This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Regarding cessation of WT sales

Untitled

I've removed this blurb again since the fact of the matter is already nicely stated above, and the removed text contains only conjecture. It is not the place of an unbiased article, and is indeed as the anonymous editor pointed out "unprofessional," to point out a fairly well known fact and then claim JWs' ignorance of that fact. This isn't something that can be proven by any existing statistic, and anecdotal evidence would certainly suggest the contrary. As the article already rightly points out in a fair manner, the WBTS did indeed cease sale of the WT in the US largely to avoid paying taxes on the literature, which would increase the cost of production. The funds previously collected from the WT's sale now have to be provided by donation, largely on the part of practicing JWs. The WBTS has never made pretexts as to how the print of their literature is funded, and it is very inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to attempt to suggest the motives of any group in a manner more suited for a tabloid or editorial. -- uberpenguin 13:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see that it was mentioned above, since no one said anything and I didn't look. I get what you mean. I just added a sentence in the remaining mention simply stating what people were and weren't told, I corrected the dates, and I changed a ; to a ,.Tommstein 19:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The phrasing now is much better, thanks! -- uberpenguin 00:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing.Tommstein 02:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

POV Laundering and Fact-Removal persists

I re-added the POV and accuracy disputes because there is clear laundering of this page to include anything regarding criticism. Caroi did not remove the content contained in the section she found objectionable, she removed the entire sections! Caroi, do you believe there should even be a section that discusses criticism? Samrolken 23:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you believe the point of this article is? cairoi 18:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Doctrine should be discussed on the Doctrine Page

I would like to suggest that the following sections be discussed under the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses Page as they do not deal specifically with the magazine though it is a vehicle for those doctrines. You will find a link to the doctrines page towards the end of the article.

Criticism

As the primary mechanism for communication of offical Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine, The Watchtower has come under criticism for many things, including what appear to be inconsistent stances on certain issues over time ("new light", in JW terminology), unfulfilled prophecy, and inconsistency with mainstream Christian interpretations of the Bible.

Changes in Stance

The Watchtower has changed its stance on many doctrinal issues. The official justification for these inconsistencies comes from Proverbs 4:18, which reads, "The path of the righteous one is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established."

Claims that the interpretations of the leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses are infallable
Generation of 1914 to live to Armegeddon
Other Armegeddon and end-times related dates (in 1918, 1925, the 1940s and 1975, etc)
Acceptability for JWs to participate in non-combatant military service
Disfellowshipping of women who do not scream during rape
The meaning of baptism
Jehovah God's residence in the Pleiades constellation
Suitability of higher education as a goal for young Jehovah's Witnesses
Medical use of blood components