Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses

Earlier discussions on this entry may be found in this archive:

:* hiphop ringtones Talk:Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 01 - Archived old discussions, many undated, most dated prior to November 2003

Let's get it started

Eva Virgin Wikiproject Jehovah's Witnesses

Nextel ringtones George m/george 03:20, 1 Feb 2005

Unexplained edits
I just replaced a couple of sentences that were removed from this page without explanation. One compared their belief regarding Jesus Christ being a created being, with that of Arius; the other compared their belief in a spirit-only resurrection of Jesus Christ with early gnosticism. Before someone removes them again, it would be helpful if they provided some rationale for removing this information. Jenna Virgin Wesley/Wesley 17:02, 23 Aug 2004

:JW believe that the holy spirit is God's active force, not person. But, Arian is not. And JW believe physical resurrection of Jesus Christ in the 1st Century, then they are not gnosticism. Free ringtones Rantaro/Rantaro 07:30, 7 Oct 2004

Similar doctrines or differences

I am having some problems with the intro. In the first three paragraphs we have "The doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses are in many ways similar to those of a number of earlier groups with a nontrinitarian understanding of Christianity, a Biblical moral code and a strong commitment to evangelizing." and "Many of the Witnesses' doctrines differ radically from those of most other Christian groups." First of all, I am not sure, which groups the first sentence refers to. I would prefer to see names here. Maybe it refers to Millerite groups? But then my perception would be that these groups have more in common with mainstream Christianism than JWs have with those groups referred to in the first sentence. So I think that both these sentences are conflicting. How can we sort that out? Jessica Virgin HeikoEvermann/Heiko Evermann 21:09, 30 Oct 2004


BAPTISM

Heiko, it was me that removed the reference to the Baptist churches, not Summer Song. Why would you want to single out the Baptists in reference to this section of the article? Why not also include "Catholics, Mormons, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. ...."? I'm sure you get the idea. I don't see why it is not necessary to name any specific groups. When it says in the article that JW's "do not recognize baptisms from any other church" it means "any other church"!!! Mosquito ringtone DannyMuse/DannyMuse 08:14, 4 Nov 2004

Hi Danny, maybe I misread the history then. Sorry for that. Let me try to explain my point. Maybe we can then find a way to rewrite that in a better way: It is easy to understand that JWs do not accept infant baptism from infant baptizing churches. All Baptists (+Pentecostals, SDA etc) think that way. However those churches that practice "Belivers' Baptism" usually regard each others baptisms as valid. So you can convert from Pentecostal to Adventist and back without having to be rebaptized. It is different with JWs. They insist on rebaptism even though the JWs baptism and the Pentecostal baptism are essentially the same. If I didn't know about JWs, but knew that there are Baptist churches, I would like to be informed about that out of the article. Maybe the little hint in brackets was not enough. After all it is the second time that it was removed. So my proposal is to add 2 pieces of information. 1) JWs insist on rebaptism in the case of infant baptism, because like Baptists (which includes Pentecostals, SDA etc !!) they do not see the requirement of personal dedication met here and 2) they insist on repaptism in the case of a former Believers' Baptism, because ... (well, that I still do not know, and I would really like to know. Perhaps you can help me? Kind regards Nadia Virgin HeikoEvermann/Heiko Evermann 09:45, 4 Nov 2004

Hi Heiko, thanks for your clarification. Now I understand why you wanted to add the comment regarding Baptists. I still think that it is an unnecessary addition, but perhaps there is a way to make the point you want. As it was, your reason for including it was not obvious and it seemed to single out Baptist for now apparent reason. Let me think on this a while. But in the meantime you might want to read the recent additions I made to the JW main page under the subheading "Jehovah's Witnesses and other Religions." When you understand JW's view of other religions it becomes clear why anyone that becomes a JW will need to be baptized as such regardless of any and all previous baptisms. Cheers. Secret ringtone DannyMuse/DannyMuse 16:30, 4 Nov 2004

:Heiko, I've moved your recent changes here for preservation and/or discussion:

::* Concerning baptisms of churches that practice Nina Virgin infant baptism (e.g. Cingular Ringtones Catholics, new summer Lutherans, magically lived Anglicans ) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that infants are incapable of making a personal dedication to God and are therefore not eligible for baptism.

:"Eligible" is just the wrong word here. As JW's believe that baptism is a symbol of a personal dedication if follows that it is a result of an individual's conscious decision. Infants cannot do this. Eligibilty has nothing to do with it. I know that you feel the point that you are trying to make is important, and I'm all for that, but the way you have worded your revisions is unclear and obscures what JW's believe. This is after a page discussing JW Doctrines, not Catholic, Lutheran, etc.

:Also, why did you delete the comments regarding complete immersion? This is important and not all churches practice this, for example Catholics baptize by sprinkling. narrators such DannyMuse/DannyMuse 08:13, 7 Nov 2004

:::* Hi Danny, my dictionary says "eligible: fit to be chosen; legally or morally qualified". When I do a web search for "eligible for baptism", I find quite a number of instances. I thought that this was the technical term. But I am not a native speaker. I meant: infants are not qualified/eligible, _because_ they cannot make a concious decision. And as a side note: your church and my church agree over this point. Concerning the immersion: I did not delete that on purpose. I had thought that I had only moved it. Sorry for that. BTW: Thanks for rewording the baptism paragraph. I like it this way. Now it contains all the information that both of us want to see here. Kind regards eligibility requirement HeikoEvermann/Heiko Evermann 09:36, 7 Nov 2004

::::* Heiko, It's the "fit to be CHOSEN" part of eligible that doesn't work. Our understanding (which seems similar to yours) is that the individual must do the choosing, not someone else for them. This is why I do not think it is the best word to use. Other than that, I'm glad you approve of my last edits. On to the next subject. moderate subjective DannyMuse/DannyMuse 02:24, 8 Nov 2004

Confusing Prose, Seemingly Random Insertion Points

On 16 Dec 2004, anon user 69.133.109.231 inserted the following statement into the introduction:

:''"Following Russell's death in 1916, the foundationary structure of biblical understanding was discarded by the new leadership."''

To user 69.133.109.231: Could you please clarify what the phrase "foundationary structure of biblical understanding" is supposed to mean? It is very confusing and as worded does not seem to fit in the paragraph where inserted. What is the foundation to which your are referring? The structure? Perhaps if you reworked the sentence it would make more sense. Also, you might consider a more appropriate placement in the article for the point you are trying to make. Thanks. turkey largest DannyMuse/DannyMuse 12:41, 16 Dec 2004


Creationism

Concerning creation the article has a rather strange comment: "Witnesses differ from fundamentalist highly superstitious creationism/creationist groups in two important ways. " 1) The JW view of creationism is exactly one of the different facets of creationism that one can find. Exactly the same POV can be found elsewhere. The only noteworthy thing might be that JWs agree with each other about this, while different creationist POV can elsewhere be found in one and the same congregation, held by different individuals. So they do not "differ ... in two important ways". It would be better to say something like "Creationism among Christians comes in many different flavours. JWs believe this: xxx"
2) I think the passage should explicitly talk about Christian creationists, because that is what JW creationism should be compared against. (Besides most creationists today are Christians.) And I would like to propose to delete "fundamentalist", because fundamentalist and creationist are not related, and fundamentalist has a bad flavour these days. Kind regards greenwich mean User:HeikoEvermann/Heiko Evermann

Hi Heiko, I appreciate your call for clarification on this paragraph. JW's definitely believe that Jehovah God is the Creator, but they are not "Creationists" per se. What is the distinction? It is similar to your comments regarding the connotations of "fundamentalist". "Creationist" and "creationism" are generally used in popular discussions in connection with those that believe in a literal 6-Days of Creation, etc. As is explained in the article, this is not what JW's believe. I think a lot of your comments regarding the "different facets of creationism" are certainly valid, but that they belong in articles on that subject. This article is about JW Beliefs and should only include references to differing views where appropriate to distinguish their beliefs from commonly held similar views. That being said, I'll make some edits to try and incorporate your suggestions. Please review and advise. Thanks, better ted DannyMuse/DannyMuse 15:34, 31 Oct 2004


Creation and the Flood

On 23 Dec 2004, user 81.70.181.229 changed the "Origins: Creation" subhead to "Creation and the Flood", adding comments pertaining to both topics.

While there are certainly related points for both of these subjects I believe they should be handled separately. Intertwining them as they are now leads to an awkward structure of this section lacking coherence. I suggest the section be divided into two separate sections, one for Creation the other for the Flood.

As an additional point, 81.70.181.229 deleted the phrase "''theory of advice strategy evolution of species''" from the opening sentence of this section. I believe this is an important phrase both topically and due to the fact this was the subject of discussion that gave rise to this section of the article being developed. So I restored that phrase, attempting to include 81.70.181.229 points concerning creation involving more than just evolution, but also to the creation of the Universe itself. Discussion on these points are welcome! daughters occasionally DannyMuse/DannyMuse 18:08, 23 Dec 2004

:On 1 Jan 2005, anon user 81.70.181.229 again removed "Evolution of species" & "on Earth" from the Creation and the Flood section inserting these explanations into the text:

::* "saying 'Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the theory of betsy davis evolution of species' is incorrect as they accept limited evolution occurs as described below"

::RESPONSE: This is NOT incorrect. The “as described below” part referenced clearly makes the important distinction between by populist microevolution (which JWs accept) and how counselors macroevolution or ask routine speciation (which JWs do not accept). Microevolution and "evolution of species" are not the same thing. This is significant. The phrase in question merely begins the section by stating what JWs don't believe regarding evolution. Details follow. Nevertheless, I’ve revised the sentence in question to clarify the modern theory of bellow chicago evolution of species as that based upon willis i Charles Darwin/Darwin's theory of committee officials natural selection. Also, as stated above in reference to the 23 Dec 2004 edits, also by user 81.70.181.229, this phrase (evolution of species) is important both topically and due to the fact this was the subject of discussion that originally gave rise to this section of the article being developed. It needs to stay here.

:*"'on Earth' is redundant in this sentence; do you mean to say they accept that life elsewhere arose by 'chance'? No, so why specify Earth?"

::RESPONSE: On the contrary, the use of the word “Earth” is not redundant but rather emphasizes the point under discussion. For many people, the issue of the origin of the Universe and that of life on earth are different questions. Since we happen to live on Earth, this is the place that most concerns evolutionist. It is also currently the only place at present where we can directly study the evidence. Besides, the next sentence of the article addresses the supposed redundancy.

:As user 81.70.181.229 does not participate in the discussion here on the Discussion page, I have inserted a hidden comment into the article text requesting s/he do so. and phat DannyMuse/DannyMuse 18:55, 4 Jan 2005

Organ Transplants and Vaccines

I have re-entered the dates for the banning of organ transplants and vaccines and the subsequent change of policy. Porthos m said: "There never was any organ ban from what I can understand. . The article from 1967 made clear it was a personal choice" and he or she removed the article. I think it is very important to get facts correct before removing material. If you are not sure, then go and do some detailed research, don't just trash an entry due to lack of infomation.

Here is a small section from the Watchtower magazine where banning organ transplants: "Question from Readers (Watchtower 15th November 1967.) Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one's body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source? . . . Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one's life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. . . When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others."

In 1980 the position was reversed, and but they were still strongly insinuated to be wrong, but no action would be taken against those who chose to have an organ transplant.

In regard to Vaccines they were heavily condemned from 1921 onwards to 1952: "The public is not generally aware of how large an industry is the manufacture of serums, anti-toxins and vaccines, or that big business controls the whole industry......the boards of health endeavor to start an epidemic of smallpox, diphtheria, or typhoid that they may reap a golden harvest by inoculating an unthinking community for the very purpose of disposing of this manufactured filth... Vaccination summed up is the most unnatural, unhygienic, barbaric, filthy, abhorrent, and most dangerous system of infection known. Its vile poison taints, corrupts, and pollutes the blood of the healthy, resulting in ulcers, syphilis, scrofula, erysipelas, tuberculosis, cancer, tetanus, insanity, and death."-The Golden Age magazine, 3 January 1923 p.214

"Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancers, eczema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome affections. Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an outrage and a delusion."-The Golden Age, 1 May 1929 p. 502

This was changed in 1952: "The matter of vaccination is one for the individual that has to face it to decide for himself. Each individual has to take the consequences for whatever position and action he takes toward a case of compulsory vaccination, doing so according to his own conscience and his appreciation of what is for good health and the interests of advancing God's work. And our Society cannot afford to be drawn into the affair legally or take the responsibility for the way the case turns out."-Watchtower magazine, 15 December 1952 p.764

=revisited=

I think we should consider the conclusion to the 1967 article:

It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105.

This does not sound like a "Ban"

The conclusion to the 1980 article:

Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

Obviously they reduced the intensity of the article, but not the spirit of the '67 article.

:There certainly was no lack of information or research on my part, I just tend to be a bit quick sometimes. The article may have used words such as cannibalistic, which has a very negative tone to it, but this 1969 text, which was the basis for the way the Witnesses viewed organ transplants really just showed that it is a personal decision that you need to take very seriously, weighing in certain biblical aspects, and some chose not to allow their bodies to be subjected to transplants. Did anyone misunderstand this article? I don't know. It might have been so, but the gist of it seems pretty clear to me - organ donations were not banned. This is why I removed the talk of any ban. 7846 22:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)