text:
Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 10

A new WikiProject about Jehovah's Witnesses
WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, aka WP:JW

george 03:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I invite all to sign in as a participants at the project page, add it to your watchlist, and participate in style, organization, and hierarchy discussions there. Tom Haws 05:04, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

UN, NGO's & JW's

Nowhere in this letter does it say that the NGO is an ally of the UN nor does it require that the NGO present positive information about the UN. The UN's charter contains many noble ideas which the WBTS is surely in agreement with, they did, however "terminate" their relationship with DPI-NGO. Which brings me to a new point, their relationship was not with the UN body politic but with the DPI, the Depatment of Public Information. The WBTS has stated that the reason for this relationship was to obtain access to UN documents and information not easily obtained by organisations not registered with the UN.

I do not believe it is JW's who have a problem with this, I beleive it is ex-jw's and anti-jw's who have a problem with this and the burden of proof is not whether the WBTS was registered with the UN but whether JW's are "building a growing resistance to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York". Since the WBTS are Jehovah's Witnesses, I find it hard to believe there is a "growing resistance. What is your proof? george 14:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Definition; ally or alliance; an association to further the common interests of the members, to unite or form a connection between : ASSOCIATE, "This organization applied for association with DPI in 1991 and was granted association in 1992." I will change the word to associate if you wish.

Most Jehovah's witness do not know of this (try asking someone at your local kingdom hall, they will say "huh?"), that is what 'secret' means. So of course they have no problem with it. Ignorance is bliss.

 I am pasting this information from:

'Hypocrite' Jehovah's Witnesses abandon secret link with UN

Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent Monday October 15, 2001 The Guardian

The Jehovah's Witnesses have hurriedly disaffiliated from the United Nations within days of a Guardian story in which members accused the sect of hypocrisy for supporting an organisation it has repeatedly denounced privately.

After the article last Monday, the organisation's New York based hierarchy pre-empted a UN inquiry by agreeing to dissociate the Witnesses from an organisation which it holds to be the scarlet beast named in the Book of Revelation.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, as the sect is formally known, has 6m members worldwide and 130,000 in Britain. It had been secretly affiliated to the UN as a non-governmental organisation for 10 years.

Recognised organisations are supposed to demonstrate that they share the UN's objectives, but Witnesses are instead told by elders to regard it as "a disgusting thing in the sight of God and his people" for allegedly aspiring to world domination like Babylon the Great, the beast in Revelation.

The sect does not believe in participating in government and initially strove to play down or deny the evidence of the UN's website, which lists it as one of 1,500 affiliated NGOs.

Those bringing the evidence to light were accused of apostacy. Disaffiliated members become known informally, like the rest of humanity, as "bird seed" in line with biblical prophesy of the fate of non-believers, whose corpses will be pecked bare by crows.

Within hours of the article's appearance on the Guardian website on Monday and its posting on a Jehovah's Witnesses bulletin board, more than 14,000 people across the world had read it.

By yesterday there were 353 official posts and 325 message boards discussing the article and its revelations, with Witnesses in the US demanding to see copies of the paper.

"nor does it require that the NGO present positive information about the UN"--George

"Consequently, it is important that you should keep us informed about your organization's information programme as it relates to the United Nations, including sending us issues of your relevant publications."--Paul Hoeffel

George do you honestly believe they submited the publications that said the UN was the discusting thing that causes desolation? Do yourself a favor and read Awake September 8, 1991. :)

"The Jehovah's Witnesses have hurriedly disaffiliated from the United Nations within days of a Guardian story in which members accused the sect of hypocrisy for supporting an organisation it has repeatedly denounced privately.

After the article last Monday, the organisation's New York based hierarchy pre-empted a UN inquiry by agreeing to dissociate the Witnesses from an organisation which it holds to be the scarlet beast named in the Book of Revelation."

Yes the UN was going to investigate the WBTS and dissociate them any ways.

Try looking up any Jehovah's witness web forum and see if the witnesses are praising the WBTS for being a UN NGO secretly and then trying to cover it up. You say;

"I beleive it is ex-jw's and anti-jw's who have a problem with this"--George

That's a trick statement because I already told you that you would be disfellowshiped if you question the WBTS. Do you really need to see the evidence that being a UN NGO is apostasy from Jehovah? Shall we continue to live a lie?

"their relationship was not with the UN body politic but with the DPI, the Depatment of Public Information"--George

Support of the UN charter is not "politic"? Secondly can they join the YMCA just to use there work out equipment?

"The WBTS has stated that the reason for this relationship was to obtain access to UN documents and information not easily obtained by organisations not registered with the UN."--George

That is what they told us but remember the good old theocratic warfare strategy. Actually I have documented there use of the UN NGO association to access governmental hearings.

Here is the "politic" policy of the UN NGOs which the WTBS used.

Library resourses the WT could have used instead of the main Dag Hammarskjold library.

Another way to get the information.

...etc ad infinitum

Polemotheos January 25, 2005

 * Polemotheos - The information you are presenting more appropriately belongs in the Critical Views of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses' Organisation) Wiki article. There is a link to this page at the bottom of the JW main article under the  Links Critical of the Group subheading. BTW, it would be a courtesy if you would date your postings to the talk page. --DannyMuse 16:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion but notice it says; "Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses' Organisation)" I am documenting Jehovah's witness oposition to the WBTS. And possibly there apostasy in the eyes of an average witness and any average person. Lest I mention Jehovah. Polemotheos 25 Jan 2005

Then rename the page and move it. then I won't feel the need to challenge what you include and we will all be happy.

george 18:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses Critical of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

Hello I have answered all questions and proved all data to be valid and true. This is a "Jehovah's witness" wiki page and therefore all Jehovah's witness views need to have say. Including those that separate or are critical of the WTBS. Otherwise this wiki page on Jehovah's witnesses is grossly inacurate and biased. If the disenting view of thousands of Jehovah's witnesses continues to be earased we will need to escalate this issue with the wiki police. Polemotheos Jan 27, 2005

Removed again. This information is not substantable other than the Watchtower Society made a faux pas. If no information showing JW's have a problem with this situation can be produced then you cannot list it as "JW's critcal of the WBTS", not to mention you have a page designated for you to put this kind of polemic on. george 12:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with the removal, can you (Polemotheos) speak for 'thousands of Jehovah's witnesses?' The text removed takes a few factual statements and adds a great deal of supposition and assumption that are extrapolated from relatively little hard information. It should be very obvious that it does not belong in this Wikipedia article. -- uberpenguin 15:32, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

 * It should also be pointed out that on at least two occasions Polemotheos has added images which are in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy: "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"

 * BTW, who are the "wiki police"? --DannyMuse 17:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * They are us. :-)  So watch out.  But seriously, this fellow's point of view should not be censored.  We are watching these articles not to protect them against insertion of unfavorable points of view, but to help guide their improvement.  Let's encourage him a little more to develop his thoughts here on the talk page so we can incorporate any significant items in the article.  And as alwys, let's be kind to each other. Tom H. 18:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Tom, you know I always appreciate your suggestions and balanced way of dealing with things. And your sense of humor has on more than one occasion helped defuse a tense situation. But I have a bit of a problem with your comment above. As you yourself wrote, it is this "fellow's point of view" that is problematic. As George has pointed out, he has made strong assertions without any proof. I personally have checked out some of the links he has referenced and most of them are totally irrelevant to the point he claims to be making in his edits. For example, one link referenced a hearing before the Official Committee Hansard of the Commonwealth of Australia where two representatives from the Austrialian WTB&TS made an appeal for religious freedom(s) (as if that's a bad thing). This is supposedly in support of his assertions that "There is growing resistance to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York by Jehovah's witnesses themselves." JW's are all for freedom of religion. Just as the apostles did in the first century, so have JW's often utilized any legal means to protect their religious freedoms. That's no secret, in fact it is something of which we are very proud.

 * See Jehovah's Witnesses and the Legal System

 * He repeatedly makes comments about some "secret association with the United Nations." While the NGO association of the WTB&TS with the UN in the past may not be widely known, it's hardly a secret.

 * Also, as I've pointed out before, he has more than once inserted copyright material in violation of WP's copyright policy. Frankly, the guy's writings are largely paranoid, incoherent ramblings. It's not as if Polemotheos will engage in reasonable dialogue with the rest of the contributors. --DannyMuse 18:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's review:

 * It is the opinion of Polemotheos that the WTB&TS should not have been associated with the UN DPI/NGO section.
 * As of 9 October 2001, the WTB&TS was officialy disassociated from the UN at the request of the WTB&TS.

It would appear that he is "vindicated". So what's the problem or controversy? The "contributions" of Polemotheos don't add up on many levels. It makes me wonder, "Who really has the hidden agenda?" At the very least, his writings most certainly are NOT presented in an encyclopedic manner appropriate to Wikipedia. --DannyMuse 18:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * You are right on both contributions. Tom H. 18:54, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I only put two images on wikimedia. One of the images I put on the wikimedia is not copyright. It is just an email from the UN Libruary staff which George keeps deleting. Maybe he does that because the email proves the WTBS was using the theocratic warfare stategy (lying) on us to keep face. Everything the WTBS says regarding there UN NGO affiliation is in conflict with all verifiable data.

Thank you for pointing out the copyright issue with the “Babylon the Great” riding the back of the Wild Beast (United Nations) 1963. I did not realize copyrights are held so long. It would be easy to find a similar picture without copyright issues. "Babylon the Great" is false religion according to Jehovah's witnesses. In the bible they are riding on the back of the wild beast which they hold is the United Nations. The June 1, 1991 Watchtower has called the worlds religions 'spiritual drunkards' for supporting the United Nations Charter and being associated with it. This is why the news has reported the hypocricy.

Here is hundreds of Jehovah's witness views. Many of them are elders, pioneers, and publishers. If you look to the left you will see the "open letters" that have been sent to thousands of kingdom halls and many branch offices. Written by Jehovah's witnesses for Jehovah's witnesses.

If the WTBS UN affair was not 'secret' then why would they suddenly separate only after the British news reported it? How many Jehovah's witnesses knew of this affair while it was happening? How many know of it now?

One of you say; "link referenced a hearing before the Official Committee Hansard of the Commonwealth of Australia where two representatives from the Austrialian WTB&TS made an appeal for religious freedom(s) (as if that's a bad thing). This is supposedly in support of his assertions that "There is growing resistance to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York by Jehovah's witnesses themselves.""

If any thing this is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. Contrary to what is said (like some stick man) the context said "The WBTS used it's UN NGO association to access committee hearings were they could curry favor from the governments of the world." Notice everyone at that committee hearing is either representing a government or is a UN NGO. The point is this proves the WTBS used there UN NGO status for something other then what they told us. They told us they had to be an NGO to get a libruary card which the UN Libraury says is not true. Because the WTBS has not been forth right with this issue many Jehovah's witnesses has simply left altogether. Others remain and ask for accountablity and truth.

Why does it matter whether or not we lie to each other? Why does it matter that we teach being no part of the world and then secretly have an alliance with the UN? Many Jehovah's witnesses believe we must worship with spirit and truth. Truth NOT lies.

All the evidence and links I have supplied are just a small sample. If you continue to question any point I make do it straight forward. Explicitly state it and I will show you more evidence for that point. Peace and love, Polemotheos January 27, 2005

 * OK, that's fair. Let's try discussing it in the spirit of peace and love. Please answer these questions:

 * When, where, to whom and under what circumstances did the WTB&TS say that "they had to be an NGO to get a [UN] libruary card"?
 * I carefully read the entire transcript of the hearing before the Official Committee Hansard of the Commonwealth of Australia (OCHCA) and respectfully disagree with your assessment of the significance of that hearing. Contrary to trying "to curry favor" from the government, the two representatives from the Austrialian WTB&TS were testifying regarding issues of religious freedom(s) in Australia and globally, particularly concerning France, Singapore and Russia. In what way is standing up for your rights using legal means a bad thing? The apostle Paul made use of his Roman citizenship to advantage. Did that make him an "apostate"? I don't think so.
 * I was most certainly not trying to misrepresent anything that you said or wrote. You did write that "There is growing resistance to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York by Jehovah's witnesses themselves." You then wrote several different things, of which the link to the OCHCA hearing was just one. My point then and my question now is this: how do any of those things support of prove that assertion?

 * I look forward to your answers! --DannyMuse 08:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is another webforum discussing Jehovah's witnesses views of the UN NGO lies Polemtheos Jan 27, 2005 ps try doing a web search.

 * Polemtheos, I went to one of the links you provided for "evidence" of the WTB&TS lies and was immediately greeted with this lovely referral link:

 * Learn about the Wtbts and the U.N. -http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69

 * Needless to say, the web address alone was enough for me to avoid wasting my time going there. Please only include links of an academic or scholarly nature appropriate to the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia. Thanks! --DannyMuse 08:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to be deceptive? Or have you just acidently mixed up the links? http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/ did not have the link you suggest it has. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/21575/1.ashx did have that dead link. None the less ignore the http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/21575/1.ashx this link because the http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/ link is evidence enough.

1. here is the WTBS letter saying they did it to get libruary access. You should read this open letter to answer all your questions and direct you to pertainent evidence.

2. "to curry favor" is a term I borrowed I believe from the wt 1991. Did you read it? I can change that express or just remove it. It does not matter to me.

3. "There is growing resistance to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York by Jehovah's witnesses themselves." Maybe I can remove the "growing" part and we would all be happy. Then I don't have to prove growth by statistics.

 * That would be a step in the right direction. However, you still need to be able to prove your statements with independently verifiable sources. That's in keeping with Wikipedia's cite your sources policy. --DannyMuse 17:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/ngo-un/rest-un/2001/1030j.htm DannyMuse obviously does not want you to read. Because he deleted it. As if I would forget what I said. I said Global policy says everything I have said. I was wondering if global policy was uninformed as I am? Please dont delete this again it is important evidence.

Polemotheos jan 28, 2005

 * Polemotheos, Yes, I did mix up the links. And for that I apologize. I had several windows open and apparently pasted in the wrong web address. But you knew that the link I referenced was real as you immediately supplied the correct one. I made a mistake. I resent your accusation that I was trying to be deceptive. Your true colors are becoming readily apparent. I'm trying to work with you here, but your adversarial tone makes it very difficult to even want to.

 * I did NOT intentionally delete your other link as you stated. Last night you and I were both making edits to this page at the same time and WP dumped as a result of an edit conflict. I lost my own edits as well and had to re-type them. It happens. Blame WP's software. --DannyMuse 16:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Remember Korah? Aaron's rod budded. - Numbers 17:8 (see also w02 8/1 pp. 10-12 para. 8-22) --DannyMuse 16:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the mix up. I suspect that you would not use the theocratic warfare strategy on me. See what happens when your allowed to lie to your own brother. We can hardly even trust each other. Yes I remember Korah but I am not going to hide liars from retrebution. Otherwise I would be guilty of there lies. You may enjoy these scriptures;

(John 8:44)"YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]."

(James 3:14-15)"...do not be bragging and lying against the truth."

(Colossians 3:9)"Do not be lying to one another..."

(1 John 2:21)"...no lie originates with the truth."

(Revelation 21:27)"But anything not sacred and anyone that carries on a disgusting thing and a lie will in no way enter into it; only those written in the Lamb’s scroll of life [will]."

 * This is a form letter, not a compilation of personal letters by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not proof that hundreds of JW's are resisting the WBTS.

 * I would add that it is an UNSIGNED letter. As Bob Marley said, "Stand up for your rights." If people want to speak out they shouldn't hide their identities. Even Korah didn't do that. --DannyMuse 18:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * According to the Guardian article (which initially I read three years ago) the WBTS withdrew their membership after many JW's expresssed their disapproval, not before. Therefore the action seems to be one of recognition of their mistake. I find it hard to believe that so many JW's would be part of a growing resistance if action was taken as quickly as it was. The WBTS has admitted its' fallibility in the past and this may be another incident. Fo course I feel they were mistaken in this endeavor, but that does nor make me want to become part of some "reisitance" movement. I personally know of no one who is part of a "resistance" movement.

 * george 17:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"WT says NGO questioners 'ignorant or malicious'?" http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/viewtopic.php?t=599 This is just one thread of many. 111 replies 4093 views. Just to inform you every witness on this discussion board views lying as wrong. And they all view the UN NGO affair as hypocrisy of the highest caliber.

I already removed the word "growing". Maybe the word "resistance" can be changed as well to maybe something that better describes the situation. Civil disobedience? Any way that letter that you read that was sent to thousands of witnesses does indeed prove "resistance" by many witnesses. It was a group effort to send out many of those letters and to obtain many of the addresses. Why would that count as resistance or civil disobedience? The simiple fact is any that had a part in this the WTBS wants to disfellowship. If you had there personal information you would probably do the same. That would be a good definition of resistance. Putting loss of friends and family at risk to spread the truth.

 * How does one "letter ... that was sent to thousands of witnesses ... prove "resistance" by many witnesses."? Where's the logic in that?!? --DannyMuse 19:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Polemotheos, you claim you are my "brother" but you don't treat me like one. Remember, Jesus said, "By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves." (John 13:35).

 * BTW, Sarai (Sarah) could say that she was Abram's (Abraham) sister because she really was his half sister. (Genesis 20:12) --DannyMuse 18:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, brethren. This is unacceptable. What shall we do here? Thanks for all your efforts. Tom H. 19:11, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I could join the discussion.
 * I could take the baton from Danny Muse and George m.
 * I could discuss this issue via e-mail with Polemotheos.

Tom do what you believe is just to reach the wiki goals of being non-biased. I don't believe my brothers here want to see a disenting view of the WTBS even though I were to have evidence running out of our ears.

DannyMuse an important part of showing love is telling the truth even to those that do not want hear it. Danny notice that Sarah and Abraham were lying to protect Abrahams life from being killed by the Egyptians. You will notice every instance of lying that was acceptable is where people are threatened of death. For example if the Nazi wants to know were you live I will say who is Danny? (imagine I know you well). This to protect your life. But take notice lying to keep face is not supported by the scriptures. The WTBS has lied to keep face not to protect people from death. Not all instances of lying is acceptable to perserve life. For example is a Nazi says sign this paper and I will let you go. Well you can sign but lie and this would be wrong especially if it has to do with neutrality and Jehovah.

Peace and love, Polemotheos 19:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lets imagine for a second that I commit fornication. Now you Danny and George and Tim say that is hypocritical of me to do so and at the same time teach that it is wrong. Well because of your constant questioning I stop fornicating. But I never admit to fornicating. I say well I was just visiting a friend who happened to be the libruarian. But because you three keep questioning me I say you questioners are either 'ignorant or malicious' you should just trust your brother. Now I am an elder, you have seen the evidence of my fornication. You even keep talking so much about my unrepentent sin I have all three of you disfellowshiped.

Pray about it. peace and love, mars Polemotheos 20:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this turned into a religious discussion; we are supposed to be working out why you feel that your statements suggesting "thousands of JWs" are resisting the legal entity of WBTS because of hypocrisy. In my humble opinion, what you have given so far as proof of this simply confirms the WBTS' affiliation with the UN, not that it has caused a rift in the organization and adherents to the religion.  Asserting that 'more people would be upset if they knew' is also not adequate reason for adding it to Wikipedia.  Perhaps the factual statement that the WBTS has had an affiliation with the UN would be acceptable to add, but not that said affiliation has caused thousands of JWs to question the WBTS. -- uberpenguin 00:16, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

It turned into a religious discussion because DannyMuse was trying to establishing the Theocratic Warfare Strategy as supported by the bible by his elusion to Sarah and Abraham lying to perserve Abrahams life.

 * Actually, now you Polemotheos are not being accurate. That is NOT what I said. You brought up the Theocratic Warfare Strategy, not I. I merely pointed out what you overlooked, Sarai (Sarah) could say that she was Abram's (Abraham) sister because she really was his half sister, (Genesis 20:12). Look it up. Please don't attribute false motives to me or others. It only alienates us. --DannyMuse 07:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have showed you 200 Jehovah's witnesses on http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/ here is another with 160 members http://pathways-online.com/ Those are just two of many forums and are very pro-JW but not PR for the WTBTS. It is understood that when a minority opinion develops on a particular point within such a group, it should be presented along with the opinion of the majority. This prevents an encyclopeadia from being biased.

I have not suggested puting "thousands of JWs" in the artical so why would I need to prove it? Here is a letter that proves elder disention of WTBTS actions. (protecting child molesters)
 * Tell me, what is 360 / 6*10^6? I don't think that 360 persons who for one reason or another disagree with the WBTS is adequate justification for adding the information you are endorsing.  It is an utterly insigificant fraction of people compared to the number of JWs who agree with the WBTS' actions.  This information belongs on a page about critical opinions of JWs, not on the general page since this is not a generally or even significantly held belief.  I can find you 360 people on the Internet who will vehemently defend just about any idea.  There is a difference between a minority and an insignificant fraction.  What kind of sanity would there be in Wikipedia if we included in the article on Catholocism the dissenting views of every group comprising 8*10^-7 % of Catholic adherants?  I respect your opinions critical of the WBTS, but they are not share by the overwhelming majority of JWs and therefore do not belong in this article. -- uberpenguin 22:59, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

watchtower.ca
External Link I restored the external link to archive/collection site Watchtower.ca; since this had been added/discussed/accepted before, can I assume that we don't need to start the discussion all over again? Note: I did not label it as "Opposing" since it is entirely a collection of quotes from Watchtower Society; labelling Watchtower's own quotes as "Opposing" is a non sequitor. (Unsigned)(PM Jan 6, 2005)

I have never had a problem with the inclusion of the watchtower.ca link being listed on the page, until today when I noticed am argument by someone in favor of it was left as a hidden message on the page it reads as follows:

 * Watchtower.ca: A collection of Watchtower quotes on various topics. NOTE: This site is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. 'Some have suggested this site is dishonest or intended to be biased against the Watchtower Society; others fail to see how quoting from Society publications, without commentary or editorial, could be anything other than fair.''

 * --The quoted text of the "disclaimer" regarding this website was directly copied from the site itself. It is interesting to note the name of the website considering that it has no legal affiliation with the WTB&TS. Why would they do that? (Matthew 7:15) --DannyMuse 07:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) Why do people keep deleting this link to this resource? And why do people keep mislabelling it as "Opposing Views"??? It only have **Watchtower** Quotes, how could the Watchtower present an opposing view? ANSWER TO DannyMuse: Because it is a collection of quotes from the Watchtower society, that is why they do that. What do you want it to be called, www.CatholicChurch.com??? Now *THAT* would be dishonest, for this particular site. ;) Furthermore, the word Watchotwer existed in the english lexicon long before the Watchtower Society existed, therefore there is no legitimate claim to proprietary use solely by Watchtower (PM) Jan 6, 2005 --'''

Therefore I removed the link and notes and moved them here, then I left a message of my own:

 * -- Since "quoting from Society publications, without commentary or editorial" does not help in any way as an encyclopedic reference, I see no reason why the watchtower.ca link should be in the article anywhere. The Society's website is linked and many articles are avaible for reference there. --

I also encouraged the anon to discuss the topic here.

george 14:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response to George M: I *ALREADY* put something here on discuss, look up.... look WAY up, at the VERY TOP of this page. How could you have missed this? My apologies if I should have put it at the bottom, I am still learning wiki procedures. But seriously, it is the first thing you see when the page loads.

Let's look at the facts: Watchtower.ca is a collection of quotes from the Watchtower Society; nothing more, nothing less. (I ask you to prove otherwise, if that is your claim). Certain people here keep labelling that site as "a source to be used by opposers" but it is unclear HOW direct quotes from our Watchtower Society's own publications could do this, and quite frankly it is an unproven, judgemental, hurtful statement; that is why I added the note to point out the non-sequitor (made by DannyM IIFC). This website was discussed and added over a month ago, but I guess you forgot about that, my friend. Finally, if a topical, one might even say, encyclopedic, NPOV collection of quotes from the Watchtower Society is not appropriate to be linked from here (as a source of additional factual information about Witness beliefs, as published by the Society, and therefore A BETTER SOURCE OF INFO than this wiki, because it is entirely from PRIMARY SOURCES, then I sincerely, and in the spirit of wiki, question your POV. People come to Wiki to learn about Witness beliefs, in a fair and factual NPOV manner, but then you object to them actually learning, "straight from the horses mouth", what Watchtower has said on many and various topics. Really, I don't understand your logic. Please elaborate.

Also, could you be more specific about what you found offensive in my hidden note? It was supposed to be tonge-in-cheek, that is what the ":)" meant, and was a response to an unfounded accusation from DannyM that the site was for "opposers". Editing whatever you found offense would have been a reasonable response. - 17:06, 6 Jan 2005 69.197.198.116 (Unsigned)

To 69.197.198.116 (Unsigned), I was in no way offended by your remarks, I just found them to be less than encyclopedic. I stated that I really had no problem with the link but that your comments actually made me realize watchtower.ca was superfluous in this context. I am sorry if I came across as offended.george 00:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh please, let's cut the rhetoric. It's obvious from even a cursory perusal of the site that the quotes highlighted on watchtower.ca are carefully selected to cast an unfavorable light on the WTB&TS. To say otherwise is just plain dishonest. Most of them are old, some very old. One of the first I came across was dated 1882 yet it is "presented" as if it something that JWs currently teach. Balancing, current quotes are "conveniently" not referenced. We all know that some of the beliefs of JWs have changed over the years. If you don't like that join a religion that never changes.

 * Secondly, it's not hard to figure out that the reason the site is named watchtower.ca is to give the unwary and unsuspecting the impression that it might be somehow connected with the WTB&TS. The webpage even has the WT logo! Nevertheless, the site does contain the disclaimer:

 * NOTE: ''This site is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

 * I put the following hidden text in to warn editing JWs about the nature of this site:

 * The quoted text of the "disclaimer" regarding this website was directly copied from the site itself. It is interesting to note the name of the website considering that it has no legal affiliation with the WTB&TS. Why would they do that? (Matthew 7:15) --DannyMuse 07:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * If anyone finds those statements or question offensive, I suggest they ask themselves why. In the meantime, I recommend we restore the link as:

 * Watchtower.ca: A collection of Watchtower quotes on various topics. NOTE: ''This site is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

 * placed under External Links and leave it at that. --DannyMuse 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't the anon who added it this last time around, although I did add it when I did the edits that George later reverted. I think it's a very useful site for showing the history of the Witnesses and some of the oddities of the organization that newer members often aren't aware of. I am open to other suggestions, however.

I do think that given how much controversy the Witnesses generate, it's only fair to have some oppositional links in the external section. I would suggest the following two (and for the record, I don't agree with CARM, I'm merely trying to represent all viewpoint here):

 * CARM: Jehovah's Witnesses A critique of the Witnesses by the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

 * I would strongly object to the CARM site being included as it obviously is seriously lacking credibility. Much of the writings are in the first person and show a gross lack of objectivity. --DannyMuse 02:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Which site are you objecting to, CARM or BeyondJW? The WTS official site is not remotely objective either. The point of the resources section is to include a balanced collection of links. --Danglick 23:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It is the CARM site I object to for the reasons stated above (sorry for not being more clear.). However if those objections fit the BeyondJW site I would object for the same reasons (I did not check that one out). Of course the WTB&TS official sites are "not remotely objective". But this site IS about JWs! I clearly understand your position that it should "include a balanced collection of links." That's fine, just as long as they meet some type of standard of credibility. The CARM site is just plain amateurish. --DannyMuse 04:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Beyond Jehovah's Witnesses A site for people who:

 * have left the Witnesses
 * are thinking of leaving
 * have been forced to leave
 * are thinking of joining

 * Can anyone, for "balance", direct us to websites for people that have left or are thinking of leaving or have been forced to leave the:

 * Catholic Church?
 * Jewish Faith?
 * Islam?
 * Mainstream Protestantism?

 * There is not a similar cite included on the WP Main Article page for any of those religions, so why should such a cite be included here for JWs? There is no good reason. Intolerance and prejudice are ugly things and are inconsistent with Wikipedia's purpose and intent. Pejorative language and links to cites that incite malicious propoganda certainly have no place on the web pages of the religions mentioned above nor should they be included as part of this article! --DannyMuse 08:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally, for balance, an independent pro-JW apologetics site as well:

 * Jehovah's Witnesses United An unofficial apologetics site owned run by active Jehovah's Witnesses

I've also gone ahead and added an academic page from the University of Virginia, which I think should be pretty non-controversial.

--Danglick 01:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Whatever ends up being included should be based on some type of standard for credibility. There are tons of sites by disgruntled individuals that just want to rant. That is not helpful. (If anyone wants to go there, let 'em Google.) Also, I would suggest grouping whatever sites make the grade as "Links Critical of the Group" under the "External Links" section. I found this title on the Freedom of Mind page for Jehovah's Witnesses. This should be less objectionable than "Opposing views". --DannyMuse 02:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 10


text:
Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 11

Links Critical of the Group
After carefully reviewing the WP pages for:

 * Catholic Church
 * Mainstream Protestantism
 * Jewish Faith
 * Islam

it was evident there were not any links included on the WP Main Article page for any of those religions to webpages that were, overtly or otherwise, critical and/or hostile. So why should such links be included on the JW main page? There is no good reason. Only sites that have scholarly and/or academic merit should be worthy of inclusion on this page. As I stated previously on January 11, 2005, intolerance and prejudice are ugly things and are inconsistent with Wikipedia's purpose and intent. Pejorative language and links to cites that incite malicious propoganda and anti-religious rhetoric certainly have no place on the web pages of the religions mentioned above nor should they be included as part of the JW main article! If any one has the compelling need to have such a site listed on Wikipedia let them place them on the Links Critical of the Group WP page, a new page created expressly for that purpose. It is my recommendation that any such derogatory sites added to the JW main in the future page be moved there as an alternative to being summarily deleted. --DannyMuse 07:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Support in concept. Oppose in implementation.  Let's avoid proliferation of articles.  Cannot these links be placed in an article more generally about the struggle of Jehovah's Witnesses in greater society? Tom H.

 * Tom, as always your comments are helpful and as such are greatly appreciated. Could you please be more specific about what you envision as a possible implementation? Thanks! --DannyMuse 19:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It appears that anon user 84.64.55.154 has come up with an alternate solution via a link to Critical Views of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses' Organisation) Should we wait and see the reaction of others with the same/similar viewpoint as 84.64.55.154? In the meantime, I thought about deleting the other webpage I proliferated the other day, but decided to Redirect it to the new page to avoid dead links and maintain a history. --DannyMuse 16:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The slow Wikipedia has got me down and lost my edits yesterday. Tom H. 20:36, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think a Wikiproject Jehovah's Witnesses is needed so you can build up participants and start developing some standards and organization to the articles.
 * As far as what to do about critical links, I think you are headed in the right direction, except that the "Links" article is not encyclopedic. I think it belongs in a larger article.  The LDS project has two pages in this category.
 * Mormonism and Christianity discusses the historic development of strained relations between LDS churches and mainstream Christianity
 * Anti-Mormonism discusses the development and activities of the anti-mormonism movement
 * Tom H. 20:36, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Tom, those seem like reasonable suggestions to me. However, I see two problems:

 * 1 - I doubt that the active JWs would be too interested in working on this. I know I'm not.
 * 2 - With a few exceptions, the individuals that for the most part contribute the type of content that would belong in articles such as you suggest don't seem to read these talk pages.

 * How did the Anti-Mormonism articles get started? --DannyMuse 18:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow. That's a good question.  I could ask User:Visorstuff or User:Frecklefoot, but I think they got started as an effort to consolidate an overview of views and activities unfriendly to Mormonism.  When I happened on the Wikipedia in late 2003, some of the Mormonism articles were atrocious and resembled Usenet discussions with sentence by sentence tit-for-tats between apologists and critics of Mormon subjects.  As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.  As it turns out,the controversy articles really helped (I mean a lot!) to reduce the tendency toward entropy in the Mormonism area. Tom H.

 * A few months back an editor started a WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. I wasn't too hip on the idea, but over time, several (about a dozen) have signed up as participants, and I have found it is a nice page to have on my watchlist where issues general to the Mormonism area are posted and discussed.  We develop styles, definitions, and article organization there, and it is really working out well.  I never would have started it, but I am glad somebody did.  Tom H. 19:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would like to address your two points: Tom H.
 * - Yes, you are correct. Since necessity is the mother of invention, this will not happen until somebody sees it as the only way to save themselves endless cleanup in this area. Tom H.
 * - You are correct. In the spirit of what our WP:NPOV doc says, the regular JW editors will write these articles "for the enemy" and do it only when they see it as the only answer to their desperation. Tom H.

 * Hmmmm. Lemme' ponder that awhile. --DannyMuse 19:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say I feel editing a page about ex or anti JW websites and information is not something I want to be involved with. These people's goal is to destroy the faith of JW's -- they offer nothing in place of the faith they want to destroy. That is the way I feel about it. Left to their own I feel they with not produce anything that resembles an academic entry. I know this sounds harsh, but if you look at their history here on WP you will find that all of these have been one time or short time contributors. Every time I have had to produce references refuting misrepresented or false information they have disappeared. See the Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust page or the archived talk pages here for examples of this.

So, my opinion is: Let them have their page and watch how bad it gets.

Gosh this sounds awful, but it is true. george 18:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * George, would you take a moment to analyze these two articles and tell me if you think something analogous for JW's would be worth your cooperation? Mormonism and Christianity Anti-Mormonism. Tom H. 20:01, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Tom, I apologize for the force of my response but not the sentiment. I will look over the articles and try to be open minded. I cannot make any promises. Thanks for your patience.

 * george 16:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you may find some insights. Tom H. 19:08, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Messages to Contributors
Tom: I have today added a response in Archives 7 regarding meeting Jehovah's Witnesses. --JW-somewhere 17:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Under Publications: Added "their current understanding of biblical teachings" to more accurately describe that changes of the group's message communicated via publications and the evangelizing work, are due to their developing understanding of bible-based teachings, as well as complex biblical prophecy and fulfillment; as opposed to the previous statement "the groups most current doctrines" which implied (from my perspective) a constantly changing set of beliefs not based on the bible but something else entirely.

 * Under Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses: Added a remark noting the group's teaching of non-violence towards physical opposition found at the referenced scripture. - 3dleo [Unsigned]

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that one shall not defend oneself if physically attacked. There is a difference between that and the principle about not participating in warfare. The article about the Memorial belonges to the article Practic es of JW. That would be more right.

I think this whole article has been changed more than most others, and the changes have not always been to the better.

Summer Song

Summer if your saying "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that one shall not defend oneself if physically attacked." was in reference to the UN Charter I garentee the UN Charter had nothing to do with the self defence you speak of. 'Armed force' means weapons and military. Are you suggesting that Jehovah's witnesses with use fire arms and kill if necessary to protect 'oneself if physically attacked.' Shall I quote Jesus on turning the other check? Polemotheos

Uh-hem - May I butt in? You ALL need some time away from this article
Although I commend this group for seeking to work through the issue, I must say that the name-calling, accusations, "reverting," deleting and adding in of the same informaiton over and over is getting too close to being an edit war and frankly unacceptable behavior. I'm protecting the page for the weekend - and I would encourage each group to continue healthy discussions on this talk page after the weekend off (of this subject). I hope a solution can be reached peacably. My only suggestion would be to think if this information is essential to the JW page, or if it would be better served on another page about the topic or controversies on the topic. -Visorstuff 20:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Visorstuff (at my request and after his own careful review) protected the page in an un-endorsed form. Protection does not endorse any form of an article. That is why I didn't protect the article myself. I didn't want to be tempted to choose a version. We now have the privilege of coming to an agreement here so we can unprotect and fix the page. I will read through all this discussion and try to help. It may not be fun, but it will be worthwhile. Give me a while to really try to understand the core isue here. Thanks. Tom H. 20:40, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * One last comment before I take a break:

 * This subject is not about criticism of Jehovah's witnesses which is what the title of the page is. It is about criticism of the Watchtower society. I am not opposing its' existence, just its' existence on this page. The information about a JW "resistance" cannot be verified. If the claim is to be made then it should be qualified as such. No one stopped the AJWRB link from being added to the "Criticism" page. No one will fight the inclusion of this information there. That, is where it should be.

 * I apologize for being a bad editor this week.

 * george 21:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Memorial Partakers
Main page should have either a link to the current published statistics or should have a note or reference to look at the link that pertains to who partakes of the emblems.

Unless a person knows prior to reading paragraph in question they won't know the particulars and where the expounded information is listed.

I'm at a loss of how you wikipedia admin's and editors know the information and can quote from the Watchtower Library CD when this Cd is meant for baptized publishers of Jehovah's Witnesses only.

But since there have been edit's referencing the Library CD, which is obvious by the abbreviation of such, please look this Watchtower w51 1/15 pp. 57-61.

If you have a 1995 or 1999 Library CD the wording on the License Agreement doesn't state you can't post copyrighted information on the Internet. On the 2003 Library CD it states not to post copyrighted information on ANY type of network, including the Internet in all it's forms. First in the form of a letter with the words "please" so nicely put from the Governing Body and then in legal verbage for the License Agreement.

See: Letter to the brothers and also a License Agreement in the Appendix of the Watchtower Library CD, 2003.

One final comment. Are any of you baptized Jehovah's Witnesses?

 * Who is asking? --DannyMuse 05:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd really like to know HOW you obtained a Library CD when you can only get one from another brother or by ordering it through your congregation literature counter at your Kingdom Hall and is available for baptized publishers only. If you are not a baptized publisher you will not be permitted to order the Watchtower Library CD.

 * Although I am not a part of the disucsion on this page, I am monitoring as I have protected and want to answer your comment above. First, it is not difficult to obtain a CD or find the contents in other ways. All you need to do is buy one online or find a dissafected Jehovah's Witness. Secondly, even though the copyright statement the states that it prohibits use, it does not supercede American copyright law, which allows for posting of copyrighted material in some cases in any medium. Movie and Music makers state similar copyright "threats" on materials (ususally in the form of an "unauthorzed use of this material" statement), even though they are not accurate. Once one owns the material/work, they do have some rights as to how they use/distribute the material, contrary to popular belief. Don't get me wrong, I do not endorse "unauthorized" use of copyrighted material or breaking of copyright law, but too often people don't realize there are some rights associated with buying a work. That said, (and secondly) there are many Jehovah's Witnesses who have contribed to this page and likely have the CD through an authorized channel. I may or may not agree with how it is used, but that is a entirely differnet disussion. Hope this gives some perspective. - Visorstuff 21:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use
According to the Fair Use statute one might post data from the 1995/1999 because of the wording of the License Agreement on those CD's. Since you, wikipedia, have no way of knowing which CD the information is coming from, I understand your point of view, and I hope others, those that might post information from the said CD's, will read this discussion and get a better understanding why copyrighted information has been edited (deleted) from all pages pertaining to Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.

New World Translation
I've seen posted quotes from the New World Translation on other pages. If they were posted by means of the CD's that's a violation of the License Agreement. The online legal representative of the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is watchtower.org and jw-media.org. All references to scriptures should point the readers to the link for the NWT online. Please make a note of this for the future.

Here is the link: http://www.watchtower.org/bible/index.htm

It's listed as "Read the Bible Online" OR "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" on the main page of the official web site for Jehovah's Witnesses.

Thank you for responding to my other comment. :)
 * Actually, just as we ought to be able to quote from other translations and other books, using them properly of course, we should be able to quote from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. (The laws in most contries prohibits the reproducing of large quantities of texts from a copyrighted source.) This makes it possible to discuss texts. You might have misunderstood proper use of the software from proper use of the texts therein. The software cannot be reproduced in any way (§§1, 3). You may give it to some other witness, provided you do not retain any copy.(§2) Data, however, you are granted to copy for noncommercial purposes, provided it is not a large section (§2). The same goes for anything you copy, really. You should be able to call it a quote.

 * Of course, there is no dispute that the official site is watchtower.org, but this is an encyclopedic site.

 * --7846 22:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2003 Watchtower Library CD - "Proper Use"
YOUR USE OF WATCHTOWER LIBRARY

1. What constitutes proper use? Watchtower Library has been designed for your personal use. Hence, you may copy, print, or excerpt from the data for your personal use. But you may not distribute the program or large sections of the data to others who do not own Watchtower Library on CD-ROM. Nor may you copy, print, or excerpt from the copyrighted data to prepare and distribute books. Please do not put the program or data on the Internet or any public network.

2. Who may have a copy of Watchtower Library? Watchtower Library is a research tool for Jehovah's Witnesses, not for the public or for institutions such as schools or libraries.

3. May I copy the program and data onto my hard disk and then not use the CD-ROM? Yes, that is possible with this version. Less disk space is involved when you access the data from the CD-ROM itself; however, the speed of some operations is significantly improved if the data is stored on the hard disk.

4. If I personally own several computers, may I copy Watchtower Library and/or its data onto these? Yes. 5. May I make a duplicate of my CD-ROM as a backup in case I lose or damage my original? Yes, but this does not refer to duplicating the CD-ROM for others, which would fall outside the realm of personal use.

6. May I write commercial software or utilities that employ the program or data from Watchtower Library? No. It is not proper to charge for or to receive money from writing or distributing any software that employs the Watchtower Library program, utilities, or data.

2003 Watchtower Library CD - "License Agreement"
LICENSE AGREEMENT

This is a legal agreement between you and Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania ("Watch Tower") for the material accompanying this Agreement, which include(s) computer software, electronic documentation, associated media, and printed materials (collectively the "Product"). By installing or otherwise using this Product, you are agreeing to the terms of this Agreement. If you do not agree to its terms, do not install or otherwise use the Product. Rather, return it to Watch Tower or transfer it to a user who agrees to be bound by the terms of this Agreement.

1. COPYRIGHT. The Watchtower Library on CD-ROM, including all data and programs contained therein, ("SOFTWARE") is owned by Watch Tower and is protected by United States of America ("U.S.A.") copyright laws, international copyright treaties, and other intellectual property laws and treaties. You may not copy the SOFTWARE or the printed materials ("Printed Materials") except as specifically provided in this Agreement. 2. GRANT OF LICENSE. Watch Tower grants you the right to use personally the SOFTWARE. You may not network the SOFTWARE or put it on or use it over the Internet. Subject to restrictions set forth in this Agreement, you may copy the program and data from the SOFTWARE to the hard disk of your personally-owned computer(s). Any data you copy shall be for your noncommercial purposes. You may not copy and distribute for commercial purposes portions of the data contained in the Product. You may transfer all the SOFTWARE and all Printed Materials to another party who is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses but only if that party accepts all of the terms of this Agreement, and such party's possession or use of the SOFTWARE shall be deemed to be such acceptance. If you make such a transfer, you may not retain any copies of the Printed Materials or SOFTWARE, and the SOFTWARE may not remain installed on your computer(s).

3. RESTRICTIONS ON USE. You may not do any of the following: transmit all or any portion of the SOFTWARE by electronic means, such as E-mail; post all or any portion of the SOFTWARE on the Internet, a public network, or any type of electronic message board; copy, print, or excerpt from the SOFTWARE to prepare and distribute books, booklets, or any compilation of Watch Tower’s copyrighted material; copy the Printed Materials; duplicate for distribution all or any portion of the SOFTWARE on any kind of compact disc or other duplicating device; print for any distribution an entire Watch Tower magazine, brochure, pamphlet, or book from the SOFTWARE; alter the SOFTWARE; reverse engineer, reverse assemble, reverse compile, disassemble, or decompile the SOFTWARE; sublicense or lease the SOFTWARE; use the SOFTWARE with other access programs; use or call subroutines (.DLL routines) provided by the SOFTWARE to create new or derivative works, including utilities; remove or obscure Watch Tower's copyright and/or trademark notices; use the SOFTWARE or Printed Materials for any commercial purpose.

4. LIMITED WARRANTY. Watch Tower warrants that the medium upon which the SOFTWARE is provided to you is free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use for a period of 60 days from the date of delivery. Watch Tower warrants that the SOFTWARE will perform substantially in accordance with the Printed Materials. DISCLAIMER. EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED WARRANTY SET FORTH ABOVE, THE SOFTWARE AND THE PRINTED MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED TO YOU IN "AS IS" CONDITION WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. YOU BEAR ALL RISK RELATING TO QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE. YOU ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SELECTION AND INSTALLATION OF THE SOFTWARE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SOME PORTION OF THE STATED EXCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS, AND YOU MAY HAVE OTHER RIGHTS THAT VARY AMONG JURISDICTIONS. WATCH TOWER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE DATA IS IDENTICAL TO WATCH TOWER'S PUBLICATIONS.

5. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Your exclusive remedy for Watch Tower's breach of its limited warranty shall be replacement of any defective medium returned to Watch Tower within the warranty period. In no event will Watch Tower be liable for any lost profits or any damages, including direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, or any other type of damages, arising out of this Agreement or the use of the SOFTWARE or the Printed Materials even if Watch Tower has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Because some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitations of liability for consequential or incidental damages, the foregoing limitations may not apply to you.

6. TERM AND TERMINATION. This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate it at any time by returning the original medium containing the SOFTWARE to Watch Tower and certifying in writing that you have destroyed all copies you may have made on any storage system or other medium. If you breach any of the terms of this Agreement, then Watch Tower may terminate this Agreement and require you to return the original medium containing the SOFTWARE, and you then must certify in writing that you have not retained or transferred any copy of the SOFTWARE.

7. OTHER PROVISIONS. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of New York, U.S.A., without regard to conflict of laws provisions. Any legal action relating to this Agreement shall be brought in a state or federal court having jurisdiction in the State of New York, U.S.A. Should any provision of this Agreement be held to be void, invalid, unenforceable, or illegal by a court, the validity or enforceability of the other provisions shall not be affected thereby. Failure of Watch Tower to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute or be construed as a waiver of such provision or the right to enforce such provision. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between you and Watch Tower concerning the Product.

A Consideration
I have read some of the material on this page, and honestly there are things I do not understand. Why are you engaging in petty discussions about things that are not remotely connected to matters of any importance to the article? Seriously, let us consider a whole different way of discussing subjects that are sensitive to some.

It appears some people here think it would be OK or even necessary to include things that are meant, not to add to the facts concerning who Jehovah's Witnesses are, but to try to showcase to people that they do not think Jehovah's Witnesses are who they appear to be.

It seems to me that, though this article is meant to present facts (hopefully based on some relible sources) concerning what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, it is not supposed to be a religious discussion.

Also, it is not supposed to be a discussion concerning whether or not someone think Jehovah's Witnesses are doing the right or the wrong thing in whatever they are doing. It simply does not serve the purpose of the page.

Take the example from above with the UN. Is it really so that Jehovah's Witnesses suddenly are friends with the UN if they use their library and sign a paper saying this or that for the purpose of accessing that library (which is a great source for researchers on matters of the world, by the way)? Is it not so, that even though they may have praised some of the programmes of the UN (that indeed serve mankind in a number of good ways), they have clearly taken their support away from the UN as a political body and as a replacement for the promised Kingdom of God? (Obviously, their access to that library was a stone for some to stumble on, and it seems to me they have since quit this their major affiliation with that library.) My point is - is this not the fact that we need to explain here? That they have clearly taken steps to remove themselves from the UN as a political body and have turned to the Kingdom of God as the only solution to the problems of mankind?

Also, opposing views, or links to sites with quotes meant to discredit, does it really belong here? Is there not another wiki page about views that are contrary to Jehovah's Witnesses edited by people trying to tell their "truths" about the Witnesses?

Therefore, I suggest the following agenda for editors of this page to have in mind:

Concerning "Common Misconceptions," mind you, this is not intended to become a battleground of rival ideologies, just a very simple "this is what people think Jehovah's Witnesses believe or do, but this is the truth." For example, some think Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifists, but what is the truth? Some think Jehovah's Witnesses would like to become martyrs, but what is the truth? If this sections can be maintained in a civilized way, I think it could be a way to easily clarify to people who these people knocking on their doors are.

--7846 21:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your respectful comments. There is much in what you say that is in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia, and the spirit of what you say is good.  I do think it would be helpful for you to be more intimately familiar with Wikipedia policy.  I invite you to read Neutral point of view to further refine your suggestions in compliance with the aims of Wikipedia.  Tom H. 21:19, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * When we are talking about a belief, and a representation of the facts of what this belief constitutes, I understand the regulations of wikipedia to mean that if I say "this is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe," then you are free to say that it is not so, or that it could be put another way. However, a discussion of whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses are right or wrong is a discussion that does not belong in this article. It can very well be published in some article talking about opposing views. However, the unbiased discussion in the case of this article would probably mean to accept that not all Jehovah's Witnesses believe the same things in detail. Example, some are for organ donations, some are against. We could very well present the reasons for both sides. However, in an article concerning a Bible topic, opposing views might meet and, to present an unbiased view, defend their specific understanding of that topic. But, this is not such an article. This is an article about a religious organization and their beliefs. Right or wrong? Take the battle to the right page. --7846 22:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Very good analysis. If there were significant points of view that JWs are harmful, wrong, smelly, or handsome, we would need to allow those points of view to be presented appropriately.  I suggest that it is up to the JW editors to consider this and figure out a hierarcy of articles that will be a credit to the Wikipedia.  As I suggested to George m, I think it would be useful to check the example of Mormonism and Christianity and Anti-Mormonism.  Until you hone the ability to "Write for the enemy", we are all going to have trouble tending this area of Wikipedia. Tom H. 23:05, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Published Statistics
Since the dispute seems to be over the number of participants of the Memorial I'll clarify. The online web site for Jehovah's Witnesses publishes the statistics as the yearbooks are printed. Since the 2005 year books have not been distribtuted and the new 2004 spreadsheet published onto the Internet, I am using what can be verified and not the number the we at the congregations know through internal channels, etc.

This way there can be no dispute from the public and the most accurate number publically known can be displayed.

Until such time as the 2005 yearbook and the compiled statistical analysis for the year 2004 is completed, I recommend the 2003 information be posted on all "JW" pages until such a time as the numbers can be linked to the the societies online anouncement site.

 * I don't think there is dispute over that point at the moment. (You can sign your posts with four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ . Tom H. 23:06, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

US Copyright Office - Fair Use
Although this law "Fair use" constitutes what one can post anywhere, it must be noted that this is a law for the United States of America, and not the entire world, which the Internet comprises or in other words, where persons outside of the United States may be either viewing said information or posting said information. This law is not binding on those individuals outside of the USA.

External Links U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States

[www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html US Copyright Office - Fair Use]

Memorial of Christ's death
Jehovah's Witnesses commemorate the Memorial of Christ's death, (also known as the Lord's Evening Meal or Lord's Supper), annually.

Jehovah's Witnesses commemorate the Memorial of Christ's death

With the link above people can find out the details since the paragraph brings up how JW's commemorate the death of Jesus Christ.

Lord's Evening Meal
There is a new page for this alternate Jehovah's Witness description of the death of Christ Jesus.

Compromise.

Add the brackets for Lord's Evening Meal instead.

Jehovah's Witnesses Critical of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
(I have added this here so that you can have time to examine it before it is added to the artical. If you question any phrase, link, or assertion please do so within 24 hours. That being the planed addition to the artical. I will gladly change any aspect of this and I thank everyone for helping me improve it so far. I have made many corrections thanks to all of your input. peace and love Polemotheos 18:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Note this may take more than 24 hours. In may take more than 24 days.  Tom H. 03:01, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

There is opposition to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York by Jehovah's witnesses themselves. The main reasons involve the WTBTS UN association, procedures involving pedophiles and the theocratic warfare strategy doctrine.

Unbeknownst to the majority of Jehovah's witnesses the WTBTS quietly affiliated with the United Nations. For ten years (1991-2001) they agreed to share the principles of the United Nations Charter which included 'armed force to be used in the common interest.' Jehovah's witnesses do not participate in warfare and neither do they support such actions. The WTBTS also agreed to 'conduct an effective information programme'. They agreed to keep the United Nations informed of this 'information programme,' including sending issues of there relevent publications. The WTBTS used it's UN NGO association to access committee hearings were they could get favorable support from the governments of the world.

The public and the average Jehovah's witness is told that the procedures involving pedophiles does not allowing a man known to have been a child molester to have a responsible position in the congregation. Yet the WTBTS has send a confidential letter to all bodies of elders with provisions to allow a former pedophile to have positions of responsibility in the congregations.

The theocratic warfare stategy is a doctrine used to excuse lies. The WTBTS holds that because there are biblical examples of lying to save people from death it can also be extended to lie to keep face. It has been well documented that the WTBTS has commited purjury in many court cases and even before the European Commission of Human Rights.
 * Excuse me, but what do these accusations have to do with who Jehovah's Witnesses are and what they believe? Do you really think this is the appropriate forum for these matters? Would it not be better if you did some better research and then published your thoughts concering it where they belong, which is anywhere but here? Why don't you create a site called "My Thoughts on Jehovah's Witnesses" or alike, if you think the world would benefit from knowing it, and then try to support your thoughts with well-founded facts and sources. Also, to be non-biased, allow for a response if there is someone out there who would claim that this is untrue or misunderstood, if you are interested in getting the truth about matters out in the open. Stop bringing these matters here! It is absolutely not in accordance with wikipedia principles of conduct. In short, this material does not belong here. --7846 19:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Porthos these "accusations" are by Jehovah's witnesses critical of the WTBTS. Jehovah's witnesses do not support criminal activities even if they are done by the WTBTS. For an encyclopeadia to be non-biased truth and yes sometimes the ugly truth must be revealed. I could not imagine a more well documented prose. We have a documents from a Phd and from the WTBTS themselves. These are not "my" thoughts but established facts of Jehovah's witnesses. The world is benefited by knowing the truth. If you question any fact or source could you point out which one and why? Being specific in a scholarly discussion is important to prevent ambigious claims from distracting further discourse. This has been part of a significant team effort of the editors of this page and other wiki police :) you will find in the NGO section of this very page. Thank you for expressing your conserns I hope this relieves the confusion experienced. peace and love, Polemotheos 20:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed, the world is benefitted by knowing the truth, but these "truths" are usually based upon facts that are somewhat misunderstood or distorted and has their base in the minds of people who are hurt, not necessarily sound minds. They do not stand scrutiny, and trying to clarify these matters to certain people is of little avail. But, if you wish, and other editors agree, we could set up a little section with claims like this in the form I will explain below, and then answers to these claims as far as any of us editors can find out. Regarding the UN claims, I have already written a standpoint of mine above.
 * Now to the form: A short explanation, in bold letters or gray table or  so, of the accusations made by certain people complete with sources. Then an answer with Jehovah's Witnesses response to these claims. Of course, being an organization that is persecuted in many countries and always preparing for persecution in any country, certain organizational matters are not public - but the principles are readily available to anyone. (These organizational matters may change given the circumstances. For example, as far as I have understood, when the Witnesses are banned from meeting together, they continue to meet, only now their places of worship are secret, even if you would ask, and they would change regularly. If you would ask "Do you meet at this or that place?" they would say "no" or "I don't know", or, more probably, nothing, even if their deepest wish, under normal circumstances, would be to tell you where they meet and welcome you there. When their litterature is banned, they do smuggle litterature - even though smuggling such things might be illegal - and their channels are kept secret. So are the names of the members of the organization if the members face problem with the governmental or judicial authorities because of being Witnesses. However, to lie is to tell false things to someone who is entitled to now the truth. According to Jehovah's Witnesses, who, as they say, answer to God, some things earthly authorities are not entitled to know, but the things they are entitled to know, they tell. Jehovah's Witnesses do not engage in needless deception.) --7846 21:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * My prose does not demonstrate critism for lying to protect people from being killed or protecting from violence by those that ban us. Seems you need to address or justify commiting purjury in court and before the European Commission of Human Rights. Polemotheos 02:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are so familiar with legal cases involving the Witnesses where purjury has occurred, why don't you inform us!--7846 22:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The problems I have, as mentioned before, and have not yet been addressed are:
 * This is a critism of the WBTS. The wikipage is about JW's. There is a solution to that problem which has been offered many times.

 * This is Jehovah's witness critism of the WTBTS. Here is a secret policy of the WTBTS that only a high ranking Jehovah's witness could have reveal. They reveal it because they oppose it. It is noterized, you can verify it if you wish. Polemotheos 02:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Your notarized letter proves nothing inappropriate that I could find. george 00:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Many letters have been sent to congregations regarding how to treat these matters. The principles are widely known to anyone who would do some research, or perhaps just ask. --7846 22:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no way to confirm that there are JW's who are opposed to the WBTS. I know that you have a discussion board with many posts, but the anonymity of that medium makes verification of the claims impossible.george 02:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I hope you like dialetics. Lets consider an anti-thesis; There is no way to confirm that you are a real JW that is not just some corporate crony paid to put pro-WTBTS propaganda on an open source encyclopeadia. The anonymity of this medium makes verification of the claims impossible. Do you think we should have en.wikipedia.org certify us to prove that what we write is indeed "JW"? What will the certification requirements be? You would probably like them to use the publisher cards just like the WTBTS. Maybe we can have the wikipedia call our local kingdom halls and certify us that way. Better yet lets just have www.watchtower.org write the wiki page for us. Or we could just copy paste from the WTBTS website. Anyone that would disagree with this corporation must not be a Jehovah's witness. Or so assumed. Polemotheos 02:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The fact is there are thousands of people that call themselves 'Jehovah's witnesses' if you will and at the same time do not agree with having a pediphile as an elder or ministerial servant. Yet this is in opposition to the offical secret view of the WTBTS. So you say to yourself because these people calling themselves "JW" want to follow the LAW (it is a crime by the way) in disagreement with the WTBTS they must not be real Jehovah's witnesses. So we must assume you believe braking the law to hide pediphiles is ok because WTBTS said so. Well God must have said so we reason. Polemotheos 02:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not want a pedophile to be an elder or ms but this discussion began about the UN and the WBTS. Now we are talking about child molesters, real or false JW's, corporate cronies,and a lot of other stuff that is unrelated to the issue. george 00:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Another aspect to consider is the disfellowshiping procedure for all those that disagree with the corporation. This is why many are anonymous besides safty. But you can look in my profile as I amoung a few do not believe in being anonymous. The WTBTS reads our web forum. And anyone they can find out who they are and what congregation they go to they set up a kangaroo court and disfellowship them. Polemotheos 02:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: This is beginning to sound a lot like conspiracy theory. Do you think that legal organization would bother to use this encyclopaedic source? I think not. And no matter what you think, you cannot be disfellowshipped for something you think, but I've written about this before. I'm tired of it.--7846 22:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well said. My opinion as well. Voices on anonymous discussion boards are just whispers in a dark room. They might maybe have been Witnesses, but are either outside or on their way out. Nobody can rightly claim that they know that anyone here is a Witness, unless they have met them in person. The opposite is also true. I'm not sure either that this person would want anyone to try to dissect his statements and provide a response. My experience is that they would not want to listen to any truth. However, as this material is spread to other people who might not know the reasons of the positions of Jehovah's Witnesses, it could be a good idea to publish those positions and the reasons here. Without, of course, making it a battleground. Further responses on how this could be accomplished, and if it could be accomplished at all, would be welcomed. --7846 00:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * porthos must be your real name I suppose. Or are you a whisper in a dark room? Feel free to disect away. Maybe you can call the headcourters of the WTBTS and they can help you. Sounds intresting what you have to say though. Something to think out. Polemotheos 02:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please let's always log in and use four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ to sign our names for clarity. I submit that arguing with Polemotheos will not make him go away. And Polemotheos, perhaps a softer sell would work better. I have already recently suggested to George m that there needs to be a WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses to forge standards, organization, and policies on how to present issues like this. But this article is a good way to begin. Then once good feeling and understanding has been achieved, you might want to start a wikiproject. I advise you all that if you want real success, this is going to take months, not days. So relax, think these things through on your pillows at night, pray for answers, and try to understand each other in new ways. Tom H. 02:59, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that this fellow is always this annoying? I am right now working on what might become a Q&A concerning the issues he cannot seem to leave behind. We're all just whispers, and no matter what name I give, it could not be trusted, but do judge me from what I write to see if I am good at writing good wikipedia articles. I just have one question - why are some people so annoyed by. and try to "tell the truth" about, an American legal association? They do not govern what Jehovah's Witnesses think - not from what I have found. They're just a tool, for example for the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to convey spiritual aid. Or is it easier, you think, to do that than to actually bring forth any sound arguments with the idea in mind of really trying to understand their belief system? Of course, I have met some arguments concerning certain aspects of teachings, and some of them I have tried to examine in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures article. But such arguments are few and, frankly, quite unfounded. Of course, this article is supposed not to be a discussion concerning whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses are right in their beliefs, but to explain what they believe and what they are doing.
 * It is important to be accurate. To be accurate, though, you cannot write what was suggested by this fellow Polemotheos. The presentation is biased in a way not suitable in an encyclopedia. But I cannot see why the issues cannot be met, also clarifying why these matters are the way they are. I'm not sure it would help Polemotheos, but it would sure help honest information seekers.

--7846 11:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

rewrite
I would like to thank everyone for there efforts to work with me. I would like to retract all my positions, claims, etc. I have come to the conclusion that the things which I have shared are symptoms. Symptoms of something more fundimental which I have not been able to articulate or define yet. Like a blind man describing what he thinks an elephant looks like by touch. Polemotheos 17:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By george 00:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Former Jehovah's Witnesses and a very few anonymous individuals who are currently Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The main reasons involve the WTBTS short term UN association, official procedures involving pedophiles and the "theocratic warfare strategy" doctrine.

 * rewrite

 * Jehovah's Witnesses that were formerly associated with the WTS and hundreds of anonymous Jehovah's Witnesses currently associated with the WTS are opposed to many of the WTS doctrines and activities. The main reasons involve the WTS ten year UN association, official procedures involving pedophiles and the theocratic war strategy doctrine. Polemotheos 01:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

re-re-rewrite

Jehovah's Witnesses that were formerly associated with the WTS and hundreds of anonymous individuals who claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses currently associated with the WTS are opposed to many of the WTS doctrines and activities. The main reasons involve the WTS ten year UN association, official procedures regarding pedophiles and the "theocratic war strategy" doctrine. george 03:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) NOTE: Theocratic warfare strategy is not a term employed by Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watctower Bible and Tract Society.

 * You should read Watchtower 1957 5/1 "Use Theocratic War Strategy" Polemotheos 01:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)]

I did:

 * "A great work is being done by the witnesses even in lands where their activity is banned. The only way they can fulfill the command to preach the good news of God’s kingdom is by use of theocratic war strategy. By underground methods the literature is brought into the country and distributed. Would it make sense to hide this literature by one’s actions and then reveal its whereabouts by one’s words when queried? Of course not! So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth. It is done unselfishly; it does not harm anyone; on the contrary, it does much good."

Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

I don't think the issue at hand falls into this category.

 * Yes the issues is not that the teaching exists and has a proper use but rather the ways that it is and can be used in inproper ways. The earliest printed reference to the Theocratic Warfare doctrine in official Watchtower publications dates from 1936 in a book titled Riches.Polemotheos 08:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seems I was mistaken here;

This review aims to sharpen moral reasoning by exploring ethical dilemmas of corporate religion. An exercise to explore truth and the problem of corporate religion advocasy.

“A lie is a false statement made by one to another one who is entitled to hear and to know the truth, and which false statement tends to work injury to the other. A false statement made for the purpose of deceiving and working injury to another is a deliberate and malicious lie.” (Rutherford, Riches 1936, p. 177)

Judge Rutherford gives us the legalese definition of a lie through the paradigm of the adversary system. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is simply a farce. The working reality has lawyers producing 'true' evidence that is most favorable to there own disposition and all to often obfuscate and mislead. Destroying opposing credibility even if there is knowledge that the opposition speaks the truth.

It's called the adversary system for good reason; “. . .When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]” (John 8:44). As William Blake once said “the truth that is told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.”

Rutherford's systemic influences were not calculated to produce truth but rather to reach a verdict. The manifestation is to maximize recovery of all losses to the Watchtower Society. Those not entitled to the truth are Jehovah's witnesses and everyone in the world that would question, criticize or oppose the Watchtower Society.

In this system the WTS would have us play the lawyers role were a regular Christain could not stand. The WTS even forces it's members to dress like lawyers, sales men, and politicians. Intresting how all those roles have the same view and definition of what a lie is minus noble exceptions.

The theocratic war strategy is little more than the Devils handy work. There is no Christain scripture to support lying in any form. Not even to save your own life. Refusing to answer a question that may endanger other people is always an option. But never lie, even to your enemies.

“YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens,. . .” (Matthew 5:43-45) Polemotheos 01:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "A lie is a false statement made by one to another one who is entitled to hear and to know the truth, and which false statement tends to work injury to the other. A false statement made for the purpose of deceiving and working injury to another is a deliberate and malicious lie." (Riches, 1936, p. 177)Polemotheos 08:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * For those that don't understand the entitled part; When ever telling the truth may have adverse short term effects on the WTS then that would indicate those people are not entitled to know the truth.Polemotheos 10:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Problem PM, is that this is your opinion of the situation and not a reliable factual point. That was not intended to be an insult or a dig or anything else antoagonistic. WP editors/contributors do not have the job of writing new commentary. If this is to be encyclopedic it must BE encyclopedic. Tom has suggested a wikiproject Jehovah's Witnesses, and this information would certainly have a place, but not on the page you want it on. We constantly move information to its' proper page. This is no exception. Why do you fight proper protocol? george 15:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My problem was searching for "theocratic warfare strategy" initially.(which was the original form offered in the proposed section) I wanted to find this article as I knew of its' existence.george 03:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Although the majority of Jehovah's witnesses did not know it, the WTBTS registered itself with the United Nations as a Non Governmental organization for a period of ten years. (1991-2001)   This meant  that they agreed to share the principles of the United Nations Charter which included 'armed force to be used in the common interest.'  This disturbed these because Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in warfare and neither do they support such actions. The WTBTS also agreed to 'conduct an effective information programme'. This required them to publish information about the activities of the United Nations. This was to involve keeping the United Nations informed of the 'information programme,' by sending issues of their relevent publications. The WTBTS used it's UN NGO association to obtain legal hearings to defend the freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses to practice their religion where none was available in certain countries. The Watchtower Society's representatives have maintained that they were led to beleive this action was necessary to gain and keep access to certain UN information and documents.

'''NOTE: I oppose the inclusion of this paragraph because it is misleading. '''

The public and the average Jehovah's witness is told that the procedures involving pedophiles does not allowing a man known to have been a child molester to have a responsible position in the congregation. Yet the WTBTS has send a confidential letter to all bodies of elders with provisions to allow a former pedophile to have positions of responsibility in the congregations.

'''NOTE: I oppose the inclusion of this paragraph because it is misleading. '''

The theocratic warfare stategy is a doctrine used to excuse lies. The WTBTS holds that because there are biblical examples of lying to save people from death it can also be extended to lie to keep face. It has been well documented that the WTBTS has commited purjury in many court cases and even before the European Commission of Human Rights.

 * COMMENT: A legal branch of Jehovah's Witnesses was an NGO in the UN for several years. This does not constitue a violation to the principles of Jehovah's Witnesses. Consider especially what they actually agreed to. (This can be done later!) This much can be said,though, they did not agree to support any warfare. This is not part of the principles (paragraph 2) any NGO has to agree on. An effective information programme was even before being an NGO carried out using, for example, Awake! and other publications. The purpose of becoming an NGO was to gain access to a library. It also included rights to attend (not to make any decisions at) certain hearings, that touched areas of use to them in their worldwide preaching campaign. When it was brought to their attention that some had questions about this affiliation, they stopped this. I am sure their information programme will continue, and I am sure they will keep on fighting for those who suffer working under ban and persecution.
 * Concerning peoples convicted of paedophilia, it is known that they are treated as any other wrongdoer in the congregation. That is, if they do not stop and change, they will be disfellowshipped. But if they change and show signs of repentance, there is no need for them to be disassociated with the congregation. Just as former rapists, murderers, and all sorts of other people are welcomed into the congregation, so are they. (Should you commit any of these things while being a Witness, ordinary judicial measures are taken.) An article on the subject, Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked in the Watchtower for january 1, 1997, stated: "Such ones do not sin as long as they control their urges. But if they are men, they may wisely decide not to ‘reach out’ for responsibility in the congregation while still having to struggle with powerful fleshly impulses. (1 Timothy 3:1) Why? Because they know the trust that the congregation puts in the elders. (Isaiah 32:1, 2; Hebrews 13:17) They realize that the elders are consulted on many intimate matters and have to handle sensitive situations. It would be neither loving, wise, nor reasonable for one waging a constant fight with unclean fleshly desires to reach out for such a responsible position." "For a man who was a child molester before he was baptized, there may be another consequence. When he learns the truth, he repents and turns around, not bringing that cruel sin into the congregation. He may thereafter make fine progress, completely overcome his wrong impulses, and even be inclined to ‘reach out’ for a responsible position in the congregation. What, though, if he still has to live down notoriety in the community as a former child molester? Would he “be irreprehensible, . . . have a fine testimony from people on the outside, . . . [be] free from accusation”? (1 Timothy 3:1-7, 10; Titus 1:7) No, he would not. Hence, he would not qualify for congregation privileges." The same article also states that the Bible in no instance say that an adult who sexually abuses a child cannot be forgiven, but also that there might be consequences he might notbe able to avoid. And, does he still have to struggle with his desires? An elder has to be "self-controlled." (Titus 1:8) There are various exceptions to these principles, of course, that are not discussed in this article. For example, time might show who a person is, and was he very young when it happened, etc. Worthy of a short note is also this: The Witnesses stress forgiving, but not necessarily forgetting, and the Witnesses might have a different understanding of what forgiving really is than. Ephesians 4:31, 32, states: "Let all malicious bitterness and anger and wrath and screaming and abusive speech be taken away from YOU along with all badness. But become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate, freely forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave YOU." (Compare Matthew 6:14; Learn From the Great Teacher, chapter 14.)
 * As the Governing Body representatives have also talked about, some cases were not handled properly, but this is mainly a matter of techniques being used at the judicial hearings. This has been a problem also for secular judicial systems, for example, the fact that there usually are no witnesses, and how do you judge where there is no physical evidence. In later years enormous progress has been made in this area, and the Witnesses has adressed it as the problem has surfaced.
 * Never has the Witnesses conducted theocratic warfare strategy just to save face. That would also serve no purpose. This strategy involves not telling the truth to someone who is not entitled to hear it. This person is someone who is threatening the Witnesses to make them stop preaching or to compromize. In this instance, the service for God takes precedence. Please note, though - the term "theocratic warfare strategy" is not used by the Witnesses, even though it has occurred in the litterature. The rule highlighted by the Witnesses many times in their litterature is - always tell the truth. One article said, "being devious or deliberately misleading others in order to avoid responsibility really amounts to lying." (The Watchtower, 9/15, 1987, p. 18) The article Lying - Is It Ever Justified? stated: "Of course, being truthful does not mean that we are obligated to divulge all information to anyone who asks it of us." The number one priority is, either say nothing or divert the conversation. (The Watchtower, 2/8, 2000, p. 21) So, using this kind of strategy is never easy on a Christian, but sometimes necessary. Although, never just to save anyone's face. It is my understanding that this very difficult thing is something that will continue - for the sake of making sure the Witnesses in various countries get their spiritual food, and persecution be kept at a minimum, etc.--Porthos 21:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:
Would someone with sysop priveleges please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese Wikipedia article on this entry? Here's the code; please don't use the vi: page's correct title, because this wiki doesn't support Unicode yet:

Nh%C3%A2n Ch%E1%BB%A9ng Gi%C3%AA-h%C3%B4-va

I'm assuming sysops here are allowed to do non-controversial things like this on protected pages? If not, can someone please do it when the page is unlocked? Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 23:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. Tom H. 02:47, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection
As soon as all the parties involved are ready to agree to avoid further edit wars and instead discuss issues here for the long term good, I will unprotect the page. Tom H. 03:17, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * I vote for leaving it protected a while longer. I just reviewed some of the last few day's activity on the Talk page ... some folks are still a little hot under the collar. --DannyMuse 07:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * In the spirit of positive discourse, I say keep it protected for a couple of days before letting P-mos reintroduce the information an the JW main page, because that seems to be the only place Pm will allow it to be. Trust me, I am not angry, I am just tired of fighting it. george 23:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no longer a dispute so Unprotection seems acceptable. george 14:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 11