User talk:Truth.ceeker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Hello! I've marked the article with the {{references}} and {{worldview}} tags because while your edits appear to be very helpful and seem to be accurate, we need to have a verifiable resource to reference. Also, "Witness jargon" should be avoided, except for terms which may already have articles or sections of their own, of be already defined within Wikipedia. - CobaltBlueTony 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

LOOK HERE. Yes, these messages are for you! Again, welcome! For your edits, you must provide verifiable sources per WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and so forth. I know your edits are good, and that they appear accurate, but we must have original sources listed, or it becomes original research, unverifiable, or otherwise unacceptable according to Wikipedia's policies. Read more in hte green welcome message above. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks' for the reminder but you seem to be quick on the trigger while I am still in the middle of updating the information. When I have finished, I will go back and add the details to the information for reference. Thank you. Protector of the Truth 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait, but in the future that much information on this controversial series is likely to get mercilessly chopped out by oppositional editors. This is why it's best to follow Wikipedia's policies (in this case, WP:CITE states to add references when you add material; theoretically, you should have that material on hand as you write). - CobaltBlueTony 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello Truth.ceeker! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! CobaltBlueTony 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Your user page

I noticed you put up the JW article on your user page. This is rather unusual. Most people, if they want to work on an article in a private space, would create a subpage. For instance User:Truth.ceeker/Jehovah's Witnesses.

  • I have since updated and moved this information to a sub-page. Protector of the Truth 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

However, your edits in question seem to suggest that JW's no longer teach that 1914 is held as the date of Jesus enthronement. I assert this is not the case. For instance, the latest KM refers to "the start of "the Lord's day" in 1914". joshbuddy, talk 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • From about 1995 till about 2005 they did not teach this doctrine. The references to this teaching was minute or absent during this period in their publications. Also, they did not preach this doctrine when evangelizing their faith to others. They did not teach this doctrine at their meetings during this period as well. Protector of the Truth 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You claim that users have deleted your cited and referenced edits, but the edits you have made to the article that has been placed on your user page are incorrect, and do not accurately represent the current teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. The idea of Jesus taking kingdom power was not abandoned in 1995 at all; it was only the belief that the literal generation that saw 1914 would be present when the present 'system of things' would end that was abandoned. Additionally, you should be careful about the way you word things (such as comments about 'New Light') to avoid your edits being classed as point-of-view.--Jeffro77 07:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I have cited Watchtower and Awake Magazines, and other publications for the edits I made. The idea was not taught from 1995 to 2005. It had a resurgence in late 2005 as their publications started using the idea once again. Protector of the Truth 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrongedy wrong wrong. Here's just one reference from each year that you claim it wasn't taught. There are many more. w04 1/15 p. 12 par. 13; w03 1/1 p. 6; w02 2/1 p. 12; w01 6/1 p. 17 par. 1; w00 1/1 p. 9 par. 15; w99 1/1 p. 20 par. 22; w98 1/1 p. 6 par. 1; w97 1/1 p. 10 par. 15; w96 2/1 p. 19 par. 11--Jeffro77 10:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In the watchtower studies, the doctrine was briefly noted, but it was no longer a main focal point. Unless you were attending the meeting, you would not have gotten that just by searching for it on the cd-rom. Protector of the Truth 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
My mistake... that must be why the Isaiah's Prophecy publications, published 2000-2001, refer to 1914 30 times, and Daniel's Prophecy, published 1999 mentions it 22 times. The Worship God publication (2002) mentions it 11 times. And What Does the Bible Teach? (2005) has a section specifically dealing with it.--Jeffro77 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffro77

The second paragraph starts off with saying that the JW's have been focused on the second coming of Christ. They render the greek word 'parousai' as presence. So by using the word 'coming' would be in error with what they believe as Christ's presence and not coming. More to follow... - Protector of the Truth 01:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Um... okay. Feel free to correct it. I didn't put it there.--Jeffro77 02:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, just reviewing the edits you have made on your User page to that second paragraph, there are several errors/problems in what you have changed...

1) Jehovah's Witnesses are still focused on the presence of Christ since 1914. That is NOT the belief that was changed in 1995; only the belief that the literal aging generation alive in 1914 would be present at the 'great tribulation' is what was changed. The teaching about 1914 has not been abandoned at all, and is still frequently mentioned in JW publications to the present day. (For example, see Watchtower October 1 2005, page 23; Watchtower December 1, 2005, page 5),

  • Although this doctrine had a resurgence in late 2005, it is no longer stressed or taught as a principle doctrine at their meetings. Protector of the Truth 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There was no 'resurgence'. The teaching has been maintained continuously for the entire intervening period. See publication references above under previous topic.--Jeffro77 07:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

2) "New Light and understanding" is poorly worded. It would be better to leave out "and understanding" and keep the footnote, or leave out "New Light" and the footnote.

  • It would have been better to move 'New Light' to the doctrine section instead of just deleting it beause it does not belong in a particular section. Protector of the Truth 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

3) Discussion about the belief that "Jehovah God has allowed the Faithful and Discreet Slave to better understand" does not belong in the introductory paragraph of the article (which should be a summary), and should be in the part of the article dealing with doctrines.

4) It is redundant to say that a theme (that is one of their teachings) is relevant to their teachings.

  • It would have been better to correct the wording in order to simplify the information such that it easily conveys the message to the reader.

Taking the liberty of just deleting information without using proper etiquette or responsibility is in bad form. Protector of the Truth 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Tip

I have not got around to learning about sub-pages yet. - Protector of the Truth 07:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to the Watchtowerites page

Hello Cobaltbluetony. I wanted to recommend that this page be linked to the main article of 'Jehovah's Witnesses' instead of just deleting the information. The term is still applied today and as I get more sources referenced, it will become apparent that is still the case as well as providing some history of the group. This would be analogous to the terms that appear in the introduction such as 'Millerites', etc. Another option is to include a sentence about this in the introduction itself and then provide the links in the reference section or possibly another sub-page. Protector of the Truth 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Governing Body page

Hello Cobaltbluetony. There has been much information that has been deleted from this page and wanted to get your assistance in getting it in order or better organized. Protector of the Truth 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think that the branch commitees rather should be dealt with in another article. Maybe an in-depth article about the Bethel should be founded? That article is esecially about the GB and should only deal with that. Summer Song 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)