or not, I do appreciate the general thrust of the content that you've been contributing. In fact I think you and I accomplished a lot last night. I believe the article is better for it.

One of the reasons that I stayed up so late (it was midnight to 4 am my time here in California) was so that you and I could work together in real time. That being said, I feel that you viewed our work very differently than I do. I realize that many of my comments are direct. But I implore you to take some time are reflect on what transpired. I try very hard to keep my comments specifically directed to the CONTENT of the edits, from you or any other contributors . (I probably slip from time to time, but I assure you I never intend to offend you personally. If I have, then I offer my sincerest apologies.) Yet many of your comments seem directed personally towards others working on this project. The fact of the matter is this: none of us "own" this article. Nevertheless, we might tend to become "territiorial" over the contents. I know I do from time to time. I've been working on this particular article for about the last six months. Those of us that have stayed the course on it have seen moments of intense disagreement and frustration. We've also been rewarded with an article that has gradually improved over time due to the perseverance and hard work of all the contributors, both the regulars and the fly-bys.

You joined us, what, a week or so ago? I applaud your passion for the subject and your obvious ability to research your areas of concern quickly and with intense focus. Yet, you seem unaware of how your sometimes drastic revisions affect those of us that have worked long and hard on this article. Your comments frequently come across as caustic and personally cutting. They are often insensitive at the very least. Please, give my comments some time and consider them. I know from my own personal experience that occasionally taking some time away from working on this project gives me a renewed sense of perspective. When I return I'm refreshed and ready to give it my best. Please be assured that we don't want to lose you on this project. But we do have to find a way to work together. --DannyMuse 06:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been active on Wikipedia for... quite a while, so I do not think that I joined you "a week or so ago". :-) Unless you consider the articles on Jehovah Witnesses to be a project removed from the overall concerns to write a comprehensive encyclopedia with a neutral point of view.

David, I realize you've been on Wikipedia for a while. My comment was specifically referring to your contributions here on this article. I thought the context made that clear. Sorry if it didn't. And, no, I don't think "the articles on Jehovah Witnesses to be a project removed from the overall concerns to write a comprehensive encyclopedia with a neutral point of view." Please try not to read more into my comments than I intend. As you know, there are 470,062 articles on Wikipedia. No one contributes to all of them. Most regular Wikipedians work on a relatively small group of articles. Again, my comment was referring to the fact that you only started to contribute to THIS article about a week ago, whereas many of us that you're working with have worked on it for many, many months. --DannyMuse 17:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your comments frequently come across as caustic and personally cutting. Sorry about that. I tend to write in a precise manner, and I'm not too good at being "sensitive" in writing. I was indeed under the impression that some people here considered the article as theirs.

We all can benefit from cultivating more wikilove. Tom Haws 17:07, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Now about my concerns. There are a number of groups (religious, political, etc.) for which there exist Wikipedia pages. Excellent! In many cases, members of those groups have added the "official" point of view of their group. That's good: obviously, the official point of view of a group is an important part of the documentation of that group. In some cases, the groups are controversial. In that case, one should take care to report the controversy accurately and not misrepresent the arguments of those who are, for one reason or another, opposed to the group. Especially, there is a tendency – and it's human, and I understand it – for members of a group to portray any criticism as "unfair", prejudiced, or motivated by political or religious intolerance.

My view is that, in general, not all criticism is blind and unwarranted. Even when its manifestations are exaggerated, there are often sensible reasons for criticism. These reasons should not be ignored.

Let me give a non-religious examples. The red scare was a period of US history where witch hunts were conducted against suspected Communists. I think that most everybody agrees that some excesses were committed, and constitutional rights violated, in that period. Yet, one would give a one-sided account of the story if one did not mention that at the time, the USSR was a very powerful enemy of the US and indeed tried to influence politics in other countries.

I stubled upon the article about JWs by accident. When I read it, I found it was:

1. Vague – some important concepts (such as the political neutrality of the JWs) are invoked, but never explained, even with a quick sentence. There was a discussion of opposition to the JWs, but it was written in very broad terms; actually, I think the same text could have applied to many other groups, including the trotskyites.
2. Somewhat POV – ascribed all opposition to political and religious intolerance, while ignoring some concerns that I was familiar with. Of course, this is unscientific, but I asked people around what they thought of JWs – and the answer was that they were illuminés (i.e. "enlightened", people with very strong beliefs obtained from a revelation) who refused blood transfusions. So it seemed that the blood question was important. The blood question was also central in all court cases and in most political opposition that I had heard about in my country. It just shocks a lot of people that JWs would blindly refuse transfusions to minor children in danger of death (while, I think, most people would be perfectly happy with a policy to "avoid transfusions unless no other method is available"). Somebody used the word "insensitive" above, but, really, this is exactly the kind of behavior that most people where I live consider "insensitive" – putting your children's life in harm's way because of some ideology. And yet, the question was totally ignored.

David, could you be more specific, which question do believe was totally ignored? Perhaps if you articulated it clearly I could respond. Thanks. --DannyMuse 17:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article mentioned only religious, doctrinal reasons, as well as political reasons, as motivating opposition or at least mistrust of the JWs, whereas there were well-publicized reasons (esp. the question of transfusions) not falling in either category, and these reasons were not even mentioned (apart from the invasion of privacy when evangelizing). David.Monniaux 17:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One must understand the basic reason for this opposition: what some people consider as a moral obligation because of some scriptures will not be considered as a moral obligation by others, especially if those others do not consider the said scriptures as having any kind of particular value. Thus the incomprehension, between parties that think that they are each acting "in good faith".

I think there should be a separate article about the major legal question posed by the JWs in several countries; then, this article (giving detailed legal information) would be summarized. For instance, we could say something along the lines of "Jehovah witnesses encountered legal problems in the US for their refusal to salute the flag, enter compulsory military service, etc." ; "Jehovah witnesses encountered legal and fiscal problems in France for advocating refusing blood transfusions to minor patients"; etc. I agree that this currently takes too much room on the page. David.Monniaux 08:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I like the idea of a separate article. Perhaps a brief overview in the main JW article with a link to that separate one would be nice. This is getting at the organizational issues of the entire JW Wikiproject. --DannyMuse 17:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prozelytizing

I think that all the concerns about aggressive door-to-door prozelytizing should go together. David.Monniaux 17:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quotations of scriptures

While quotations of scriptures are useful in the sections describing the JWs' usages, mores and activities, I don't think that they are appropriate in the section on hostility against the JWs. People who are hostile to JWs prozelytizing at their doorstep very often do not care at all about scriptures. :-) David.Monniaux 21:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in keeping with NPOV we need to include all relevent sides of the issue. --DannyMuse 06:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, at least some people who are hostile to JWs proselytizing base their opposition on scriptures. Perhaps some of these references should be added, rather than removing the references that are there. Wesley 06:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wesley, I'm confused!?!? Is your "On the contrary" in reference to MY comment or David's? (It seems to only make sense in reference to Davids comment, but the placing after mine makes it unclear. Please clarify. Thanks. --DannyMuse 06:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity. It was in reference to David's comment, which I hoped the level of indentation would make plain. At any rate, I added a couple of passages, for better or worse. Wesley 06:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against giving the JW's side of the story, or rather the reasons why, in their opinion, door-to-door prozelytizing is appropriate. I'm just saying that it rather belongs to another section of the article documenting the JW's mores and activities.

On the contrary, at least some people who are hostile to JWs proselytizing base their opposition on scriptures. Please document this opposition, and the kind of arguments those people use. David.Monniaux 07:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An example of this opposition is cited at this article, and as can be seen by the title, the pamphlet's attention is divided between Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. An older booklet is called "Preaching another Christ: an Orthodox view of Evangelicalism through the eyes of Saint Theophan the Recluse." It is essentially a collection of letters written by Bishop Theophan in 19th century Russia to an unnamed correspondent who reported that an Anglican was "evangelizing" in his predominantly Russian Orthodox town or village. His general response was to have nothing to do with anyone who preached a different Christ than was already preached to them, or preached a different Gospel. Scriptures used in support of this position by St. Theophan include Matthew 24:5; 2 Corinthians 11:2-4; Galatians 1:6, 8-9, 3:1; Matthew 7:21.

Lest you think that only the Orthodox have such extreme views, I remember hearing similar warnings about the Jehovah's Witnesses and a number of other groups in my high school era Assemblies of God Sunday School classes; I can't document those lessons or verify which verses were quoted, but the diversity is enough to convince me that this sort of "defensive opposition" is widespread among Christians in the US, though of course it's much more low key than the profiteering opponents. Wesley 05:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. We could probably use a section on this. (As you probably know; as a general rule, today, the Orthodox church generally considers as inappropriate meddling the activities of other churches in traditionally Orthodox lands. This has been a topic of conflict between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic church for ages, for instance, and I suspect it's even worse with respect to smaller denominations.)

Now, of course, one has to wonder which proportion of the people opposed to door-to-door evangelizing oppose it for precise reasons arising from the Scriptures, for the reason that their own church hierarchy considers such evangelizing to be inappropriate, or from other reasons. These proportions differ probably considerably between cultures. David.Monniaux 09:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Ah, and excuse me if my request seemed to terse and impolite. When I read myself after posting, I think that I come across as too blunt.) David.Monniaux 09:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good observations. I don't think any religion really likes to see another religion come in and try to convert its adherents, JW's included. Protestants are sometimes more tolerant of changes from one denomination to another, but much less so if someone converts to an "exclusive" or "closed set" sort of church, which I think would include both JW's and Orthodox. Wesley \

After I posted, I wondered whether I should have asked for evidence that the JW's go door to door based on those scriptures. You could ask similar questions regarding their proselytizing; for instance, how many do it because of the Bible, how many because their church hierarchy or leadership encourage it (and please don't pretend you don't have any), or for some other reason? Most likely it's some combination of these and other reasons, just as people who don't like the proselytizing often dislike it for a combination of reasons rather than just one. Wesley 17:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's both, we're constantly encouraged to witness (share our beliefs) at every appropriate opportunity. This encouragement comes from our literature and from those that teach at the local congregations. That being said, whenever we are exhorted to preach there is generally scriptural support for this offered. Some of the scriptures already considered are good examples of this. --DannyMuse 22:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Intro - Christian religions

Looks like I missed the end of the discussion that led to the current intro. I don't want to upset the apple cart too much at this stage, but I wonder, shouldn't it say "Christian denominations" where it now says "Christian religions?" (Or singular as appropriate.) Take a couple minutes to look at religion and religious denomination and think about which word is more appropriate here. Wesley 06:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this intro has hardly changed in months. That being said, I agree with your comment and so changed to the end of the intro as per your comments. Thanks. Oh, and by the way, it's nice to have you back. You've been missed 'round here! --DannyMuse 06:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Funny, in the archives, it looked like a lot of discussion happened in late Dec. 2004. Not that it really matters. Wesley 06:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so it was only a month-and-a-half ago, not "months." I apologize for my uncharacteristic lack of precision. Did I say I missed you???? What was I thinking!!! Just kidding. Welcome back. --DannyMuse 07:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we are beyond another rewrite of the intro. It has a few quirks and remains with that "vague" feeling DMo has been pointing out, as seen when compared with the control version I presented above [11]. But I don't know if anybody is up to the task yet. Tom Haws 19:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

In general, I don't think that an introduction should be too detailed; some vagueness is perfectly acceptable as long as making things more precise would prevent the necessary brievety of an introduction, and that the alluded to matters are discussed in the sections. Similarly, some vagueness in a section is perfectly acceptable if there's another article explaining the problem in detail. David.Monniaux 20:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's always been my position. In fact good editorial style is this: start with the general then add specific details. Any other approach always becomes problematic. It will usually tend to get off balance and unwieldy. It is better to address the specifics in sections dedicated to each subtopic, which is what we are doing. --DannyMuse 22:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question of blood

I am a little bit confused about this question of blood thing again. The paragraph I have written to summurise the whole story has been edited in such a way that more than a half od it now refers to this non-blood thingies again. Are you implying that these bloodless surgery techniques, which are later presented as a recent progress in medicine, were available as soon as 1916 ? Also, stating that the JW do not refuse transfusion is completely contradictory with the whole article and the references, is it not ? Rama 07:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After trying various ways to make that paragraph work, I ended up finally just deleting it. There are several reasons. Here's a point-by-point explanation:

• With the help of leading surgeons and physicians they have produced video documentaries showing the benefits of nonblood techniques.[12]

Good point. I reworded and replaced in the article, although a bit later in the article than you originally placed it.

• It has been is contended that the refusal of transfusion by Jehovah's Witnesses have induced grave or lethal consequences to patients. [13]

This is generally redundant; the point is already developed in several places throughout the section. Also, I believe this "RickRoss.com" link is inappropriate to be in this article. This issue has been discussed at great length. Please refer to the Talk page archives. Specifically in Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 9: Cults and Sects. Nevertheless, to preserve it, I moved the link to the WP Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses article.

• Jehovah's witnesses have stated that it is not the refusal of transfusion but the refusal by medical personell to use simple and effective nonblood techniques.

I contend this is in error. Please provide evidence. Perhaps it is just that the wording is unclear/awkward. What exactly are you tryin to say? Pending that I have deleted it.

• Occaisionally one of Jehovah's Witnesses has accepted a transfusion. [14]

This is no doubt true. Nevertheless, it is still against the beliefs of JWs in general. Obviously, some members of all religions do things contrary to the beliefs and tenets of the faith. That doesn't change the beliefs and/or doctrines of the religion. Also, the article at the BBC link provided is just wrong. Some of the facts are perhaps correct, but the conclusions it draws are not.

I hope these explanations will make clear the reasons for my edits and provide a basis for dialogue on these points. --DannyMuse 11:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

rewording of evolution

I find this wording a bit too general: "They do not accept the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection."

The modern definition of a “species” is very specific (this is explained in w54 1/15 62-63) and I’m worried that the statement could be misunderstood as stating that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe that variations can occur within animal kinds. This would conflict with some of the information provided by the faithful and discreet slave class. For example, under ‘Ark’ in the Insight book, the second paragraph under the subheading ‘Ample Carrying Capacity’ explains how the hundreds of thousands of “species” of animals today could be reduced to comparatively few family “kinds” that would fit into the ark. (g88 12/8 24-27 explains why this still conflicts with the theory that life evolved from goop since family “kinds” cannot breed together)

Also, the term “the modern theory of evolution” encompasses some important mechanisms, such as that of genetic drift. What I’m saying is that the MODERN theory of evolution no longer refers to the theory that everything evolved from goop, but can also refer to the process by which variations are formed within animal kinds. It’s a bit like talking to someone about the trinity; sometimes, when people say, “I believe in the trinity!” they may simply mean that they believe in God, Jesus and God’s active force rather than meaning that they believe that all three are one and the same.

My rewording is as follows: "They do not accept the theory that all species on Earth evolved from one source of life."

This is more accurate than the previous wording. I also removed the references to Darwin and Natural Selection as they are redundant.

Sigh, Darwin was a person, Natural Selection is a process. They could not be redundant as they are different things! - --DannyMuse 22:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Divinity of Christ

Perhaps this has been touched on earlier, and if so I apologize for missing it although, short of reading the entire massive archive, I have made a reasonable effort to find the relevant discussion... but...

IMHO a centrally distinctive doctrine of JWs is the JW denial of the divinity of Christ, and the article has not emphasized this sufficiently.

Yes, this is touched on in both the JW main article and the JW Doctrine article, but it uses phrases such as "JWs deny the Trinity", "Christ was God's first creation" (in the main article) or that "Christ was the Archangel Michael" (in the Doctrine article), without explicitly and specifically and unmistakeably stating that JWs reject the idea that Christ was/is God.

I know of no other denomination or sect that calls itself "Christian" but denies the divinity of Christ. Furthermore, the divinity of Christ is a doctrine that other Christian denominations, at least traditionally, consider absolutely central and vital, not only to their own denomination, but to the definition of what Christianity itself is.

Please be aware that I am NOT trying to start a flame war over whether or not Christ was God. What I am attempting to do is to elevate the importance of this issue in the article's treatment of what makes JWs unique. I am aware that the phrase "denial of the divinity of Christ" might be seen by JWs as a biased formulation that begs the question, ie assuming the divinity of Christ and painting JWs as denying a truth. Furthermore, it may be that this issue seems more important to non-JW Christians, and less so to JWs.

One way or another, though, the fact that JWs disagree with other Christians over whether Christ was/is divine should be given much more emphasis in the article, and made immediately obvious, without the need for reflection and deduction to figure it out. LeoO3 06:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops. How embarrassing. I note that it is clearly stated, early on, in the JW doctrine article, that JWs do not believe that Jesus was God. Somehow despite my efforts to find it I missed it before. However, I still contend that the issue needs to be made just as, or more, clear in the main JW page. LeoO3 06:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LeoO3 Welcome to this article. I hope you'll be able to contribute to it in meaningful way.

That being said, it is incorrect to say that JWs deny the divinity of Christ. We do NOT believe that Jesus is the same as or equal to his father Jehovah. We DO believe that he is a created being. We also do believe that he is of divine nature. Please consider this excerpt from the publication "Insight on the Scriptures" (WTB&TS) Volume 1, page 639 in the article, "Divine":

Then, at Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul says that in Christ "all the fullness of the divine quality [form of the·o´tes] dwells bodily." Here, again, some translations read "Godhead" or "deity," which Trinitarians interpret to mean that God personally dwells in Christ. (KJ, NE, RS, NAB) However, Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon defines the·o´tes in basically the same way it does thei·o´tes, as meaning "divinity, divine nature." (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as "divinity." Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering thei·o´tes as referring to quality, not personality.

A consideration of the context of Colossians 2:9 clearly shows that having "divinity," or "divine nature," does not make Christ the same as God the Almighty. In the preceding chapter, Paul says: "God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." (Col 1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it "pleased the Father" (KJ, Dy), because it was "by God's own choice." (NE) So the fullness of "divinity" that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such "fullness" does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being "seated at the right hand of God."-Col 3:1. (Emphasis added)

--DannyMuse 08:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, DannyMuse. There are certainly plenty of resources where the debate, complete with Bible passages, over whether Jesus was God can be pursued. What I sought to do was not to prove or disprove JW doctrine on the subject, but simply to more explicitly highlight it, because its significance in the main article, in my view, is being 'underplayed. JWs deny that Jesus is God (in other words, the supreme, unsurpassed unequaled Lord of the Universe), which I phrased as "denying the divinity of Jesus." I was unaware that JWs believe that Jesus has divinity or a divine nature, and that they see this concept as NOT being contradictory with Him being God. I appreciate being enlightened on this. I believe, however, that the point of JW distinctiveness on this matter, and of the need and importance of more explicitly highlighting it in an obvious way in the main article, remains. LeoO3 21:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Leo, agreed. Now you see the challenge of making/emphasizing important points without further muddying the waters. --DannyMuse 07:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For my own understanding and possible clarification in the article, do JW's consider anyone besides God and Jesus divine? For instance, do some or all of the other angels also share the divine nature? Wesley 17:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Wesley. Thanks for the great question. Also, Danny, as well as answering Wesley's question, could you be sure to clarify in the article that JW's see Christ as divine? I was never aware of that. Tom Haws 19:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

To answer Wesley's question here is more from "Insight on the Scriptures" (WTB&TS) Volume 1, page 639 in the article, "Divine":

Finally, at 2 Peter 1:3, 4 the apostle shows that by virtue of “the precious and very grand promises” extended to faithful anointed Christians, they “may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.” Elsewhere in the Scriptures, Christians are referred to as ‘sharing’ with Christ in his sufferings, in a death like his, and in a resurrection like his to immortality as spirit creatures, becoming joint heirs with him in the heavenly Kingdom. (1Co 15:50-54; Php 3:10, 11; 1Pe 5:1; 2Pe 1:2-4; Re 20:6) Thus it is evident that the sharing of Christians in “divine nature” is a sharing with Christ in his glory.

A comparison of Goodspeed or Moffat's rendering of John 1:1 would show that this is not a unique perspective. The idea of "divinity" includes godlike creatures such as angels. Examination of the Greek used in the Bible shows that the same words traslated Divinty, divinity, god and God are used for the various pagan gods of the time. Therefore the concept of what is divine would encompass angels and Christians who become "joint heirs with Christ." (Romans 8:17 See above)

george 19:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some explanation of what is meant by "divine" or "divine nature" would also be helpful. In classical trinitarian theology, it is precisely Christ's divine nature that makes Him God; the Trinity is briefly expressed as three persons sharing one divine nature; this what the "homoousious" or "one essence" is referring to in the Nicene Creed when it says Jesus is "of one essence with the Father." It's the point that divided the trinitarian Christians from the Arians in the fourth century. So, to hear you say that JW's affirm Christ's divinity makes it appear that you're embracing the language of the trinitarians, but the underlying idea and theology of the Arians. Clearly a different definition of divine nature is being employed. Wesley 23:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is worthwhile to find a way to be clear and precise, because for the Mormons divine nature is an attribute of all the sons of God, including those currently residing as humans. You, I, the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, Cain, and the Sons of Perdition have, once had, will have, may once have, or could have had but lost divine nature in Mormonism. So you need to be specific about what you mean. Tom Haws 02:13, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Danny. And I do see. There is a lot of tension involved, especially when you're dealing with an overview article, between trying to introduce concepts that may be novel to some, without burying them in detail or leaving them with a misleading impression. LeoO3 07:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like the bottom line is that JW's do deny that Jesus is God, to state it very simply. Trinitarians will often rephrase this to say that JW's deny the "divinity of Jesus", the "Godhood" of Jesus, because in their minds, using their definitions, the two statements are essentially the same. JW's affirm the "divinity of Jesus" in the same way that they affirm the divinity of angels, at least some Christians, and so on, basically by using a different definition or understanding of the word "divinity."

This all brings us back to LeoO3's original question, which I'll rephrase (to use commonly held definitions) to be whether the article should more clearly point out that JW's do not think that Jesus is God. Wesley 17:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. --DannyMuse 06:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To make a more accurate statement about JW's beliefs is to say, "JW's do not believe Jesus is Almighty God." In the Bible the descriptive word 'almighty' is only attributed to Jehovah God. I would like to add, Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that the Bible refers to the Messiah/Jesus as being called God in at least 4 scriptures.

Now I'm confused again. Does this mean that JW's draw a distinction between "God" and "Almighty God," and thus believe that two gods exist? Are there other distinct gods with other designations?. Perhaps the JW's have more in common with Mormonism than I was aware. On the other hand, perhaps this anonymous tidbit isn't at all representative of JW's. Wesley 04:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After extensive discussion, and an agreement that it would be "fine" to point out clearly that JW's do not think that Jesus is God, the article still does not do so , so I've gone ahead and added it. LeoO3 22:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, to Wesley and me it still isn't clear. You are saying no, but others are saying yes. I think we need to find some citations from the Watchtower, and if those are contradictory, we need something else. Danny? George? JWs believe Jesus is divine? JWs believe Jesus is God? JWs do not believe Jesus is Jehovah? Perhaps you can give us a list of factually accurate statements, and then we can ask questions if we don't understand them. Tom Haws 23:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

To put it as simply as possible, JWs believe: 1) Jesus is NOT Jehovah God, 2) Jesus, Jehovah, and the angels are of a divine nature, 3) Jesus is a god, but not Almighty God, Jehovah. For clarification of what this means, note that the Bible refers to Satan as "the God of this system of things" (2 Cor. 4:4), and JWs use this scripture frequently [15] -- uberpenguin 23:46, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

So we can also say that JWs reject monotheism, and are polytheistic? It would seem to me that that would be a major difference and would need to be mentioned prominently, early, and unmistakeably. LeoO3 23:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why so much emphasis is being placed on the way in which Jehovah's Witnesses deny the trinity when the people who do believe in it cannot explain what it is in the first place. These are the persons who seem to want the most information on JW's belief regarding the Trinity. The Trinity article is directly linked in the statement at the beginning of the JW article. JW's don't believe in it. Read the Trinity article and you know what JW's don't believe in. Can you feel my exasperation? George 03:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS- Unitarians also do not believe in Christ as God and many other Chrisitian groups have held the same belief - with varying degrees of popularity - throughout the history of Christianity. So to say that you know of no other 'denomination' which deinies Jesus' Godship is a revelation of the uniformed.

The Trinity is a central doctrine of Christianity as understood by the vast majority of Christians today and throughout the history of Christianity (not counting whatever brief pure "early Christianity" Trinity-deniers claim to be reviving). As such, any sect calling itself Christian which denies the Trinity is ipso facto noteworthy, even remarkable, and curiosity about what exactly it does believe is easily understandable. As for not being able to explain what the Trinity is, its believers have always said it is a mystery, in the technical theological sense of the term. That does not mean that prayer, meditation, and study cannot lead one to better understand it. Finally, once again, merely denying the Trinity is one thing, but denying that Jesus is God in the same sense that God the Father is, is a huge difference with the overwhelming majority of Christianity, and is such a central point of difference that any NPOV and fair presentation of JWs MUST cite this prominently, unmistakeably, specifically, and right away. To do otherwise is to stoke suspicions of the article authors not wanting to "scare off" mainstream Christians from JWs with an idea too radical for them to immediately accept. LeoO3 23:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, George. I think your edits clarify the matter. Note that I, a Mormon, am not a trinitarian. I just wanted to help clarify the beliefs. No accusations intended. I learned a lot. Thanks again. Tom Haws 20:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Allowed to Vote"

Saying that Witnesses are "now allowed to vote" is a bit misleading. While true, it needs to be explained better if it is included in the article. Obviously there are many matters JWs consider personal decisions that should be influenced only by an adherent's Bible-trained conscience, such as choice of entertainment, etc. If you notice, the WT article cited as justification for this statement clearly states that voting in an election is a conscience matter, but then proceeds to explain the position of JWs on the interpretation of John 17:14. The article lists at least five major points that discourage voting in elections in order to maintain political neutrality and thus remain "no part of this world." In other words, voting is not "against the rules," but is highly discouraged in most countries because it is seen by most JWs as violating the principle at John 17:14. (recall, too, that the WT is written for distribution in many countries, some of which might not have political climates as accepting of neutral parties as the U.S.). -- uberpenguin 23:44, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

To Uberpenguin above. The only reason the Watch Tower has changed its wording of its voting ban policy is due to certain governments refusing to recognise them as a religion if they still banned voting (an abuse of basic human rights) like they did in the past, and still do and want to enforce this control in Witnesses' lives. This article, in the Watchtower magazine 1 November 1999 pp. 28-9 Questions From Readers, was there to placate those in governmental power and the courts of law into thinking that there was now "total freedom" within JW members to choose for themselves. As you have commented, this is bogus, and without foundation as the Watch Tower well knows, as the ban is still in effective use, but magically not if they are taken to court, one rule for the observing legal person, and another for the average JW, as you have just demonstrated.

These kinds of Watchtower articles are written in double speak, in as much as a non-Witness reading it will read one thing, (and that is the idea) but a JW reading it will read something completely different, with hidden key words like "Bible-trained conscience" which will drag up in the Witness's mind all the mass bans and endless negativity of voting, governments, and all that is "bad" in the Watch Tower's opinion. The real stance of the Watch Tower, is its corrupt duplicity that is promoted in so much of its literature, and their use of special insider language that means something completely different to a neutral outside observer. All this is used specifically to manipulate the courts if the issue ever goes to court about restricting the human rights of the organization's members, as the article will be immediately brought out and stated to "prove" that JWs can "freely vote for whom they wish in a democratic manner, and have no punitive restrictions or punishment for doing so", which we all know is yet more lies and smoke screening of the real facts. The same situation with blood transfusions, the Watch Tower had to lift the ban on blood in Bulgaria, or they would not have been recognized as a religion, but still remained in the eyes of the government as a peripheral cult abusing their members and children by banning blood transfusions. So, the Watch Tower Society went ahead and lifted the blood ban in Bulgaria, but still enforce it in the rest of the world, but the average JW is never supposed to find this out or know about it.—Reply Posted: 10 March 2005

In Bulgaria: was that a problem of getting recognized as a religion (does Bulgaria actually grant recognition to religions) or was that a problem of being recognized as a bona fide organization supporting religious worship, in good standing with respect to public order, and get certain perks because of that status? David.Monniaux 08:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought the ban was lifted because JW's were being set upon by mobs in some countries or being denied employment, etc because they were nt voting. Since a man must care for his family in order to be a Christian, it may be neccessary for a person to vote. Who they vote for is up to them. I don't see any double speak. I get the idea though that if I were compelled to vote, I would vote a write in of Jesus or Jehovah. This seems quite practical to me. This is actually not a change. Note the quote from the article I read:

w99 11/1 p. 29 Questions From Readers

The November 15, 1950, issue of The Watchtower, on pages 445 and 446, said: “Where Caesar makes it compulsory for citizens to vote . . . [Witnesses] can go to the polls and enter the voting booths. It is here that they are called upon to mark the ballot or write in what they stand for. The voters do what they will with their ballots. So here in the presence of God is where his witnesses must act in harmony with his commandments and in accordance with their faith. It is not our responsibility to instruct them what to do with the ballot.”

--- george 02:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting, and extremely worrying that now that the Watch Tower Society come out with more "new light" and allow voting, but failed miserably to do the same in Malawi in the '60s and '70s where many JWs were hacked to death and gang raped due to following blindly a Watch Tower directives on a total ban on having an party national ID card. Malawi was a one party state and the card was just an ID card for the current government! All those lifes lost for nothing, those JWs were never given the chance to make their own personal choices if 'they' wanted to register or not, the pharisaic Watch Tower had done it for them, and they paid the worst price for it. I wonder if the Watch Tower Society will be paying any compensation out to those who suffered for its policies?

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read on Wikipedia. As if it is the WT's fault that "JWs were hacked to death and gang raped". Get real! --DannyMuse 03:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To DannyMuse above, you will find it was 100% the Watch Tower Society's fault, as the Witnesses in that country only needed to get an Party ID card to be left alone. Because of their refusal to get a card at the direct orders of the Watch Tower Society, they then became subject to terrible abuse and persecution, which included gang rape, mutilation and murder, all of this was 100% a direct result of the Watch Tower's ban on part ID cards, even though it was a one party state, and everyone in the country was required to have one. The Watch Tower Society does the same today, when they now allow haemoglobin from stored blood, but totally banned it before, and many died due to this strict prohibition that they have now backtracked on, and now changed to a "conscience decision". If you wish to get some information, instead of coming out with silly ignorant defensive statements like you just have then look up the Malawi indecent and you will be a lot more informed. (Proverbs 18:13) Interestingly while many JWs were suffering horrific persecution, directly due to Watch Tower policy, but not anything remotely linked to being a Christian, the Watch Tower were allowing Witnesses in Mexico to buy fraudulent documents and bribe officials so they would not have to do military service. It's this kind of gross hypocrisy that makes the Watch Tower's bloodguilt even worse for what they directly caused in Malawi. It is all documented in the book Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, who was a Governing Body members for many years. He gives documented proof of the Watch Tower's position in Malawi and Mexico, with scanned letters from them proving all that he reveals. The Watch Tower has never refuted any of the information in his books. You may choose in typical JW ostrich manner to ignore reality, but that does not change it from being true.—posted 12 March 2005

To above: Your reply is so patently offensive as to be beyond description for its ridiculousness. Let's get one thing straight, it is the fault of the murderers and the rapists for their criminal acts. Everything else is inflammatory rhetoric. --DannyMuse 06:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my humble opinion: the primary responsibility in this case should be with the one-party regime, murderers and rapists. The actions of the Watchtower Society may, of course, be considered irresponsible – pushing people into clear danger for dubious goals (in a one-party authoritarian country where people are expected to join the party, being a member of the ruling party amounts to nothing political – it's not being a member that is a political statement and not politically neutral). I realize that others may think that, in this case, martyrdom was preferrable. David.Monniaux 08:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To David.Monniaux above, you made one interesting point, you said: ". . . martyrdom was preferable", but you forgot the point that there was no choice in the matter. Witnesses in Malawi were not given the free choice to do as their conscience before God decided, they were instead ordered by the Watch Tower Society to do as told, not as a personal decision, but by unthinking obedience to a worldly organization of men. They knew well they would be branded rebellious sinners, and rejected by the organization and its members if they did not conform to the distant decisions of a few old men in their ivory tower in New York. Those in Malawi had no choice, and so a great deal of the bloodguilt should come upon their religious leaders who forced their members into taking a non-biblical stance that caused horrific suffering that could have easily been stopped and also had zero to do with being a faithful Christian. Those who suffered in Malawi did it for the men in the Watch Tower Society, not for God or Jesus, and so needlessly suffered in vain.

Look, we are not here to argue about doctrine and practice, we are here to write a correct and unbiased article about Jehovah's Witnesses. It is correct and unbiased to say that JWs remain politically neutral, and it is incorrect to say that they (in general) vote in political electinos. I stand behind my edits, and would kindly request that you not go off onto tangents. If you think my changes were in remiss, please explain why, otherwise leave the issue.

If you wish to talk about the phrase "Bible trained conscience," here is my personal stance. I refuse to vote in political elections and refuse to take whole or partial blood transfusions because of my understanding of scriptures like John 17:14 and Acts 15:20. These views are in line with those of JWs in general, but are my OWN personal beliefs as well and would not change if the WBTS came out tomorrow and said that voting or blood transfusions were acceptable for JWs. That is what is meant by "Bible trained conscience," making decisions based on one's own personal understanding of scripture and how they think those decisions will affect their relationship with God. Now, can we stay on topic? I'm telling you that JWs as a whole choose to remain politically neutral, and that is the most accurate and unbiased wording to use in the article. -- uberpenguin 03:18, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Eschatology

Under the paragraphs titled Jehovah's Witnesses and Eschatology a statment was made: "During the 1960s, members of the group again began to predict the end of the world in 1975. Believing that God had created Adam in 4026 B.C. and believing that the end times would begin after 6000 years of human life, they predicted that 1975 would mark the end of the world."

This statement is not true. I became associated with Jehovah's Witnesses around 1975 and I have never read in any of their literature, "that 1975 would mark the end of the world." I am not sure about the other dates stated in this paragraph but this statement is not accurate. Whoever wrote this statement needs to back it up. Jehovah's Witnesses print large volumes of Bible base magazines and books each year but this statement is not there. If any of the statments in these paragraphs can not be backed up they should be deleted. If fact I noticed none of the paragraghs in this subheading have any cross reference to any written material by Jehovah's Witnesses.

I do recall that Jehovah's Witnesses did print, "God had created Adam in 4026 B.C. and believing that the end times would begin after 6000 years of human life." The Bible does not say when Eve was created or how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden before they sinned. The Sixth Creative Day ended only after Eve was created. So the 6000 years of human life would have begun only after Eve was created and God did not give us that information.

Some individual people associated with Jehovah's Witnesses may have jumped to a wrong conclusion about 1975 but the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society never publicily stated or printed "that 1975 would mark the end of the world." Jehovah"s Witnesses are very familiar with the scripture found at Matthew 24:36, "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Jesus also stated about the sign of the last days, "Likewise also YOU, when YOU see all these things, know that he is near at the doors." (Matthew 24:33) Jehovah's Witnesses definitively believe Jesus is near at the doors because of the one composite sign.

I don't know much about the history of JW's predictions, but I agree that if there is no source for the JW's having made this prediction, then it should certainly be removed from the article. If there is a source, it would be helpful to add it. Wesley 04:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've researched this question in the past using Watchtower Library: Although The Watchtower did note the year 1975 as the 6,000th anniversary of Adam's birth and indicated that it might be significant, it was never stated that 1975 "would mark the end of the world." (And, by the time the year had rolled around, even any slight implications were avoided.) It may be worth noting that many did leave the Witnesses at the time because they had chosen to read more into this than was originally intended (and maybe someone who was around at the time might have something to say about that, from a purely historical perspective), but it certainly was never a teaching of the Witnesses that 1975 would mark Armageddon (or anything else, for that matter). Roger McCoy 09:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want the facts of what they did say and how they did strongly infer the end would come in 1975, read the actual quotes direct from their own literature here. Quotes 1975, there are even audio files of assembly talks where it is said in no uncertain terms that they end will come in 1975, and the doors of opportunity will be closed before then.—posted 10 March 2005

Although I have to admit that I haven't gone through all of this (quite lengthy) page, I've gone over the first dozen or so quotes, most of which I've read before. Although the quotes indicate a possiblity that the year could be significant, nowhere in the articles or talks I glanced over did it say this would happen. (You'll notice that the highlighting on many of these quotes seems to intentionally omit key qualifiers that emphasize this.) I've already used Watchtower Library to find every article that ever mentioned 1975 some years ago, and nowhere in any of those articles did it state that Armageddon would happen in 1975. (See also george's Watchtower excerpt below.)

There is, however, some poor phrasing. The use of "6,000 years of man's existence will end in 1975" (several variations of this are mentioned) is used several times. However, it is clear that this is not referring to Armageddon so much as a "mark on the odometer" (like the hubbub over the years 2000 and 2001). Some might question the clarity of this, but consider this: The Witnesses do not teach that all mankind on earth will be wiped out, nor did they teach such a thing in the '60s or '70s. Thus, if you were to take this to mean the end of "man's existence" rather than simply the end of "6,000 years", then this would be in contrast with the teaching of humans living on a paradise earth. It's true that it was stated that Armageddon could happen that year, but seeing as the Witnesses have always taught that "the end is near", this is really nothing significant or unusual. Roger McCoy 08:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These quotes below were just a tiny few of the massive amount of 1975 pressuring and urgings to see it as the end of the system.

"It means that only a few years, at most, remain before the corrupt system of things dominating the earth is destroyed by God. . . How fitting it would be for God, following this pattern, to end man's misery after six thousand years of human rule and follow it with His glorious Kingdom rule for a thousand years! .. Only seven more years from the autumn of 1968 to complete 6,000 full years of human history. That seven-year period will evidently finish in the autumn of the year 1975"- Awake! 8 October 1968 pp. 14-15 (Written nearly 37 years ago)

"If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfilment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. . . Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfil any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way towards its finish, if not actually gone!"- Awake! 22 May 1969 p.15 (That was written nearly 36 years ago, so if you were a youthful 18 year old, you would now be 54!)

"Soon now six millenniums of his wicked exploiting of mankind as his slaves will end, within the lifetime of the generation that has witnessed world events since the close of the Gentile Times in 1914 till now, according to the prophetic words of Jesus in Matthew 24:34. Would not, then, the end of six millenniums of mankind's laborious enslavement under Satan the Devil be the fitting time for Jehovah God to usher in a Sabbath millennium for all his human creatures? Yes, indeed! And his King Jesus Christ will be Lord of that Sabbath."- Watchtower 15 October 1969 p.623

"Prophetically Jesus Christ, when on earth nineteen centuries ago, said concerning himself: "For Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is." (Matthew 12: 8). It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the 'Lord of the Sabbath,' to run parallel with the seventh millennium of man's existence."- Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God (book) 1966 pp. 26-30

"More recently earnest researchers of the Holy Bible have made a recheck of its chronology. According to their calculations the six millenniums of mankind's life on earth would end in the mid-seventies. Thus the seventh millennium from mans creation by Jehovah God would begin within less than ten years. . . the arrival of the seventh millennium of mans existence on earth suggests a gladsome change for war-stricken humankind. . .In order for the Lord Jesus Christ to be Lord even of the Sabbath day, his thousand-year reign would have to be the seventh in a series of thousand-year periods or millenniums. (Matt 12:8, AV) Thus it would be a sabbatic reign."-Watchtower 15 Oct. 1969 pp. 622

"Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end."- Kingdom Ministry, May 1974, p.3

I find it highly amusing you all try and dismiss the '75 prophecies after the affect, and you know you are being deliberately deceitful to yourselves. If you were alive then, and I was, you would have known about those selling their houses, and putting off medical treatments, and spending their savings, giving up scholarships and university places, and getting into serious debt, all due to the Watch Tower Societies urging, imploring and sensationalist manner building them up to 1975 as the time of Jesus millennial reign.

Yes, it is true that some individuals did this. But the Society never encouraged anyone to take such foolish and presumptuous measures, especially when they stated many times that the end being in 1975 was only a possibility (which is only reinforced by many of the quotes that you gave above). Especially looking at the articles printed in and shortly before 1975, the Society specifically urged Witnesses not to assume too much. Articles encouraging youths and others to plan as if we are living in the end of this system are printed today just as frequently as they were in the 1970s. Does that mean that it is being stated that Armageddon will be one, two, or even five years from now? While it's a possibility, a balanced viewpoint was important then and is still important now, and anyone who took an unbalanced view really has no one to blame but themselves. Roger McCoy 05:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listen/download this audio file of a talk at a Watch Tower district convention for Jehovah's Witnesses in 1967, and you will get a good idea about he emotional theatricals of the Watch Tower as it heartily encouraged the view that Armageddon was coming in 1975. Note the motives and the use of sensationalist themes, and language, all topped off with the proclamation that the door for salvation will be closed before 1975! This talk by District Overseer Bro. Charles Sunutko was fully approved by the Watch Tower Society: Media audio file of 1967 Jehovah's Witnesses District Overseer Bro. Charles Sunutko on 1975 (download size 2.6MB)

The KM of May 1974 is easy to look up and your have taken this article way out of context as you have with the some of the Awake articles. g70 9/8 p. 24 So You’re Thinking of Buying a House? ***This is an Awake article that gives advice about how to purchase a home. This was printed in 1970! JW’s encourage people to live simple lives, and to be zealous spiritually always looking toward the, “End of the System,” as if it is right around the corner. Jesus himself encourage us to do this in the scriptures such as Revelation 22:10 "He that bears witness of these things says, 'Yes; I am coming quickly.'" Rev. 22:12 "'Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. Rev. 22:20 "He that bears witness of these things says, 'Yes; I am coming quickly.'" (This was written 1900 years ago.) I too was around in 1975 and did not have any thought about 1975 or any other year as a set date for the time of the end.

If I can remember correctly, all public talks and printed discussion about the 6000 years from Adam’s creation and 1975 stopped by the beginning of the 70’s because the WTB&T Society came to realized that some people had misconstrued the information giving undue importance to the year 1975. During the 70’s my experience was, if someone in a congregation mentioned that year 1975 might be a “special year” they were quickly corrected with counsel such as, “We should not worship God just for a specific year in mind” or “When the end comes it comes, it is up to God.” Here is a direct quote from a 1974 Watchtower 10/15 p. 635 "The publications of Jehovah's witnesses have shown that, according to Bible chronology, it appears that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's. But these publications have never said that the world's end would come then. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation "Why We Have Not Been Told 'That Day and Hour'" was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end."

See this link to an audio file you can download, and transcript about 1975, here are the best bits from a talk by a district overseer in 1967 demonstrating that Witnesses were told the doors would be closed before 1975: “Jehovah has provided meat in due season. Because he's held up before all of us, a new goal. A new year. Something to reach out for and it just seems it has given all of us so much more energy and power in this final burst of speed to the finish line. And that's the year 1975. . . We're going to listen to their agonizing entreaty "Brothers get in" because they know what's coming! And it's coming fast. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then. . . As one brother put it, ‘Stay alive to Seventy-Five’”— Public Address by District Overseer Bro. Charles Sunutko in Spring 1967

Individuals within any church may come up with their own beliefs but if these beliefs are not supported or encouraged by the church body or even by a majority of church members these beliefs should not be spoken of as a teaching of a church.

Unable to find any source for the recently added information, expecially statements that have quotes marks on them. Note on the editing, "Please cite your sources so others can check your work."

If you have ever seen the instructions for assembly talks they often are just a sentence or paragraph with an assignment of twenty minutes to one hour. Since there was no statement in the Wt literature that 1975 was going bring about the end, this would lead me to believe any verbal statements were the property of the person giving the talk. This is a dead horse which has been beaten here before.

Here is the text of the 1968 Wt article's conclusion on the topic of 1975:

w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?

1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND!

34 Bible chronology is an interesting study by which historic events are placed in their order of occurrence along the stream of time. The Watch Tower Society over the years has endeavored to keep its associates abreast with the latest scholarship that proves consistent with historic and prophetic events recorded in the Scriptures. Major problems in sacred chronology have been straightened out either due to fulfillment of Bible prophecies or by reason of archaeological discoveries or because better Bible translations convey more clearly the records of the original languages. However, several knotty problems of chronology of a minor nature are not yet resolved. For example, at the time of the exodus from Egypt when Jehovah changed the beginning of the year from autumn time on the secular calendar to spring time on the sacred calendar, was there, in the Jewish calendar, a loss or a gain of six months?—Ex. 12:1, 2.

35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”!

36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active? The apostles could not see even this far; they knew nothing about 1975. All they could see was a short time ahead in which to finish the work assigned to them. (1 Pet. 4:7) Hence, there was a ring of alarm and a cry of urgency in all their writings. (Acts 20:20; 2 Tim. 4:2) And rightly so. If they had delayed or dillydallied and had been complacent with the idea the end was some thousands of years off they would never have finished running the race set before them. No, they ran hard and they ran fast, and they won! It was a life or death matter with them.—1 Cor. 9:24; 2 Tim. 4:7; Heb. 12:1.

37 So too with Jehovah’s faithful witnesses in this latter half of the twentieth century. They have the true Christian point of view. Their strenuous evangelistic activity is not something peculiar to this present decade. They have not dedicated their lives to serve Jehovah only until 1975. Christians have been running this way ever since Christ Jesus blazed the trail and commanded his disciples. “Follow me!” So keep this same mental attitude in you that was in Christ Jesus. Let nothing slow you down or cause you to tire and give out. Those who will flee Babylon the Great and this Satanic system of things are now running for their lives, headed for God’s kingdom, and they will not stop at 1975. O no! They will keep on in this glorious way that leads to everlasting life, praising and serving Jehovah for ever and ever!

Obviously there is no prediction of the end of the world in 1975 here. There is however the same message JW's have always had "The end is coming, maybe sooner than you think!" Nothing new about that. Jesus said the same thing. Could we give this a rest now? george 23:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amen! --DannyMuse 15:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Jehovah's Witnesses Reformation Movement

Hi this is Mars Turner again. Looks like you guys have been working hard. Keep up the good work. [16]The Jehovah's Witnesses Reformation Movement looks pretty intresting. All though I am not particularly an advocate of corporate reform I did notice they have many well articulated essays. I was wondering what your opinion is about this. Do you think a discussion on this should be added to the Jehovah's witness wiki page?24.23.4.35 13:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that it should not be added since it represents a small group of people and not any major faction. If it were to be included, it should probably be put in "Links Critical of the Group." The vast majority of JWs still support the WBTS and the policies that JW Reform wishes to change. -- uberpenguin 13:51, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

I have been Around witness for tweenty years and been one for going on five. This page I have to say is to bias for the watchtower society it feals like its written by them it needs to be made more neutral. There are some like me still on the inside that still believe the basics but do not agree totally with the practices of the society.

My disagreements tax exempt status should not be an issue. pay back ceasar's thing to ceasar's but god thing's to god. why does the society care if they have a tax exempt status? why fight for one?

The fact the the soceity blast catholics for baptizing babies but then turns around and allows five year olds to get baptized. Even though they go through bible questions with them, this still is shady at best. It is my experiance that most children that get baptized at a young age eventuly get disfellowshipped or disassocieted.

Jesus was perfect but waited till he was considered an adult to get baptized and start preaching. The soceity should follow his example about this and discourage youth baptism, but instead they encourage it.

Then we get to how the soceity treats and talks about worldly people. The pharisee had a simular meaning word of `am ha·´a´rets. below is a peice of an article from the awake g97 9/8 13

from the article “Speak Injuriously of No One”

In Jesus’ day there were people who disdained all who did not belong to their exclusive religious groups. Among these were the Pharisees. They were well versed in the Mosaic Law as well as in the b minutiae of Jewish tradition. (Matthew 15:1, 2; 23:2) They took pride in meticulously following many religious rituals. The Pharisees behaved as if they were superior to others simply because of their achievements and religious status. They expressed their pious and contemptuous attitude by saying: “This crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.”—John 7:49.

The Pharisees even had a denigratory term for non-Pharisees. The Hebrew term `am ha·´a´rets was originally used in a positive way to designate regular members of society. But in time the arrogant religious leaders of Judah changed the sense of `am ha·´a´rets to one of opprobrium. Other groups, including professed Christians, have used terms such as “pagan” and “heathen” in a derogatory way to designate people with religious beliefs different from theirs.'' End Quote

Why the soceity continues to suport this attitude is nearly driving me insane it goes totally against the good samaritan example from Jesus.

Finally why the society did not disclose that when you take 587 bce ( the genarally accepted date of Jerusalem fall instead of 607 bce)and do the same math that lead the society to come up with 1914 you come to the year of the 1935 the year the earthly paradise hope redicovered.

There are other things but this is enough rambling and venting for now The other side needs to have a some more say about some of the problems of the society It needs some who has never been a witness or had any contact with them to right this. Acording to the watchtower society if you are neutral i.e. not suporting Jehovah or his aragament. You are with satan because he tricked you into being neutral.

Fence setters won't make it into paradise they will die at armagedon.

So anything less than a glowing a bright portrayal of the Jehovah's Witnesses is not going to sit to well with any one on the inside unless they have doubts of course.

Greyfox--Greyfox 20:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grayfox such freedom of expression from you was such a refreshment. Thank you so much. I wouldnt be too supprised if the watchtower corporation tracks you down by your isp and disfellowships you. So our brother George gives us such empty speach in response to your honest concerns.24.23.4.35 Polemotheos 04:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

????

You are entitled to your opinion, however your English comprehension is probably not as good as your comprehension in your native tongue and therefore your opinion on whether or not this article is POV is hard to accept. Perhaps you are taking the wording the wrong way. we have had JW's who have thought it was POV against JW's when it obviously was not, due to a lack of good English comprehension.

Also, there are plenty of Non witness contributors here, and the opinion of non-JW's is included in the article. We've gone round and round, all of us learning from each other. Hopefully you are here to help and not to stir up another round of flies.

Finally, the points you bring up are simply argumentative, not even worth discussing, they bring up rare events or obscure references as points of contention, without any proof of the accusation(s). George 21:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS your addition was not a "minor edit" you added quite a bit of text.

English is my first language. I am new to editing sorry for the mistakes I won’t mess with this page again. What you just said, and how you said it is more than enough proof, thank you.

I will go away --Greyfox 04:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't go my brother. Why should the worshipers of Jehovah be run off by corporation worshipers. Be brave there are honest witnesses here and the wikipedia supports them. Just ignore George' theocratic warfare (lies). Lots of love to everyone. 24.23.4.35 Polemotheos 04:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)