Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 3 January 2006

What is the real issue?

Moving your complaint to your page Central 01:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  Central, if you really are sincere in merely writing an encyclopedia article, then why not tone down instead of stirring up more contention? Regarding your comments such as the ones you recently made on Duffer's talk page, Witnesses don't want to discuss these points with you. We have our reasons, and even if you don't like them, trying to force us to react differently will not be productive for you or anyone else. Your characterization of our faith does not represent an accurate picture of how Witnesses feel about it. It's as if you were trying to tell us that we really actually believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster when we know what's in our heads, and it's not noodly. Even if you don't respect how Witnesses feel about much of the material you present, you still have to be civil about it and edit faithfully, even trying to honestly think from our vantage point. Civil relations with Witness editors might help you gain that perspective.

  Whatever you feel your true motivations are, I simply do not understand why you persist. Are you trying to wear Witnesses down? Are you trying to make sincere and honest people suffer for the supposed sins of people who aren't even connected to them in any personal way? Do you make these efforts against any other religious group? How can the Witnesses alone be so wrong, and no one else deserve such attention? If your interpretations are truly beneficial, they should inspire you to build up instead of tear down.

  When you misquote passages from our literature, or misrepresent them, you do not reflect what is being studied by individual Witnesses, and their comments in the congregations. What Witnesses say and do in response to this point or that point (which happens to contradict your interpretation of it) shows to every Witness editing here that you do not really know what Witnesses believe. What happens within the congregations, and the living faith of each Witness, is so far removed from your presentation of our beliefs that it simply improper to insist to interpret in the manner that you do. I would expect Catholics, Buddhists, Taoists, animists, Wiccans -- anyone -- to react and object if they felt a supposedly impartial article on their faith was mischaracterizing them or putting them in a light that reflects only the opinions of those who dislike them. You may feel as if you're protraying "the real truth" about Jehovah's Witnesses, but the resulting image looks nothing like what Witnesses see in their faith, nor what onlookers see when they become interested in our faith as a possibility for themselves. It's just not the point, trying to disprove Witness beliefs at every turn. And honestly, I don't know who here would be able to sufficiently present your points as incidental material without strong views as to their accuracy, one way or the other.

  Regarding these articles, I have this sincere request: please stop interpreting what we believe for us, and resist the temptation to argue theological points in this academic forum. Even if you feel that some Witnesses are behaving improperly towards you in discussion pages, don't worsen the situation by responsing in kind. Two wrongs don't make a right, and regardless of our position and yours, the academic effort of portraying fairly factual information about Witnesses is our collective goal. I will talk to other Witnesses editing here about how they interact with you as long as you keep yourself civil. This can deflate reactionary replies, and cool off tensions. If you don't, then the whole thing blows out of porportion and way out of anyone's hands.- CobaltBlueTony 18:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll make this brief wading through your red-herrings, straw men, and off topic whining.

1. You said: "Regarding your comments such as the ones you recently made on Duffer's talk page, Witnesses don't want to discuss these points with you."

Matthew (Duffer) asked me to post on his page. He wanted to know what I believed in, and he brought up the subject (off topic as it was) and he was the one to want answers on his page or via email. So, I suggest very politely that you keep your damn nose out other's business, and stop the meddling and highly patronising big brother crap. Is Duffer such an immature child he cannot speak and think for himself without you emailing and manipulating him every five minutes telling him not to speak to Tom or I? (And I'm sure you also slander Tom and I behind our backs with your nasty little emails "don't talk to them Matthew, they're apostates bla bla bla")

2. You said: "how Witnesses feel about it. . . we know what's in our heads. . . from our vantage point. . . . their comments in the congregations. . . insist to interpret. . . etc."

You fail over and over to see that Misplaced Pages is here to represent accuracy, warts and all. Your subjective personal opinions, or "feelings", or other JWs' personal subjective opinions, thoughts, and fantasies are not to be posted here. They are all POV, not official doctrines from the "channel of God" and that kind of subjective propaganda is totally against all forms of objectivity. Nobody cares about the personal subjective interpretations of rank and file members, as they are not the ones to formulate the doctrines, or on the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, or "anointed", or part of the "faithful and discreet slave", and don't have any input into the doctrines and Bible interpretations of the Watch Tower organization. Please stop bridging this totally unsuitable propaganda here, as it will be strongly refuted and exposed for the machinations it is. The only information that counts is that which is officially sanctioned, and approved, by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. This is not the place for you, or anyone to come and say for example: "Well 99 percent of the publications do say that non-JWs will all die, but we believe they are all wrong in our imaginations, and the 1 percent that say 'we cannot comment' actually overrides all the others, because CobaltBlueTony feels, imagines, or saw it in the tea leaves." If you cannot prove a point with the officially sanctioned doctrines in print, then I'm sorry, but no one is interested in your subjective opinions.

3. You said: "you misquote passages from our literature, or misrepresent them"

Please give some specific proof of both of your unfounded accusations.

4. You said: "Are you trying to wear Witnesses down?"

"Can there be false religion? It is not a form of religious persecution for anyone to say and to show that another religion is false. It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion."—Watchtower 15 November 1963 p.688

"Therefore, how will you respond when pointed statements are made about false religious teachings and corrupt practices? Will you immediately condemn the person or organization making the exposé? Do you feel it is all right to teach lies and misrepresent God's Word, but wrong to expose the error? Contrary to what some may think, it is not unkind and unloving to lay bare falsehood and corruption."—Watchtower 1 March 1966 p.132

"God, who is himself "the God of truth" and who hates lies, will not look with favor on persons who cling to organizations that teach falsehood. (Psalm 31:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Revelation 21:8) And, really, would you want to be even associated with a religion that had not been honest with you?"—Is This Life All There Is? 1974 p.46

"How many are aware that adhering to false religion can mean their eternal destruction?… Are true Christians going to stand by quietly and say nothing about such gross misrepresentations? Hardly!"—Watchtower 15 April 1970 p.24 (more here if you are interested)

5. You said: "nor what onlookers see when they become interested in our faith as a possibility for themselves."

I'm sure they don't see what the Governing Body and organization really teach and has printed over the years, you bet! They are too busy being 'love bombed' and force-fed sugar-coated fluff, with a good dose of carefully worded Watch Tower propaganda and theocratic warfare if needed, when they ask any uncomfortable questions.

CobaltBlueTony, you need to really take some of your own advice, and also stop projecting your personal views as if they are somehow magically transubstantiated into official Watch Tower Society doctrines and policy. You may think you have noble aims, but you are sadly grossly misguided. You must also stop using this forum as a propaganda tool for your religion, we all know how much they demand their PR promotions are given top priority at all times, "seek the opportunity to 'give a witness' bla bla bla". But Misplaced Pages is not the place for JW double speak, outright lies, false IDs, red herrings, and endless straw men diversion when they are backed into a corner, and wounded egos when they don't get their own way. We have all seen that members of your religion do not put honesty as a top priory, especially when it's about how their religion appears to the public's eye. And before you start, I know a great many JWs, and know of how they are, and all the back stabbing and scandals that come out of the Kingdom Halls, so don't try the "your don't understand us really". I also have access to far more Watch Tower material, especially confidential documents, than you can ever imagine;-) Have a Happy New Year! Central 01:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I have invited you to my page to discuss theology, or perhaps some of the major tenets of your belief system as I am rather curious, however, the only thing you have talked about so far is Raymond Franz, and in that CBT is very accurate in saying that Witnesses really don't want to hear it. As my spiritual brother, I am CT's business (that's how we work, and a large part of why we work) and I welcome, and look forward to his input on any subject that he wishes to talk about with me.

2. To infer individual Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs differ from what the WT officially teaches is downright misleading, and even contradictory to yours and Tomm's derision. I don't think you really believe our beliefs differ from that of the official teachings, I think you believe we're lying to you (as you and Tomm have both stated to me multiple times). What we say on this site constitutes a teaching of the official Jehovah's Witness doctrine. If we were to LIE to you about such doctrine, we would be guilty of 'false teaching' and up for removal of congregational privilages and possibly even excommunication as apostates. What we say to you regarding our doctrine is not only accurate, official teaching, it is also what we believe, therefore you and Tomm both are guilty of unreasonableness.

3. How can you claim to be unaware of such an instance? It is such an important point to ensure accuracy of that I took it to the first step of conflict resolution (the Mediation Cabal). The quotes you presented, and the summaries of those quotes do not accurately reflect both the context of the quotes themselves OR official Jehovah's Witness doctrine. There's also the dubious 1980 letter that claims even "thoughts differing from official teaching is apostacy.." (or some such), now I'm not sure if that's you or Tomm, but either way, it's not only innacurate but not even conregational elders know of it. If the elders don't know of it then how can it be a doctrine to abide by, since they don't know it, how can they instruct the congregations to adhere to it? Nothing even remotely similar exists in ANY WT text, publication, article, etc.. Do you not see therefore that it is most certainly NOT an official teaching (on top of being 100% unverifiable).

4. Exposing a religion you believe to be false is not proper behavior for this website. You are more than welcome to your edits and criticisms as long as NPOV and accuracy are maintained. You and Tomm have repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot do that, on top of being rude, disruptive, verbally abusive, and uncompromising. You to a lesser extent, but Tomm to a degree where he really needs to be blocked entirely from editing for a reasonable amount of time. Look at Dtbrown, he cordially asked several questions, and even e-mailed me privately for further clarification, even though he still doesn't agree with me on that particular subject he was still constructive, and even-handed about it.

5. Another instance of point 3 (above). Your misconceptions about our 'theocratic warfare' doctrine are beyond unreasonable and patent absurdity. Not only that, but none of them say what you're infering. We preach, and teach, the truth in all parts of the world, so what on earth makes you think we'd give someone at their doorstep something less than?

.."oppurtunities to give a Witness.." Exactly, it is NOT: "..oppurtunities to give a FALSE witness." You accuse us of lying, ad hom yet when we say and prove you wrong you blanket your compromising abilities with your (perhaps intentionally) ignorant misconceptions about our 'theocratic warfare' doctrine. I know there's no such thing as true objectivity, but really man, try going for just a little bit (at least!!). Duffer 10:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I gave you eight points that I agreed on. If you recall, you were the one focusing on Ray Franz, and using that as some kind of excuse to ignore the eight points. As I have already said, he has nothing to do with collating them, formulating them, or sending them to the Governing Body. I put them up to show that JWs merely discussing these points in private has lead to multiple excommunications. I also put them here because I happen to agree with the points, not because they are on that letter, but because I came to that conclusion long before. If you choose to ignore all of them, then why did you ask for what I believe in if you are not really interested?

2. You said: "To infer individual Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs differ from what the WT officially teaches is downright misleading". Come on Matthew; let's be realistic about this. I know many JWs with all sorts of nutty ideas about what the future will hold for them, none of which are official doctrines of the Governing Body. What individuals believe is not what is relevant, it's what is official doctrine from the Governing Body that counts, not the 1001 different subjective opinions on each topic that rank and file Witnesses may concoct.

3. These points have already been answered before. Private confidential letters obviously would not appear in the Watchtower or Awake! magazines, because they are private, why is that so hard for you to grasp? The same with the Elder's manual, that is also not for the eyes of the rank and file members. If you missed it, someone has posted a copy of the letter your claim does not exist here: Page 1 Page 2. I look forward to your apology, although I doubt I will ever receive one.

4. Exposing the truth is essential, regardless of whether you or I think it might demonstrate your religion to be true or false. The readers can make their mind up from direct quotes, and links to the actual teachings of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, not the biases of the subjective interpretations of lower rank and file members, who as you know, have zero input into the formulation of doctrines/interpretations of the "channel of God" Governing Body.

5. You said: "misconceptions about our 'theocratic warfare'" I merely point to what your leaders have written about lying and the terminology they've used. I am not the author of those teachings.

You said: "We preach, and teach, the truth in all parts of the world, so what on earth makes you think we'd give someone at their doorstep something less than?" You gave me a laugh Matthew, "the Truth©". I like the way you start with a false leading question, talk about circular reasoning! You know very well how you are taught (and so do I) to deal with householders, and that is to give them only positive information, or something that may be relevant to their life at that time to pull the heart strings to draw them in, 'slowly, slowly, catch the monkey!' The Reasoning book is full of it. I've had enough conversations with JWs over the years that have knocked on my door, to know very well what they say on the doors, and that it is not a candid honest picture of what their organization officially teaches.

For example, most of them are totally clueless as to their religion's history, especially dates, and they will argue adamantly that the organization never said anything about the world ending in 1914, 1925, or that Jesus stated his rule in 1878 etc. They are not only grossly ignorant; they are rude with it, often accusing me of being unaware of their history, "what would you know anyway, you're not even a Jehovah's Witness", or they say I'm making it all up! When I get a few quotes to show them, they back off embarrassed and change the subject rapidly, instead of honestly admitting they know little of the religion they claim to be representing. The same with all subjects, only a half view is given, the full version (in the literature) is not even admitted to if it makes them look bad, judgemental, stupid, hash, or cruel. JWs on the doors have been some of the most evasive and ignorant people I have ever spoken to, many of them are ignorant/rude and will just talk over you if they can see they are going to lose face, or change the subject quickly, and refuse to even let me speak. Most of them cannot even explain their doctrines using just the Bible. It's interesting to see them squirm if I say: "Can you show me that in the Bible, and explain it without using your Watch Tower literature?" So, Matthew, please don't claim JWs are candid on the doorstep, as you well know as I do, that this is certainly not the case.

You said: "when we say and prove you wrong" Some specific examples please where you have "proven" me "wrong". Central 20:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

1. No, you first suggested that I read his book and see if I was able to refute his eight points. Then you said we could have a discussion, but first I must read Franz's book(s) to avoid "covering old ground."

2. Yes, I know this article is about official doctrine. That was my point.

3. Elders, ministerial servants, and regular active Jehovah's Witnesses are un-aware of this "doctrine." It's not taught to the elders or the flock. How does that make it official doctrine? One dubious, 100% unverifiable letter? Hardly. Elders recieve extra instructions on how to conduct the 'flock', obviously, but matters of doctrine are disseminated to the entire congregation, everyone would have known of it.

4. Telling the truth is essential. Subjective, unverifiable material, that know JW has ever heard of does not constitute "truth."

5. That does not address your missconception. You infer that we lie left and right, damn the truth, no one cares, just so long as you become a JW. That is nonsense.

I'm sorry you feel that way about past encounters with Jehovah's Witnesses, however, CBT, Uberpenguin, and myself have been nothing but honest and candid about the official teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. The amount of candor you recieve to your questions is entirely dependent on who you ask. I'll give you a full on history lesson if you ask me at the door, but others won't, instead opting to give abbreviated highlights of doctrine, saving the lengthy nuance discussions for the at-home bible studies, I don't see anything wrong with that, nor is that "theocratic warfare". The degree of knowledge of Jehovah's Witness history is up to the discretion of each Jehovah's Witness. Duffer 15:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Page 2