This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DannyMuse (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 10 July 2005 (→Books Critical of the Group: A reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:51, 10 July 2005 by DannyMuse (talk | contribs) (→Books Critical of the Group: A reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses Earlier discussions on this entry may be found in these discussion archives:

Arianism

You 're welcome Duffer. Perhaps you could check for yourself your favourite version, with previous translations and the original text. I 've noticed you deleted the phrase "(compare with Arianism)" after the phrase (JW) "teach that Jesus Christ is God's first creation rather than God Himself" commenting "So what if JWs have ONLY ONE thing in common with Arius' teachings". I thought it didn't mean that JW are Arians but it was an encyclopedical reference. Do you think it could be rephrased more properly? You might want to check also Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 2.MATIA 01:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "compare with Arianism" is highly relevant, in that the main Arian statement that was contested was that "there was a time when the Son of God was not" meaning that Jesus was created at some point, rather than being coeternal with the Father. Since the JW's share the same belief, this similarity is highly relevant, and belongs in the article. I tried to state it neutrally, but if you have a better way to phrase it, please do. 64.253.98.238 03:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how it is "highly relevent," as there are alot of beliefs about Jehovah's Witnesses that are unique in comparison to traditional views of Christendom, but were previously held by small and/or unique groups in the centuries previous. Their specific belief has no other reason to be discussed in this main article; perhaps in a comparative article. - CobaltBlueTony June 28, 2005 03:43 (UTC)

Arians also believed that Jesus was the Messiah, though I wouldn't go to the main "Christianity" wiki and write something like: "Christianity believes Jesus is the Messiah (compare: Arianism)". That is precisely akin to what I removed from the Jehovah's Witness wiki. Should I go to the main Christianity wiki and write: "Orthodox Christians believe Hell is an place of eternal, conscious, torture (compare: Paganism)." Duffer 28 June 2005 06:25 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony, a comparative article seems like a good idea. Duffer, the worst torture for somebody in eternal hell will be the condemnation to exist away from God and His love, for ever.

Anyway, let's get back to the topic. As the anonymous editor pointed, Arianism had some main doctrines, some beliefs, and there are some similarities with some JW views. I dislike the phrase "compare: arianism" and I certainly wouldn't want to discuss Arianism in the JW wiki, but I think a link with a phrase like "see also Arianism" is more apropriate. I understand that JW dont believe in Holy Trinity and there is a link to that wiki, don't you agree? MATIA

I strongly object. The extent of their Christological similarities begin and end with the belief that at one point in time, Jesus did not exist. Arianism teaches that Jesus was created "out of nothing" and not "begotten" of the same substance as the Father, thus making their relationship a form of adoption rather than a natural Son. Contrary to this view, Jehovah's Witnesses hold that Jehovah God is the Father, or Life-Giver, to the pre-human Jesus as his firstborn Son. They teach that Jesus is "preeminently and uniquely the Christ, the spirit Son of the living God." Thus the percieved correlation between Arian and Jehovah's Witness theology is so tangential it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Duffer 28 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)

I understand why "it shouldn't be mentioned at all" from your point of view. You are right that, the idea that the Son at one time did not exist, is just about all that Arianism has in common with Jehovah's Witnesses - but that's all the similarity that really matters to those who are making the comparison. They aren't looking for orthodox versions of the heresy. They are looking for the point of departure from "orthodoxy", and all other matters blend into the background. That's their perspective. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses also say that, the Logos is the one "through whom all things were made, and apart from whom nothing has been made that was made"? This is a second similarity to Arianism, that stands out when people make the comparison. Mkmcconn (Talk) 28 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

I grudgingly agree with you on your first point, which is why I did not remove the reference to Arianism the second time, though I still object to it. Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses believe of the Word: "through whom all things were made, and apart from whom nothing has been made that was made". I was not aware that Arianism believed similarly. I looked at several resources but found only one (http://arius.biography.ms/) that speaks directly to the issue of Jesus' role in creation:

Arius formulated the following doctrines about Jesus Christ:

that the Logos and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was - Arius refused to use such terms as cronos or aion - when He did not exist.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that he was the creator, or even a co-creator. Insight on the Scriptures, heading "Jesus Christ" states:

"The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.—Mt 19:4-6; see CREATION."

If the 'biography' website is literall in it's meaning that "He was the creator of the worlds", then their belief system would by 'ambiguously' similar, though not similar at all when positions are clearly defined. But of course this is only one source that I have found that speaks to this issue. Duffer 28 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)

You raise a very important point which is that, Arianism is not a modern belief. The Catholic Encyclopedia on Arianism also says that, just this way:

     It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore 
     will appear strange in modern eyes.

This is just what you are pointing out (if it's alright for me to be bold in the comparison). JWs are a modern belief - that is, they persist in modern times. Arians are extinct. So, when you say that the Word is the instrumentality of creation, and not a co-creator, I can follow your meaning as you distinguish the view from that of Arianism. But, it is a distinction that doesn't make a lot of difference in relation to the orthodoxy of trinitarianism. I am confident that, in the end, wherever Misplaced Pages touches on this issue the articles can be made to reflect both points of view, with justice. Mkmcconn (Talk) 28 June 2005 22:41 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record, but please keep in mind that this is not a comparative article; rather, this main article is an expository, meant to explain the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as they stand, and not in comparison to other belief structures, modern or extinct. - CobaltBlueTony June 29, 2005 15:59 (UTC)

To trinitarians, who are engaged in describing what Jehovah's Witnesses are, the differences in JW and Arian Christology are superficial and irrelevant, in that they differ from trinitarianism in a very comparable way: resulting in them being labelled, persistently, meaningfully and accurately (according to the intent of the label - but otherwise misleadingly), Arianism. We don't mean that they conform to all or nearly all particulars of the Arian Christology. In fact, we do not assume that they do; Arianism is extinct. And the point is, your belief that the comparison to Arianism is irrelevant is your point of view. Regardless of your efforts here, out in the meat and bones world, the comparison will never go away, until or unless JWs change their Christology. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Your point was not challeneged; only the inclusion of such comparisons in this expository. Your statement suggests to me that all trinitarians retain immediate comparative viewpoints with extinct religious groups. I doubt that this is the case. I meet people frequently who do not accept the Trinity doctrine, regardless of their affiliation with churches that maintain the doctrine as official dogma. I also know of several churches that do not teach the Trinity, but teach something similar to Witness beliefs. Perspectives are radically different just a few degrees outside of your own experiences, so it woulsd stand that either every comparison known to man should be included in this article for every JW teaching, expanding its size to near impossible dimensions... OR, we state simply and directly the beliefs of JWs alone, and leave the comparisons to the ancillary articles. - CobaltBlueTony June 29, 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Believe me that, as a rule it is true that "trinitarians retain immediate comparative viewpoints with extinct religious groups" (viewpoints of comparison between modern and extinct religious groups), yes. This is how Trinitarians attempt to preserve themselves against error while also not necessitating a retrial of the same issues. Timmy: What's a Jehovah Witness daddy? Daddy: Well son, he's someone who believes that Jesus is not the same God as the Father is. Timmy: You mean, they believe in two Gods? Daddy: Not quite son; let me explain it by comparing what they believe to the Arians. The Athanasian creed was written a long time ago, to combat the same sort of unbelief as the Jehovah's Witnesses profess about Jesus now ... time passes ... Timmy: so the Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians? Daddy: they espouse the same kind of unbelief as the Arians did, a long time ago. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)

" ... Timmy's eyes glaze over; drool pouring down his twitching chin." Sarcasm aside, allow me to point out that comparisons are only useful teaching aids if they allow someone to more easily understand an unknown by its comparison to something known and/or familiar. If both items are unknown or unfamiliar then comparisons are useless or worse, confusing. (For the record I am a teacher by profession and have taught children ages 6 to adults both in the classroom and privately for nearly a decade.) --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 03:44 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that, Timmy enjoys reading encyclopedias ;-) The point of course, is that what is familiar has encountered the different doctrine before; it has met it many times. The comparison to Arianism implies a comparison to trinitarianism: that is the frame of reference. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Whoa, that is totally unclear! The second sentence in your explanation above seems to be confusing things with people!?! Also, in what way does an "implied" comparison of an unknown thing with a known thing help someone understand something they are unfamiliar with? Finally, you might want to consider that not everyone that reads this WP article is a trinitarian. Hindus, Muslims, and even athiests might be reading this. We should be framing the article in a way that will be understandable to the general reader. If they want to know more about Arianism then they can follow the Wikilink and read about how that is different then the Trinity. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying what you're not selling. :) --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so unhelpful. Readers don't have to be trinitarians to be interested in understanding why Jehovah's Witnesses are so often (and it is often), and so persistently labelled "Arians". The reason comes from the Trinitarian frame of reference. They are called "Arians" because, in terms of the Trinitarian formulations, which were developed in part as a rejection of Arianism, Arianism is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. If that isn't of interest for an NPOV article that is written for a general audience, or understandable, I don't know why that should be so: such a stance certainly makes it seem strange that the issue continuously reappears in the Talk page of this article, and always will do so. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 06:35 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, Because we do not believe in the Trinity, some claim that Jehovah's Witnesses practice "a form of Arianism." But the fact that we are not Trinitarians does not make us Arians. That just isn't logical.

In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H. M. Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: "The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself." Jehovah's Witnesses worship neither the "incomprehensible" God of the Trinitarians (see the Athanasian Creed, Lines 9 and 12 of English Translation) nor the "unknown God" of Arius. Rather, we believe as Jesus said that "We worship what we know." (John 4:22) Similarly, we agree with the apostle Paul when he wrote: "There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are." (1 Corinthians 8:6) Something that makes God very real to Jehovah's Witnesses is their knowledge and regular use of his personal name, Jehovah¹. (Psalm 83:18) --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 15:08 (UTC)

¹ Jehovah is the conventional English form of God's name, just as Jesus is the conventional form of the Hebrew Ye·shu´a` or the Greek I·e·sous´. In his over 600-page Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique, published by the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, Jesuit Professor Joüon writes: "In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French."

Additionally, Jehovah's Witnesses should not be accused of Arianism, inasmuch as they disagree with Arius' views in many respects. For example:

Arius denied that the Son could really know the Father. The Bible teaches that the Son 'fully knows' the Father and that the Son is "the one that has explained him." (Matthew 11:27; John 1:14, 18)
Arius claimed that the Word became God's Son "by adoption" because of his virtue or moral integrity. The Bible says that he was created by Jehovah as his "only-begotten son." (John 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14)
Arius taught that Christians could hope to become equal to Christ, whereas the Bible states that God gave him "the name that is above every other name." (Philippians 2:9-11)

Perhaps the points you wish to make, Mkmcconn, would be more appropriately discussed on the WP Trinity, Arianism and related pages. Something to think about! --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

DannyMuse, the Arianism of Arius is extinct. Please don't confuse what I'm doing with an argument for the correctness of this terminology for the purposes of an NPOV definition: I will not argue that this article should say "Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians". If there is such a thing as "orthodox Arianism", they are not it (thank you for the details above, by the way). But the fact that won't go away (and I assume that we should deal with facts), is that this terminology is used by people for a descriptive (not a derogatory) purpose. It is not like calling someone "nigger". Rather, it draws attention to the particular way in which Jehovah's Witnesses depart from trinitarian orthodoxy: the way in which they depart is the same as Arianism, for all practical purposes, and for that reason they will always be called Arians by people who use trinitarian orthodoxy as a frame of reference. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, perhaps the term is used by people for a descriptive purpose, but it is inaccurate. You're right, we should deal with facts. We should also be accurate. --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 16:04 (UTC)

DannyMuse, it's inaccurate for some purposes, and accurate for other purposes. The "other purposes" might not be interesting to you, but they happen to be one of the reasons that this Talk page is edited almost as heavily as the article. People who happen by this article notice that it is missing what they happen to think is the most helpful bit of information about this group, which is that (as their priest or Sunday School teacher told them), "they are Arians". The article doesn't address this issue, explicitly. And that is why they keep trying to reflect the reality in the article, but find themselves frustrated. And so it will go always, until each and every reader with this view is educated through the editing process, of the fact that the people who own this page believe that those folks are "wrong" to call JWs Arians, or even to report that people call them Arians and why. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 17:20 (UTC)

What can I say, your Sunday School teacher was wrong. It's apples and oranges. Although they are both fruit they are nevertheless quite different, which is why "apples and oranges" is used as the typical example of a bad comparison. You might as well say, "JWs are Jews" or "JWs are Muslims" because they believe in one God or that "They're Bahai" because they won't participate in military conflicts. In those examples JWs do have the point of comparison in common with the other religions; but it is absure to conclude that they are the same based on a single shared belief. Apples and oranges both have seeds but they are clearly not the same thing. --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)

I've been reading this page for years, now, and it's more obvious to me than ever before, why the name Arian is used of this group; and within that intent, it is not wrong. They are not apples and oranges. They are Macintosh and Golden Delicious from the perspective of how they depart from Trinitarian Christology. I do not want the page to say that Trinitarianism is right, simply that it exists among large numbers, and that it is in light of Trinitarian Christology that Jehovah's Witnesses are called Arians, because they similarly teach that Christ was brought into being prior to his incarnation, was the means by which Jehovah created everything else - "Which is a misleading discription, in that there are numerous basic differences. Arianism, as such, is extinct." Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 17:45 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, well that also ignores the fact that there is no historical connection between JWs and the extinct teachings of Arius. You might was well say that Trinitarians are Hindus because--from an Islamic perspective--they're both polytheistic religions. Hindu teachings were prevalent long before the Athanasian creed was written therefore .... blah, blah, blah ... --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 17:51 (UTC)

Clever, but not quite to the point. So, that's all I want to say on the subject. It's not as though I thought that I would make any headway. I just wanted to try to politely clarify once again, why this issue will not go away. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you feel the need to label JWs with a term that you yourself acknowledge is "extinct", has no historical connection with the development of the modern organization of JWs and is associated with so many differences of belief so as to be confusing? Why not simply state what JWs believe and then perhaps add how that is different from some common, current beliefs? Wouldn't that be more simple and more clear? --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)

If it is very common for trinitarian Christians to describe Jehovah's Witnesses as Arians, I don't see how it could possibly be irrelevant to this article. The whole argument here seems to be essentially a semantics game. Jehovah's Witnesses define the term "Arian" in a very narrow way to refer only to those accepting in full (or nearly in full) the actual beliefs espoused by Arius (I will note here, as I have at Talk:Arianism, that such a definition excludes not only the Jehovah's Witnesses, but most of the people of the 4th to 7th centuries who have normally been called Arians by historians). Nevertheless, this is a valid definition of Arianism. Those who call the Jehovah's Witnesses Arians define Arianism in a much broader sense to mean "those who believe that Christ is a created being, subordinate to God the Father, a heresy first espoused in the 4th century by Arius." This definition of Arianism is equally valid, in that it is widely used and has a long pedigree. Neither one is right - they are simply two different definitions. Obviously, JW does not fit the definition in the first sense, but it just as obviously does fit the second definition. As such, and given that this is a common claim made about Jehovah's Witnesses, the issue ought at least to be brought up in this article. john k 30 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)

John, in response I have two points taken directly from the Arianism article:

The very first sentence in the article begins: "Arianism was a Christological view held by followers of Arius ..." JWs are NOT followers of Arius.
There is a significant statement in the Parallels to later groups section which reads: "Trinitarians often use the term Arianism to draw parallels to some modern groups ... But, despite the frequency with which this name is used ... The groups so labelled do not hold beliefs identical to Arianism. For this reason, they reject the name for their self-description, even if they acknowledge that their beliefs are at points in agreement with, or in broad terms similar to, Arianism."

I maintain what I stated before that this article should simply state what JWs believe and then perhaps add how that is different from some common, current beliefs. That is both more simple and more clear. A link to the Arianism article would certainly be useful for those interested in further research on that subject. --DannyMuse 30 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

First, the section on JW beliefs about Christ already included some comparisons with other Christian theologies before the bit about Arianism was added this time around. It is impossible to drop out all comparative references, unless you truly want to imply that JW's are the only Christians there are and ever were. There has to be at least a limited amount of 'compare and contrast' for this to be an informative encyclopedia article.

Second, it might help some of you to learn at least one way Arius is remembered today in the Orthodox Church. On days that St. Athanasius is commemorated, this hymn is often sung: O holy father Athanasius, // like a pillar of orthodoxy // you refuted the heretical nonsense of Arius // by insisting that the Father and the Son are equal in essence. // O venerable father, beg Christ our God to save our souls. So when some modern religion comes up with the idea that Jesus and God the Father are not equal in essence, or that Christ is not God, it is a very convenient shorthand to simply note that they are repeating the heretical nonsense of Arius. Arius is widely remembered. That the beliefs are heretical nonsense is of course POV, but it's a fact that JW's proudly assert the same basic claims that the Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, and many Protestant churches still recall Arius making. These traditions do study the old religions and the old errors so as not to fall into the same errors again. This is I think noteworthy for an encyclopedia.

Thirdly, it's worth noting that Arius was also well known for his familiarity with the Bible and his ability to quote Bible verses to support his position, as are the JW's. He and his followers also set forth his beliefs in catch melodies, which helps to account for their widespread popularity among the general populace for a period of time; I don't know whether JW's have any catch tunes or not. There are probably other more superficial comparisons that could be made, but they wouldn't matter either. Arianism was not condemned because it quoted scripture, or because of its music (aside from lyrical content), or because Athanasius didn't like it. It was condemned because the assembled bishops at the first two ecumenical councils agreed that it was different from the faith of their fathers. A lot of people today think that Arianism differs in essentially the same way. Wesley 3 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)

Wesley, frankly I'm surprised at you. Since you acknowledge that it "is of course POV" to refer to "the beliefs ... heretical nonsense" why would you bring that condescending statement up and then in the same thought compare them to the beliefs of JWs? Are the beliefs of Jews and Muslims heretical nonsense? They don't believe that Jesus was God you know!

The Muslims in particular do fall into the same error, now that you mention it, in trying to honor Jesus as sent from God while denying His deity. The Jews are a bit different, as they generally don't honor Jesus at all, as far as I can tell, unless it's as a much misunderstood rabbi. But I bring it up not to propose its inclusion in the article, but to indicate that Arius is still remembered today, so mention of him is still relevant to today's readers, contrary to what I perceived you to be saying earlier. Wesley 5 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

I can't wait to hear what our Muslim contributors will have to say about your assessment of their religious beliefs. --DannyMuse 5 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

Your appeal to an historic reference is appreciated; your inclusion of spurious and demeaning rhetoric is not. Superficial comparisons are neither informative nor meaningful. To condemn something because it is different from your own beliefs is commonly known as prejudicial and intolerant behavior. I really surprised to hear such un-Wikipedian language coming from you. What's up with that?

Are you suggesting that to be a wikipedian, I need to be a religious pluralist?? That's tantamount to insisting that I convert to atheism. Besides, that rhetoric was specifically aimed at fourth century Arianism; if you really believe you have nothing in common with it, then there is no reason for you to take it personally. Wesley 5 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Wesley, I am suggesting nothing of the kind. If you will kindly re-read my statements above I think you will find that I clearly stated that it is the use of "spurious and demeaning rhetoric", "Superficial comparisons are neither informative nor meaningful" and "prejudicial and intolerant behavior¹" that I termed as un-Wikipedian. --DannyMuse 5 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

¹ In particular I referred to your condemnation of beliefs different from your own; something which you continued with your remarks about the "error of the Muslims."

If you insist that I not condemn beliefs different from my own, then yes, you are insisting that I be a pluralist, someone who accepts conflicting beliefs as equally valid. This kind of pluralism is so irrational it quickly leads to what is effectively atheism; for all these views to be equally true, they must be equally untrue. I don't believe that you're being any more tolerant than I am. With regard to rhetoric, the JW claim in the article that the early church missed the boat or was overrun by paganism strikes me as being at least as offensive as my remarks which I have here limited to the article's Talk page. Wesley 6 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

I don't get it, when we try to say we (JWs) are part of a religious tradition extending back to Abel the detractors are quick to point out that JWs only have been around since the late 1800s. So how could we possibly have any connection to Arius!!!!! Which is it: are we an old or a new religion? --DannyMuse 5 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)

New religion, old error. Not that hard to figure out. On the other hand, if you want to be associated with Abel because of what you have in common with Abel, then you should be willing to be associated with others you have things in common with. I'm sure there are many other differences between today's JW's and Abel, in terms of religious belief, if we wanted to bother taking time to list them. Wesley 5 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

You are missing the significant point that JWs claim to believe the same things that Abel, Paul, etc. believed while we do not claim to believe as Arius taught. One thing in common while there are many things that are not is the point. As I also said before, we believe in one God, but we are not Jews or Muslims. Referring to a similarity may be helpful, calling us Arians is just wrong. --DannyMuse 5 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

Whether you claim the similarity or not is beside the point here; not claiming a similarity that does exist doesn't make the similarity go away, any more than claiming a nonexistent similarity makes it appear. I'm clearly not going to convince you that you're Arian, or even that you agree with the one Arian doctrine that was most condemned by the early Church. Misplaced Pages should clearly not try to resolve this dispute either way. What is clear for purposes of this article, is that there are a lot of Christians that think you are Arian, at least for the limited purpose of comparing your relationship with the rest of Christendom. It is an encyclopedic fact that this opinion is widespread, and is at least one factor behind the hostility to Jehovah's Witnesses. Wesley 6 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

And I'm definitely feeling the hostility. --DannyMuse 6 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

Let me assure you that it's nothing personal. I try to distinguish between ideas and people, but if I've failed to maintain that distinction, please forgive me if anything I've said came across as a personal attack. And just for the record in case there was any doubt, I do not condone any of the violence that has been committed against JW's. Regarding tolerance, I think I have been and continue to be very tolerant of many religious and anti-religious views that are directly critical of my own religious beliefs, in that I don't indiscriminately censor articles or sections I don't like or strongly disagree with. For instance, see , most of the Great Apostasy article, the idea of a distinct Pauline Christianity, Christianity and anti-Semitism, and a number of other similar articles. In these cases, I generally content myself with helping people keep their facts straight and sometimes offering additional material, and of course plain copyediting. Tolerance on Misplaced Pages is generally expressed by not censoring everything you disagree with. That's at least what I'm aiming for. On Talk pages like this, I try to be honest about where I'm coming from partly so that you and other editors can help me keep my actual article edits honest and NPOV. Wesley 6 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

It sounds to me like it is important to have some kind of reference to Arianism. We all agree that the most important descriptive term from the Nicene/Athanasian POV is that JWs are non-trinitarian. Let us keep that as the factual description. But let us also agree on a form for a comparison with Arianism. Would something like this work? "Comparison is often made in trinitarian circles between the Jehovah's Witnesses and the ancient Arians. The non-trinitarian beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are not Arian, but like the Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses reject trinitarianism in dividing the substance of the Father and the Son." (By the way, the same could be said of Mormons.) Tom Haws July 4, 2005 20:11 (UTC)

Something in that direction seems to me to be helpful. Compare to: "Trinitarians often compare the Jehovah's Witnesses' unbelief in the Trinity to that of the ancient Arians - not to indicate an equivalence of their beliefs, but to point out that the ancient councils of the catholic bishops, and the creeds produced by them to counteract the Arians, contradict the Jehovah's Witnesses on some of the same points of faith." This seems to me to be NPOV, informative, and even (from an anti-trinitarian perspective) supportive of their anti-clericism and their anti-traditionalism. What do you think? Mkmcconn (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Right direction, but on the wordy side. I'm not ready to work on exact wording until we (again) have some kind of consensus to keep the word in at all. Wesley 6 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

Books Critical of the Group

This section is for discussion in regards to primarily the editorial of Raymond Franz's book 'Crisis of Conscience'. Below is a line by line examination of WHY I edited what I edited.Duffer 3 July 2005

"Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, a former Governing Body member of the Watchtower organisation for nine years (the highest level of Jehovah's Witnesses)."

I added the following: "who was expelled from the headquarters and later disfellowshiped (excommunicated) for teaching divergent views." This was added to give readers a perspective of where Franz was comming from, and why. Obviously if he wasn't expelled, he probably wouldn't have written a book. Duffer 3 July 2005

Reply to Duffer. Point one, your entire motives are see through, and are negative POV, incorrect and Ad hominem. I suggest you read his books before you speak more unchristian slander and defamation, all put together for purely 'poisoning the well', in a typical ad hominem logical fallacy. Raymond Franz chose to resign from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses on 22 May 1980; he was not "expelled". You can read, and see his letters, about the whole incident in his book, Crisis of Conscience in the book's chapter Point of Decision. He was later disfellowshipped when in another congregation, in a new location, over a year and a half later on 31 December 1981. He was disfellowshipped for the Watch Tower "crime" of eating a meal with his employer, who was an ex-witness; it had nothing at all to do with spreading dissenting views or any such thing. This is all covered in his book in the chapter Aftermath with many scanned Watchtower letters as proof. None of his material in his books has ever been challenged or refuted by the Watch Tower Society. You Duffer should really get your facts correct before you start spreading slander and gossip, especially as you claim to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Your behaviour is often aggressive, confrontational, and unchristian. Point two, the only reason you inserted your false information is as an ad hominem attack to poison the reader from the book, which is just an example of negative propaganda, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the factual information and critical discussions in his books. Posted Central 4 July 2005

According to Times Magazine http://www.jwfiles.com/franz-article.htm, he was thrown out of Bethel. So perhaps a more suitable sentence would read: "..who was expelled from his duties as a Governing Body member and forced to resign from Bethel for teaching divergent views, later to be expelled entirely from the congregation in an unrelated matter." I'll leave that up to you to edit. I admit I wrong about his DFing, though not wrong about his forced exodus from Bethel. Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

LOL at Duffer, to quote you "according to Time Magazine", are you for real? How about actually doing some REAL research and getting the actual facts of the incidents. Raymond Franz resigned from the Governing Body; he was not "expelled". Why don't you write to them and ask for an answer? All his letters are there in his book, but you seem totally uninterested in the truth, but more keen on perpetuating JW rumour and gossip laced with a toxic dose of slander. A group of people could get a whole plethora of quotes from "worldly" magazine sources to state that Jehovah's Witness are child raping cult weirdoes etc., but what does that prove? Nothing! Your desperation to slander and incite hatred is astounding. You haven't even read Ray Franz's books, and you claim to be a Christian JW, and are pontificating about his life of which you base on mere gossip and fear inspired propaganda. Keep it coming Duffer; you are giving a fine Witness in slander, bitterness, and cult-like behaviour. I'm sure your millstone is ready and waiting to be hung on your neck. Also, all your points are ad hominem, and you have only added your slander to try and smear the book's content. Your slanderous Ad hominem insertions is a POV straw man, and definitely not suitable for Wikepedia. Posted Central 4 July 2005

It's "slander", "bitterness, and cult-like behaviour" to quote a Times magazine article? You say: "Raymond Franz resigned from the GB..." I said: "..was forced to resign from Bethel..". We're both correct, I just portray the whole picture, he did resign but it was forced. It's not like the GB would allow such a dissenter to continue at Bethel. Duffer 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Duffer, you know well it's your entire outlook that is the problem, so why are you coming out with this weak red herring about Time Magazine? There are thousands of magazines in this world and any amount of quotes can be extracted, and they prove little to nothing, as there are just as many opposing ones available too. I see you are also trying to back track on the alleged "expulsion" you were so keen to tell the world. Pressure to resign is not the same as sacking or expulsion. They could have disfellowshipped him there and then if they had a grain of evidence against him, but they had none. He was hounded out, and chose to resign, and get away from the witch-hunt that he has seen against others for daring to have a private conversation in a private house about a private matter. If you give a damn about truth, go and read it, all the Watch Tower letters are scanned as proof. None have been challenged ever by the Watch Tower Society, and they would rip into him with their rabid lawyers if they had a crumb of evidence, but they have none! Get used to it. You have proven to all here you are acting like an unstable religious fundamentalist who goes ape when his leaders/religion are criticized, and that kind of behaviour Duffer, is very, very cult-like, and certainly not what Jesus taught us to be like. Posted Central 6 July 2005

"This book gives an insight into the authority structure of the religion."

If Duffer's comments about Ray Franz are Ad hominem, then what are Ray Franz' comments about "the authority structure of the religion"? The point is Mr. Franz has a background that should give any reasonable reader cause to question his motives and credibility. --DannyMuse 3 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Danny, are you serious? Raymond Franz was on the Governing Body for 9 years, and travelled all over the world to a multitude of the Society's branches and offices. He is extremely experienced and knowledgeable of the authority structure and the hierarchy of the religion. So, what's your point? You don't even make one. Your next sentence is one of the most circular false reasoning I have seen you post: "The point is Mr. Franz has a background that should give any reasonable reader cause to question his motives and credibility." His background would give him more credibility than anyone else, and his books don't rely on "appeal to authority" as you falsely assume. His books are fully documented with proof for what he states. As for your next bit, "reasonable reader" is classic logical fallacy of 'appeal to flattery'. I suggest you read his books, even if for research purposes only, then you would be in a better position to actually comment about motives, rather than speculating the worst, as your mind appears inclined to do so, regardless of the total lack of evidence to back your presumptuous and false conclusions. Posted Central 4 July 2005

I amended to it: "(as it stood 25 years ago)". This is also true. Franz was DFd in 1980. What Franz writes about the inner procedings of the Governing Body might not be accurate for today. Doctrine has changed. Policy has changed though, admittedly as it sits, the addition is out of place, and Franz technically does give an insight into the organizational structure from his point of view (with a boot in his butt and his face through the screen door..).Duffer 3 July 2005

Duffer, your hostile vicious comments and your nature are disturbingly unchristian, and they are inaccurate. The latest version of Crisis of Conscience was published in June 2002, and is up to date. June 2002 is not "25 years ago". The book covers the entire range of the development of the Watch Tower Society-from its beginnings-to its current organisational hierarchy in mid 2002. Also, the vast majority of the book is not about the structure or the group, it is far more about its activities, doctrines, and practices etc., which are also covered up to the latest publication in mid 2002. Please stop with your additions of lies, ad hominem attacks, negative POV, and often sadistic sabotage. If you are a typical JW, you are not giving a very good example of your religion and God. Especially revealing were your comments: "with a boot in his butt and his face through the screen door.." You demonstrate sadistic, sick and ignorant statements that you seem to delight in making, and seek to disseminate into the minds of others. As Jesus said: "By their fruits you will know them". Posted Central 3 July 2005

You need to relax. He relates "first hand knowledge" of the organization 25 years ago. It does NOT matter what the latest edition of his book is as he NO LONGER HAS "first hand knowledge"! Contrary to the description of the book on the JW page. As for my "boot" comment, it was a joke that puts context into what Franzs' point of view was/is (a bitter apostate). Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me with your condescending remarks Duffer. You are obsessed on the "authority" bit, and all Franz's information is accurate and up to date. If you claim otherwise, then bring forth your proof. If not, be quiet. You haven't even the balls to read the books, and fail to realise how ridiculous you sound, coming out with fake critiques of something you have almost zero knowledge of. As the Proverb's quote states, go and get educated before you speak about a matter. As for calling him a "bitter apostate", where is your evidence? You have none! If someone called you a "child raping deviant", but brought forth no evidence, would you feel it was reasonable for all to circulate this about you, and post it on message boards, especially if they were JWs? You have shown you are full of slander and unchristian motives. You need to look at your own life before you claim to be an expert on someone else's, that you clearly know extremely little of, and have no intention of actually getting your facts right; you are more concerned about spreading negative propaganda, which is cult-like behaviour, and totally unchristian. Posted Central 4 July 2005

Why are you even continuing to argue this point? Read what I wrote: "..admittedly as it sits, the addition is out of place..", and actually read the changes I made before reverting them. If you had, you probably would have noticed that I STOPPED mentioning "25 years" several edits ago. Besides, you speak nothing of the fact that the editorial, as it previously stood, claimed that he STILL has "first hand knowledge" of the innerworkings of the Governing Body. That's an outright falsehood. Duffer 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Duffer, the word "STILL" was never in any of the edits, so why are you making that one up? Posted Central 6 July 2005

"The book allows the reader a view of the decision-making sessions of a religion's inner council, and the powerful, sometimes dramatic, impact their decisions have on people's lives."

I removed: ",and the powerful, sometimes dramatic, impact their decisions have on people's lives." For obvious reasons. Say something like: "and the impact those decisions have on people's lives" but don't go overboard with spurious hyperbole like "powerful" and "sometimes dramatic". If you can't get away with it in the main article, obviously you can't get away with it in the references.Duffer 3 July 2005

"It looks in detail at the history of the organisation, how its doctrines and practices have arisen, and how they have changed/reversed over time."

I changed: "changed/reversed" to: "evolved". As it literally IS an evolution of doctrine. Though this doesn't accurately reflect the fact that our doctrines have been reversed before.. perhaps an amicable sentence would read: "how its doctrines and practices have arisen, evolved, and in some cases have been reversed." I think that's the one that accurately conveys all the facts.Duffer 3 July 2005

Are you bored, or just trying to antagonistically sabotage for the sake of it? There is nothing wrong with the original listings, as the moderator was happy with them, so why should they change. Posted Central 3 July 2005

I don't see how this change antagonizes anyone. I don't see how your comments properly address my addition. Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

"It also looks deeply into the Watchtower's history of Armageddon prophecies, uproots highly controversial information with full scanned proofs, and their often negative affects on the lives of Jehovah's Witnesses."

I've said it twice already, i'll say it again. Aquaint yourselves with my comments to "Eyesopen" in the "Bias, Accuracy, Objectivity, Scrutiny" discussion on this page. Specifically where it says: "There is "prophet" that interprets and relays interpretation of biblical prophecy. There is "prophet" in the sense of the word prophesy, this is the one you are ascribing to us." Jehovah's Witnesses have never been guilty of doing anything more than misinterpreting the word of God. They have been wrong many times in their INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL PROPHECY, that is NOT akin to the libel of PROPHESY! Obviously, and most important, ACCURATELY changed the sentence to read: "the Watchtower's previous interpretations of biblical prophecy..". I removed entirely: " uproots highly controversial information with full scanned proofs, and their often negative affects on the lives of Jehovah's Witnesses." Should either remain out or re-worded to something like: "This book claims to show legitimate, highly controversial information, and the impact that it has on the lives of individual Jehovah's Witnesses." "..negative affects..", pure bombast. Is objectivity really that hard?Duffer 3 July 2005

Duffer: Prophecy is a noun (meaning 'a prediction'). 'Prophecies' is the plural word meaning predictions. Hey-isn't English simple! All the dates that came from the Watch Tower Society were predictions of Armageddon, they were prophecies (predictions) claimed to have come from God's Word regardless of whether they came from scripture, Divine revealing, the size of Egyptian pyramids, or the number of spots on a lady bugs back (it's all in the interpretation ;-). The word 'Prophecy' is correct and needs no redefining. Posted Central 3 July 2005

The word "prophecy" in this context is libel and you know it. "Prophetic interpretation" is far more accurate, and best of all NPOV! Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Duffer, you mean "FALSE Prophetic interpretation". I will change it to "Armageddon predictions". Posted Central 4 July 2005

They are not spurious "armageddon predictions", they are interpretations of biblical prophecy. The editorial mentioned nothing of "false interpretations", it just said: "prophecy", if you want to convey the fact that those interpretations were incorrect, then by all means do so, but if it's out of line I will change it. Duffer 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Duffer. Many of the early predictions and dates were from the sizes of pyramids in Egypt, and as you are well aware, none of them were in the Bible, that's why the world is still here. The Watch Tower's leaders acted just like false prophets in the Bible, they claimed to speak for God's will, dates, and plans, and put Him to shame with their endless nutty date setting, all claimed to be "not our dates, but those of God, we interpret nothing, Jehovah is the interpreter". What utter blasphemy! Posted Central 6 July 2005

"An extensive fully documented research into the Watch Tower organisation from someone with high level, first hand comprehensive experience."

Removed entirely for the sake of redundancy. Really, read the very first sentence in the editorial. It's the exact same thing, pick one. Frankly this one sounds better than the opening sentence.Duffer 3 July 2005

In Search of Christian Freedom - I changed: "prophecy" to: "prophetic interpretation". Really, how is anyone benefitting from such obviously false libel? Are you critical? Fine, at least be accurate.Duffer 3 July 2005

Again Duffer, Prophecy is a noun (meaning 'a prediction'). 'Prophecies' is the plural word meaning predictions. All the dates that came from the Watch Tower were predictions of Armageddon, they were prophecies (predictions) claimed to have come from God's Word. The word 'Prophecy' is correct and needs no redefining. Posted Central 3 July 2005

Again, in this context it is libel and you know it, if you were at all concerned about NPOV you would have no objections to my change. Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Duffer, what is "in this context" supposed to mean? It's merely a subject heading, not a commentary, so it can stay. As for "libelous", you are losing the plot! If anyone was misrepresented it was God, as His name was used over and over in the Watch Tower false dates, and I'm sure He will sort the ones responsible out in due time. Posted Central 3 July 2005

"In this context" means when a religious group is accused of "false prophecy" or even just "prophecy" it is a pejorative to connote a biblical "false prophet." That is libelous, but you already knew that. Jehovah's Witnesses have never been guilty of anything more than incorrectly interpreting biblical prophecy. It's not accurate, it's POV, it's libelous, and I will change it everytime I see it. Duffer 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Duffer, you said: "Jehovah's Witnesses have never been guilty of anything more than incorrectly interpreting biblical prophecy", they were far more guilty, as the dates for Armageddon were always stated to be "God's dates", not the Watch Tower leaders' interpretations. They claim God is the "great interprerer", and they are speaking for him, this is exactly the same for a false prophet in the Bible. They claim to speak for God, and what they said failed to be fulfilled. They are blasphemous, and presumptuous, and God would not touch anyone like that under any circumstances. To quote them: "In Jeremiah's day the false prophets prophesied lies in Jehovah's name and lied against his purpose, foretelling in his name what he had not foretold. Therefore Jehovah was against them. He executed judgment against them at Jerusalem's destruction in 607 B.C. (Jer. 23:25; 27:15) Religious liars like them today cannot escape a like judgment but will meet a like end at Armageddon." Watchtower 1 Feb 1956 p.88 Looks like the Watch Tower Society is doomed then! Posted Central 6 July 2005

The Sign of the Last Days - When? - I changed: "..accompanied by historical facts demonstrating how surprisingly little.." to read: "accompanied by a presentation that purports to show how surprisingly".. Whoever wrote this description of the book obviously is not interested in truth, just "truth" according to Carl O. Jonsson. I changed the wording to an NPOV perspective, first and foremost. I also gave additional reasons: "WWI killed more people than all world wars combined from the beginning of recorded history to 1914 (confirmed 14+million, estimated up to 60+m dead)", not to mention the CONFIRMED military deaths of those that died (80,000 military) from the WORST disease in history (1918, spanish influenza). That's not "WT propoganda" as one anonymous critic ignorantly claimed, that is the facts of the matter according to the Harper Encyclopedia of Military History (4th edition, 1993) by Dupuy & Dupuy (pg. 1083 heading The Cost of The War). Although technically the CONFIRMED civilian+military casualties of that War alone were 14,663,413 (multiply that by 3 and we arive at the most conservative estimate for losses of WWII. same book page 1309). In both cases I relate the barest minimum while several other sources posit far more catastrophic estimates of both wars. Whatever "statistics" Mr. Jonsson wants to posit doesn't change the truth about our century, it is what Dupuy and Dupuy refer to succinctly as the title of Chapter 14: "World War I and the Era of Total War" (pg. 1003). Duffer 3 July 2005

LOL. You never learn do you Duffer? I seriously suggest you actually READ the books mentioned before you claim to know what's in them! You're hilarious, read Proverbs 18:13 it might help if you get information and facts before you answer anymore. Posted Central 3 July 2005

That doesn't address my changes, nor is it ad hom because I specifically offered the military information as a secondary reason. Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Duffer, go and read the book, then come back if you have anyting to say. Posted Central 4 July 2005

Again, address what I wrote. If you can't even defend your reversions of my edits then you need to stop reverting. Duffer 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

For the record, Central, look at the log, I didn't touch the ISBNs. Duffer 3 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)

For the record, Duffer, I never said you did, it was anonymous user 202.63.50.237 who was doing that for some reason. Posted Central 3 July 2003

The way you worded the edit line made it sound as if you were accusing me of it. I just wanted to be clear. Duffer 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

On a completely different note, does anyone know how to start a new page, as this one is excessively long, and a new one is needed. Posted Central 3 July 2003

Hmm... This tune sounds all too familiar. Personal attacks against users, attacks on JWs and the WBTS, constantly bringing prophetic interpretation up in unrelated discussions. Reminds me a lot of Eyesopen who, incidentally, hasn't edited since early June... Can't you at least do us the justice of posting under the same name? Your manner of diction and accusation aren't very easily mistaken and a new name certainly does nothing to reenforce your position. -- uberpenguin July 5, 2005 05:24 (UTC)

It's curious. I thought uberpenguin was overreacting and might just be a bit paranoid so I checked. Eyesopen made about 33 edits on WP beginning on 10 April 2005 and ending 6 June 2005. With the exception of two edits regarding Pound sterling articles and a few edits to his own User page every other edit was only to the Jehovah's Witnesses page and its Talk page. User Central began editing on 10 June 2005. 21 of 22 edits are to the Jehovah's Witnesses page or its Talk page. So are they the same user? The Modus operandi is the same, that's for sure! --DannyMuse 8 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)

There's a saying, "Don't try to teach a pig how to ice skate. It only makes you look stupid and annoys the pig." After reading the lengthy exchanges between Duffer and Central I would say that we definitely have a hog on ice here! --DannyMuse 5 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

There is a better saying: "Don't try and teach a Jehovah's Witness to reason, you will only get frustrated, and they will nearly away prefer to wallow in their own psychological excrement, like a pig in mud, trampling the pearls of loving kindness, truth, and Christian rationality into the debased mud, and then they turn around and rip you open for your troubles, deluding themselves they are 'serving God'." Posted Central 6 July 2003

Central, You just made that up! It apparently hasn't occurred to you that if you weren't so argumentative we might actually be able to cooperate and come up with something accurate and informative. Food for thought, no? --DannyMuse 6 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

Hi, Central. I am a Misplaced Pages system administrator, and I'm not a JW. What seems to be the problem here? Tom Haws July 6, 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Hi Tom. The problem was after an administrator (not sure if it was you) looked at the book listings, and were happy they were neutral, about two weeks later, user Duffer1, decided to sabotage the book descriptions, and add on some totally irrelevant, inaccurate and slanderous ad hominem attacks on the book's author, and he inserted them at the beginning of the book descriptions to try and discredit the content with a blatant ad hominem attack. The ad hominem attacks were removed, and then accusations by Duffer1 were manufactured of having an "edit war", when he was the one to start trashing the page after it was approved. Duffer1 was also the one to start a destruction campaign against the separate page that the critical links and books were on before. He appears to be very fundamentalist and not too concerned about using propaganda and slander to dissuade people from seeing any critical information. His accusations (beside being ad hominem) were also completely incorrect. Duffer appears not to give a damn about accuracy, or relevance, or the fact that ad hominem and propaganda are not acceptable on Wikepedia. JWs usually refer to this trashing and slander as "theocratic war strategy", basically meaning anything goes (including lies and slander) if the end result is to promote the religion. I have removed the ad hominem and I hope it will not return. DannyMuse is also problematic in the same regard, as he appears to not realise when he is using propaganda, (or insults above) but is clear to see it when someone else may use it against him or JWs, demonstrating his interesting double standards (a sad, but typical Watch Tower Society characteristic). Hopefully it is settled now, if Danny and Duffer can get over their very clear insecurities about their faith. Posted Central 7 July 2005

Actually I'm quite secure in my beliefs. Central continually raises the ''Ad Hominem'' issue as if there is never a valid reason to question a persons motives. In fact there is. As the WP Ad Hominem article states there is such a thing as a Valid Ad Hominem argument. It reads, "Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility." It is well documented that Ray Franz is hostile to the organization from which he was expelled. It is a well established legal principle that the motives of a hostile witness are open to question. That being said, the editorial changes by both myself and Duffer have consistently attempted to reword the description of Franz' books for NPOV and have NOT tried to impugn his character. The edits have been to show that the book gives "the author's perspective". --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

LOL! You take the biscuit Mr Danny Muse! You said: "Central continually raises the ''Ad Hominem'' issue as if there is never a valid reason to question a persons motives". I have never stated this, I pointed out your use of it is totally irrelevant, and does not form a valid point at all. You then go on to demonstrate a wonderful logical fallacy of 'begging the question', or 'circular argument'. My comments are in brackets; you say: "It is well documented (your first lie, and inaccuracy) that Ray Franz is hostile to the organization ( where is your evidence?) from which he was expelled (He resigned, he was not expelled). It is a well established legal principle that the motives of a hostile witness are open to question. (Your red herring to distract the reader)That being said (what 'said'?, you have just assumed your false accusations are true with no evidence at all to back them, and then you build on them as if they are factually established, what a joke! You would be thrown out of court!) You also create a straw man, as Franz's motives are irrelevant, as he proves his points with well-documented facts, not blind opinions or assertions. If you had actually read the books, you would know all this, and stop making a complete ass of yourself. Read his books, and you will be amazed how mild, gentle, and completely void of any bitterness his books are. Your criticism are based on a fantasy, not reality. Go and read them, and you will see how foolish your words really are. Posted by Central 7 July 2005

As a side point, some of the language in the description was clearly over-reaching, claiming to "uproot" doctrines. Clearly, Franz' book has not changed the teachings of the WTB&TS. This is why I changed it to "reveals". Why Central would disagree with these revisions hard to understand. Rather than addressing them edit-by-edit--as both myself and Duffer have done repeatedly both in the comments to the edits and here on the Talk page--he simply reverts them. And so Duffer and I re-revert them. --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

Your said: "This is why I changed it to "reveals". Why Central would disagree with these revisions hard to understand". I did not disagree, that is why I left that word. Uproots, can mean "reveals", "dig up", you just twisted in your paranoid mind to mean something else, and then blindly ignored the fact that I left it the same-DOH! Posted by Central 7 July 2005

That being said, I still don't see why this section is even here. You won't find similar sections on the pages of other religions here on WP. It makes you wonder why some individuals have such an axe to grind with Jehovah's Witnesses! --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

You said: "It makes you wonder why some individuals have such an axe to grind with Jehovah's Witnesses!" Ignoring your obsessive use of circular reasoning by assuming that there is an "axe to grind", if you actually took the time to learn about your religion, instead of neurotically defending it and cloaking yourself with a paranoid persecution complex, you might see some of the less than scriptural doctrines and practices that it promotes, and the distancing this will have on someone's relationship with God, including their ultimate reward. I heavily suggest you actually do some real research and look at all the arguments, not just the Watch Tower's pre-prepared carefully selected material. If you have any faith of substance, you will take to heart the words of the Bible at Romans 8:38, 39 and go and get the books, and do some research. If you fear them that much, then that proves your faith is weaker than a new-born kitten, with no foundation, and of no value to God. Posted by Central 7 July 2005

In an effort to some resolution to this seemingly endless and circular debate I have made some radical changes to the Books Critical of the Group section of the main article. Actually, I'm surprised I didn't notice it earlier, but all of the books listed in this section are published by the same publisher: Commentary Press. So I changed all of the descriptions to the publisher's description from their commercial website. If Central, or any other user for that matter, objects to these descriptions then they should take it up with the publisher of the books. --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

You have deliberately tried to trash the descriptions, Misplaced Pages is not a book shop, the ISBN links are there for people to buy where they like, you have just inserted your new trashing "radical changes" methods to cause more controversy, and trouble. I have reverted your infantile edits. I am also interested why a loyal JW (allegedly you) would want to even touch an "apostate" (your words) book by messing about with the description, what would Jehovah think if this, "touching the contaminated evil thing"? Posted by Central 7 July 2005

On the other hand, I do believe this calls into question the motive of why these books are even listed in this article. Is it for the dissemination of encyclopedic knowledge? Or rather is there a commercial interest? --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

LOL! Motives? You were the one inserting advisements and prices also! Your then hypocritically blame others for your own corrupting page sabotaging. Those books out of many are there because they are very well written, balanced, and have high academic acclaim, unlike some others that are bitter, and more personalised. For goodness sakes, go and read them, then you might have a leg to stand on. As for now, you are making a colossal fool of yourself, plus, you are giving more publicity to them, which is the opposite of what I'm sure you desire, or is it? Posted by Central 7 July 2005

In response to my edits as described above Central reverted the page with the following explanation directed to me personally:

"Gross commercialisation is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, your edits are trouble-making stupidity; you are also displaying your sociopath nature. Dannymuse, please see a doctor immediately"

I would agree that Gross commercialization is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. This is in fact the point I was trying to make about this section. Interestingly, he failed to address the content of the edits which is the real issue, but instead chose to engage in an ad hominem attack on my character. This is interesting as this is a tactic which he has repeatedly accused Duffer1 of doing and which he has described as a logical fallacy.

You said: "Interestingly, he failed to address the content of the edits which is the real issue." What lies and delusion you post. What you really mean is: "He failed to weaken and given way to our cultist bias, and negative character attacks on Franz, page trashing, and JWs fundamentalism and fear of valid balance and criticism. He is not submissive to our biased attacks and so we will ignore his valid replies and delude ourselves we never had one". And I was not using an "ad hominem", I was insulting you just for pleasure, not because it proves you wrong, you do that all by yourself with your cult-like mentality and behaviour. Posted Central 7 July 2005

Nevertheless, the real issue is the content. I suggest that we remove the section entirely as it is inappropriate. Barring that, I would suggest as an alternative that we use the descriptions from the publisher and remove all links to the publisher's website and pricing information. If that is not agreeable, then I am open to any and all reasonable suggestions. Your comments are appreciated! --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I have a better idea, why don't you just leave it alone and stop acting like a religious fundamentalist who is terrified the public will find out the truth about your group. I think the entire JW article needs completely re-writing with much more contributions from ex-members. I will contact all the sites and encourage mass editing if you like? I'm sure there are thousands of ex-JWs who would love to give you a run for your money if that's really what you want Danny—is it? (PS. I'm not an ex-JW, but I know I can find plenty online) If you want major edit wars, then go for it, it will just create more negative publicity for your God and religion, is that your real subconscious aim?) Posted Central 7 July 2005

PS to Central - Please discuss each edit as has been repeatedly requested on Talk pages, otherwise it will continue to be reverted. --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I have. Posted Central 7 July 2005

Central, calling Danny Muse a stupid sociopath and recommending he see a doctor is not appropriate at Misplaced Pages. Please try to keep in mind that this is not a forum, a bbs, chatroom, or any such locale. This is an encyclopedia. We have serious work to do here that can only proceed in an atmosphere of wikilove. By participating here you implicitly agree to abide by our community standards. You must assume good faith of all other editors, work to make articles truly encyclopedic, and use the talk pages to further the encyclopedia's progress. Let's stop focusing on the other editors and try to focus on the article. Please respect the time and energy of other editors, and try to self-police your own biases. You may want to read what we call our one absolute and non-negotiable policy at WP:NPOV Tom Haws

All, perhaps the list of books under discussion is appropriate for this article; I'm not sure. I would suggest you try to find book lists in other articles (Mountain Meadows Massacre comes to mind) and follow their format. I think the descriptions given tend to be a little too promotional of the books, and shorter (perhaps single sentence) descriptions would be more appropriate. Feel free to get the input of other seasoned editors. Tom Haws July 7, 2005 20:58 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for the suggestion. I've tried revising the section as per your suggestion. I reviewed the format of the books listed in the Mountain Meadows Massacre article and more-or-less followed that. In fact, I left a brief blurb about each listing in order to try and be fair, which is more than the editors included on the MMM page. Let's see if this flies! --DannyMuse 8 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)

Danny's respectful and content-directed, but action-oriented manner is an example to us all. Tom Haws July 8, 2005 15:15 (UTC)

I see Danny Muse, has removed all meaningful descriptions of the books, which is hardly reasonable. Also, in the link given for Mountain Meadows Massacre there are over four paragraphs for one book! Here they are:

"Forthcoming book

A trio of LDS scholars have been funded by the LDS church to write a book, Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, to be published by the Oxford University Press:

Ronald W. Walker (BYU Professor of History),

Richard E. Turley Jr. (managing director of the Family and Church History Department of the Church), and Glen M. Leonard (director of the Church's Museum of Church History and Art).

The three were granted access to documents in the LDS Church archives. According to Turley, a file in the archives confirms that Lee was acting on his own. The file included the notes of a Mormon historian who, at the request of Church leaders, conducted a confidential investigation of the massacre in 1892. Turley said, "There are very candid statements on the part of participants to a Church official under the agreement of confidentiality."

While the trio found additional evidence of church leaders' culpability, Turley stated that "Utahns elsewhere in the territory acted to preserve the lives of other troublesome immigrants . . . Unfortunately, the militia and church leaders of Iron County made different decisions, and their acts demand the strongest condemnation . . . Circumstance may explain their acts; nothing can justify them."

The new sources the co-authors are using will be made public once their book is published. Turley said although the church is cooperating and is funding the research, the work is "not a Church commission"; "The idea to do the book was ours, not theirs." Publication apparently has been delayed as the co-authors have tried to be as thorough in their research as possible. According to Turley, LDS leaders share the authors' desire to bring all available evidence out in the open. First drafts of the book will be circulated for comment among LDS and non-LDS parties, including historians and descendants of the perpetrators and victims. "Open, candid evaluation of that tragedy can produce catharsis, a cleansing spiritual renewal and healing," Turley said, adding that the authors will "present the evidence as we find it - honestly, openly and candidly."

The above is hardly an example of a brief description, and is far greater than the longest has ever been for the Franz books. I have put back a smaller concise, neutral description that should keep all happy. Posted Central 10 July 2005

In reply to Central's comments regarding my edits to this section: I followed the format of the Books and book reviews section on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In fact, I left a brief blurb about each listing in order to try and be fair, which is more than the editors included on the MMM page for the books which are currently available. The section with "over four paragraphs for one book" is for a book that has not yet been published, (see Forthcoming book). I would guess that the editor that included the description felt that an explanation might be in order since the book is not yet available. At any rate, they are clearly NOT the same thing, to say they are is inaccurate and misleading.

I was only trying to follow the suggestion of Tom Haws in an attempt to resolve this disputed section. While Central has toned down his edits, I personally believe the descriptions are too long and too POV. Now we know what I think and what Central thinks. I for one would like to hear from the rest of the group on the issue. Thanks! --DannyMuse 15:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Great Crowd is perishable

Paul states, "I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: Death has been swallowed up in victory." - Melissadolbeer (unsigned)

According to JW beliefs, the "Great Crowd" is a group of people currently living that have the prospect of surviving the coming battle of Armageddon and living forever on a paradise earth. They won't need to be resurrected. The physical resurrection on earth will of humans that have died, but are not part of the "little flock" of "144,000 anointed" that will be resurrected to Heaven. The resurrection would be of humans from the time of Abel until now that have died. For more information see:

I believe the essence of these beliefs is already contained in the intro as it current reads. --DannyMuse 6 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Many vs. most regarding JWs as non-Christian

I cannot but conclude that saying "most Christians regard JWs as non-Christians" is accurate. That is the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and mainline Protestant view. One can disagree about how large a portion of Protestants think like this, but it's "most Christians" anyway; RCs and EOs comprise some 70 % of Christians. 82.181.158.247 9 July 2005 08:42 (UTC)