Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2005-12-27 Jehovah's Witnesses

< Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal | Cases

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stevenwmccrary58 (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 10 January 2006 (→Mediator's Proposal 3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request for cabal mediation

Initial request

Request made by: Duffer 10:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Status: mediator SteveMc 04:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC) responded, moved a very long discussion, and is awaiting response.[reply]
Where is the issue taking place?
The Jehovah's Witnesses and related pages.
Who's involved?
Duffer (myself), Tommstein, Central, due to the distinct lack of editors for this and related pages, others will likely want to be involved Konrad West, CobaltBlueTony, and Dtbrown.
What's going on?
A lengthy edit war is taking place over several aspects of the Jehovah's Witness page; the most significant of which is the matter of who will survive Armageddon according to Jehovah's Witness theology. I know such matters may sound abstract to people unfamiliar with Jehovah's Witness theology and/or biblical prophecy. Please bear with me.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and officially teach, that many Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon to live life on a paradise earth. Those who actively, and conscientiously oppose and/or obstruct the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry will be killed at Armegeddon with no hope for resurrection. This 'with us-or-against us' message is proliferated in nearly all Jehovah's Witness publications. The problem is this message often gives the false impression that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that if you are not with us, then you will die at Armageddon. Such a belief is not accurate Jehovah's Witness theology. When confronted with questions about who will survive and who will not, Witnesses know that the "sheep" will be saved and the "goats" will not be. But what of those who are not a Jehovah's Witness yet still live righteously? Witnesses teach that the bible does not specify, and "we are not the judges" of such ones. It is this grey area of non-witness, yet righteous people, that is at the core of this edit war. The reverts:
Mine: Those who consciously, and actively, oppose the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry will be eternally killed at Armageddon along with the unrighteous. Those who have no knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses, and live righteously, may possibly be spared.
Tomm's and Central's: Humans who have had contact with Jehovah's Witnesses or know of them, and yet still do not actively side with Jehovah by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses will be eternally killed at Armageddon without consideration for age (based on Ezekiel 9; Insight On the Scriptures 1988, Vol. 1 p. 849) Depending on which of the Witnesses' publications you are looking at, some who never had contact or knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses may possibly be spared death due to their ignorance.
My edit accurately reflects current Jehovah's Witness theology. I cited sources for this entry here: talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#The ONLY teaching of who will survive Armageddon. Tomm and Centrals' edit reflects old Jehovah's Witness theology that was revised around 1976. To support their edit they cite Watchtower Bible & Tract Society publications: talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Previous teachings about who will be destroyed at Armageddon. The problem is the quotes they cite are not specifically talking about the "grey area" (as I call it). They are talking about the "sheep" or "goats", not a single one of the quotes is specifically addressing the "grey area", contrary to that, the WBT&TS quotes that I have provided do specifically address the "grey area". WTBTS articles are themed, they follow a specific bible theme for that particular issue. These articles avoid specifics of off-theme subjects (such as the "grey area") so as to not detract from the overall theme of the article, which can cause confusion to non-Witness readers. This is not a new controversy to our page (see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 16#Unbelievers eternally destroyed?) the Jehovah's Witness Uberpenguin was virtually browbeat into silence through highly abusive language and spamming of out of context quotes. No Jehovah's Witness on this Wiki project agrees with Tomm and Central's edit, and the official WTBTS quotes I have provided unequivoclly speak against their edit. They claim we are lying, and/or ignorant of our faith and official teachings. Besides all of that, the source they cite in their edit itself (Insight On the Scriptures 1988, Vol. 1 p. 849) does not even mention the issue. Duffer 11:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I ultimately see this issue and the related pages/issues seeing official Wiki arbitration due to the abusive language of Tommstein, and the pervasive prejudice of both him and Central.
What would you like to change about that?
What Tomm and Central continuously RV to is an old Jehovah's Witness teaching (there is an appropriate section for this). I want current, official, Jehovah's Witness theology accurately represented, and past teachings (accurately presented) relegated to the appropriate section (which I would link to but the pages are such a damned mess I can't seem to find it..). A comprehensive list of articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#List of articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Duffer 11:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
My E-mail is on my user page, however, I would prefer that this stay public if at all possible since there is really such a small amount of active editors of the articles in question.
Other Issues

(removed content regarding another dispute now occuring on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/6_01_2006_Jehovah's_Witnesses_-_New_World_Translation)

(removed superfluous comments from george 1/3/06 SteveMc 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comments by others

Several pages of talk and comment were removed herefrom to Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/surviving_armegeddon by SteveMc 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's initial responses

Response 1

Greetings all,

  1. How much of this discussion should be occuring on the JW talk page instead of on this one? Please move there.
  2. Duffer's original statement about this being a lengthy edit is an understatement. Has anyone heard of concise responses? Will these replies go on and on forever? This is not a blog; please spare us with the bloviating. Please keep the quotes off of this page. Thanks.
  3. As I edit the above material to remove the bloviating, and to try to get to the bottom of this controversy. Please do not revert. Thanks.
  4. In the future, please address all edits to me, not to the other users.
  5. Please stop insulting each other ("hide behind your ignorance", "zero regard for truth") and stick to the issues. Please assume good faith.

Sincerely, SteveMc 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2

It appears that there are three issues disputed here:

  1. Duffer brought the original issue: What happens to non-JW believers at Armegeddon?
    Mediator's response: It appears that the editors are on their way to resolution. I moved the discussion to Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/surviving_armegeddon. I am inclined to let it evolve to a solution without my input. SteveMc 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Tommstein brought a second issue: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
    Mediator's response: If this is the case, and if so desired, please start a new topic on the main cabal page. SteveMc 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Jeffro77 brought yet another issue regarding the use of the word society.
    Mediator's response: I suggest that this issue be brought up on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses for resolution among the editors. SteveMc 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look? Thanks, SteveMc 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your evaluation of the issues at hand is accurate. I also would like to express my appreciation for your diligent and concise efforts to get to the heart of the issues, and deflect the superfluous. - CobaltBlueTony 18:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's response

  1. Hopefully something does come from the efforts. Only time will tell.
  2. I didn't actually bring that up, Duffer1 brought that up too. He just didn't have any replies to my reply, and went back to just reverting the article.
  3. I think that has been long taken care of. It was just brought up by Duffer1 presumably to make it seem like there are problems where there are none.
Thank you for your efforts in this, which I know must have taken an unholy amount of time. If I should be posting this on the mediation page, let me know; I just think that "Mediator's initial responses" should only contain mediator's responses.Tommstein 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tommstein, thanks for the response, sincerely. I do not get much feedback from users, so I cherish it. I see what you are saying, so maybe we need to create some sort of category for "feedback to mediator," or something. Many thanks, good luck with your pages, and Happy New Year. SteveMc 17:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you are very much welcome, you more than deserve it for willingly wading into something like this. Happy New Year to you too.Tommstein 22:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2: You and user:Mini refused compromise, I took it to mediation though apparently I need to start a new mediation process for that one when I start feeling better. I have adequately responded to your criticisms and supplied information resources that dispute your claims.
3:I brought it up to underscore just how difficult it is for any known Jehovah's Witness to edit this page without meeting stone wall resistance, and just how unreasonable the resistance is. "Society" / "Brotherhood" was a more than perfect example of such rediculous behavior. Duffer 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What we refused was your proposal to turn documented, independently-verifiable fact into a 'claim' made by 'critics'.
  2. It was so ridiculous that you saw the point yourself, after someone that wasn't me told you.
By the way, I think we should probably not clutter this page with this stuff, seeing as it apparently won't be addressed in this mediation session anyway.Tommstein 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. It is interpretation of fact presented by extremely biased sources, I provided an equally biased source interpreting the facts in favor of the NWT, they are both claims to fact. Despite this, you and user:Mini have refused any sort of compromise.
3. Someone actually took the time to specify an objection, which lead to me delete the questionable word altogether, which lead to a more readible and accurate sentence for everyone. My point is, neither you nor user:Central had ANY part in the process of compromise over ONE word. You both provided nothing but an edit war and verbal abuse. Sure it was my fault for not seeking mediation, though that was not my fault alone. Duffer 06:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmkay. It must be true since you keep saying it.Tommstein 08:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's questions 1

This is good. OK, here are my questions. Please keep your answers succinct and to the point. Thanks.

The main question deals with dates and authority of sources.

To Duffer: In your original post, you make note that your references about "non-JW believers at Armegeddon" are more current than the references of editors. Please place the citation '(author, date, title, location of quote, but not the quotation)' of your sources in the space below.
http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl?az=read_count&om=4&forum=DCForumID4 The abbreviations may look odd to someone unfamiliar with our literature: w76 6/1 347-8 = Wachtower (magazine) 1976, June 1st edition, pages 347-348. The issue is a common misconception about Jehovah's Witness doctrine. So much so that the Witnesses at the Touchestone website stickied a permanent reply that states the current, official, teachings of the bible as interpreted by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. Though we do believe that survival of un-believers isn't likely, we unequivocally do NOT discount the possibility that they just might. Duffer 18:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duffer, thanks. I am looking only at the quotations from WBTS literature, right, not the interpretations thar are also on that page? What is "rs 47" referring to? Thanks again, SteveMc 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RS 47 is the Reasoning Book page 47. The RS book is basically a quick answer guide to our theology. I tell you honestly when Central posts his quotes it will look bad, you must keep in mind that the large majority of quotes is "good or bad" or "us-or-them" type language, such quotes are not refering to "not-us, but still good". I appreciate your efforts, ask me anything you like. Duffer 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am fighting a nasty cold at the moment; what I meant by "it will look bad", was not to infer that Central's quotes would be bad, but that, they will say what he infers them to say to someone that doesn't understand Jehovah's Witness theology. The WTB&TS isn't worried about specifying who's going to survive Armaggedon everytime it comes up in a WT article (which is ALOT) so they use with-us-or-against-us type language, but when an article does talk specifically about who will survive, they specifically say "we do not know", "it's pointless to speculate", " Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way." etc.. However, such uncertainty is tempered by biblical precedents such as Noah's Ark where only he and his family survived, despite this, we unequivocally do not discount the possibility of non-Witness survivors. Duffer 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Central: In your original post, you state, "according ro all literature approved as from the Governing Body . . . gives the non-ambiguous stance that they will all be killed eternally." Please place the citation ('author, date, title, publisher, location of quote, but not the quotation') of your sources in the space below.
(citations from Central)
  1. There are only two organizations, Gods (JWs) or Satan's (all non JWs). Anyone not a JW automatically falls into the other camp by default according to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. No extra category's is given for the ignorant, they are by default in Satan's class, unless they change and become a JW. The only way to salvation is through Jehovah's witnesses' organization:
    • Proclaimers book, 1993, p.676.
    • Live Forever book, 1982, 1989, p. 209.
    • Revelation book, 1988, pp. 282-286.
    • 15 September 1992 Watchtower, pp. 23-4.
    • Watchtower magazine, 15 Sept, 1988, pp.14-15.
    • Watchtower magazine 15 January 1999, p.9.
    • 15 June 1999 Watchtower, p. 6.
    • 1 December 1999 Watchtower, p. 18.
  2. Ignorance is no excuse, they will still die:
    • 1 April 1982 Watchtower, pp. 30-1.
    • 15 September 1991 Watchtower, p. 17
    (and all in group 1)
  3. Mark of salvation essential for salvation, including baptism as a JW. Only survivors will be JWs.
    • Watchtower 15 January 1989 p.20.
    • Knowledge book, 1995 p.180.
    • Watchtower 15 January 1991 p.29.
    • Watchtower, 15 November 1983, p.24.
    • Watchtower 15 June 1999 p.6
All quotes above are listed here
Plus of course the rest in archive 16:
I can't find any that give a tangible possibility to survival of non-JWs ignorant or not. And Duffer's 1976 listing it totally out of date, and it still declines to make a comment either way, but just evasively avoids the issue. Central 18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To other users: Is there any dispute about the source given by Duffer above? If so, please provide the citation ('author, date, title, publisher, location of quote, but not the quotation') of your sources in the space below.

What source, a link to someone's forum post? Whatever stuff the author of the post is talking about?Tommstein 08:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(citations that dispute Duffer's claim)
  • w76 6/1 347-8 is old light, since this separation into "sheep" and "goats" is moved into the future. New interpretation is found in w95 2/1 12 paragraph 11-15
  • w95 10/15 28 par 23 should be read in context with next par 24
  • rs 47 read the whole paragraph, you should hurry to convert
  • w98 8/15 20 main problem on talk page
--Mini 10:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no one else respond to these posts. I will direct questions to each part. Thanks, SteveMc 18:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's questions 2

I have read the responses above and the discussion on the talk page, and the discussion on the surviving armegeddon page. I appreciate everyone who answered the question. Also, your demeanor here is excellent, and I hope it spills over to the talk page.

It appears that the text in dispute is (quoting directly from the Wikipedia JW page):

""The only flesh saved" at Armageddon will be faithful Jehovah's Witnesses—these being just the "anointed" and the "great crowd", according to the vast majority of the Governing Body's approved publications through the Watch Tower Society. (Watchtower magazines 15 November 1983, p.24; 15 June 1999, p.6; Live Forever book, p.255) A few other Witness publications do not comment either way about individuals at Armageddon who are uninformed of Jehovah's Witnesses' message. These publications leave the fate of these people in "God's hands"; whether or not they might be spared destruction is left inconclusive in those publications. (Watchtower magazines 1976, pp.347–8; 15 August 1998, p.20; Reasoning book, p.48)"

Is this the disputed text? Does anyone oppose it? (Please keep it extremely brief.) Thanks, SteveMc 20:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave out the Watchtower 1976 as this is not in line with current teaching.--Mini 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the real disputed text was like a thousand versions ago. This current version seems good enough to me, barring someone bringing up something I didn't notice, and without looking at what the references specifically say (which Mini seems to have done though), since the text of the paragraph seems to be pretty accurate.Tommstein 23:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(deleted superfluous comments, please stay on subject. thanks, SteveMc 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think it could be simplified a bit. "The Governing Body's approved publications through the Watch Tower Society" could become "Watch Tower publications." I think "ignorant" works better than "uninformed" in the second sentence. I also think the 76 WT reference is still valid despite the re-interpretation of who are the "sheep" and "goats" as that is a different issue. I'd prefer a more concise statement but that may not be possible. Dtbrown 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sheep and goats" clarification:
1976 edition talks about separation before Armageddon. Therefore you can not say this person is a sheep/goat because he may change in the remaining time till Armageddon. 1995 edition moves separation to Armageddon and at that time there is no question anymore of who will survive and who not. Sheep/goat depends on support of Christs brothers (i.e. 144.000) mainly in preaching work. So this in fact is now another proof of "only JW will survive" (more precisely: only active JW).--Mini 11:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with it:
  • ""The only flesh saved" at Armageddon will be faithful Jehovah's Witnesses—these being just the "anointed" and the "great crowd", according to the vast majority of the Governing Body's approved publications through the Watch Tower Society". Being a faithful Jehovah's Witness ensures the best possible hope for survival, however, we teach that it still does not ensure it. "The only flesh saved" would more accurately read: "only one organization is said to pass through Armageddon."
  • A few other Witness publications do not comment either way about individuals at Armageddon who are uninformed of Jehovah's Witnesses' message. These publications leave the fate of these people in "God's hands"; whether or not they might be spared destruction is left inconclusive in those publications." This is heavily overstated and inaccurate. The citations I provided unequivocally leave the matter as a possibility, though maybe not a probability. The above sentence does not reflect that fact.
I suggest a revision of what User:George m previously suggested: "(Witnesses) believe the Bible makes it plain that although God does not want anyone to be destroyed, he has and will again destroy all who reject His standards in the Bible. JW's believe they are the only ones teaching these standards. They therefore find it unlikely many will survive armageddon who do not associate with them." This is in line with what is actually taught. I propose:
"The Witnesses believe that Jehovah will destroy all of those who (consciously) reject His standards. Witnesses believe that they are the only ones teaching these standards, as a result, they find it unlikely that those who do not associate with them will survive Armageddon, though they do not discount the possibility."
I feel this is alot more concise, and accurate than what is stated above. Duffer 08:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An addendum to my previous comment. I would agree to using "possibility" in the bullet but feel Duffer's proposal does not cover the stronger statements in WT literature. In researching this last night I came across this statement from the April 15, 1995 Watchtower, p. 22 about how children will be judged at Armageddon: "In that day of accounting, young children, or boughs, will be dealt with justly according to Jehovah’s assessment of their roots, their parents, who have oversight of these children. Wicked parents will have no posterity to perpetuate their wicked ways. But those who exercise faith in God’s Kingdom promises will not be shaken." Dtbrown 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duffer, Thanks for the response, they are well made. Here are my questions:
  • Regarding your first point: I do not see that either the current text or the proposed text addresses the issue raised, i.e. WTS teaching regarding the faithful's chances of surviving Armegeddon.
  • Regarding your second point: Again, I see little actual difference between the current and the proposed versions. Is there some nuànce that I am missing?
  • I do agree that the proposed text is much more concise and to the point, which I like.
Thanks, SteveMc 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with his proposal is that it eliminates mention of the vast majority of their publications saying that only Witnesses will survive, no others. In other words, it says exactly what he has wanted all along, and completely ignores every argument and source presented by everyone else, like this mountain of sources where they claim that only they will survive just doesn't exist or something. He has provided like one source that explicitly leaves open the possibility for non-Witnesses, and wishes to ignore the literally dozens and dozens of sources that explicitly leave no possibility for non-Witnesses.Tommstein 07:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's questions 3

  • It seems to me that much of this disagreement is over nuance of meaning that the general reader of an encyclopedia is not going to appreciate anyway. Please understand that the general reader will not understand the nuance of JW-speak, so it is your responsibility to make it clear. My point here is that it does very little good to argue about nuance that the general reader will not catch any way. If it is important, though, then state the theology without nuance, in certain and clear (un-nuanced) language.
  • I think I am ready to summarize the points here: Seems to me that
    (a) WTS believes that survival of Armegeddon is important;
    (b) WTS believes there is sufficient scriptural evidence to state that survival of Armegeddon depends more or less on being a faithful JW;
    (c) WTS believes that there is sufficient scriptural evidence to state that those who reject Jehovah (or more precisely the teachings of WTS) will not survive Armegeddon, and
    (d) other than those two groups of people, WTS does not have absolute certainty on who survives since scripture does not make it 100% crystal clear.

Is this accurate? SteveMc 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(d) is not really accurate as the WTS normally states there do exist only two groups. Either your are in or you are out. Your thoughts would need to have a third group. It is that some writings leave it to the reader to decide and JW's normally know the meaning, but the uninformed thinks it is a tolerant religion.--Mini 18:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(deleted discourse with CobaltBlueTony.SteveMc 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]


How about this?
Witnesses believe that to survive Armageddon one must be be a faithful Jehovah's Witness. Those who reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face destruction at Armageddon. A few Witness publications leave the question of whether due to ignorance certain individuals might be spared destruction at Armageddon in God's hands. Dtbrown 01:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the last part reads too much like an undisputed exception to the first part, whereas the very existence of this exception is the exact point under contention. As written, one of two things can happen when a casual reader encounters this: one, they can figure that the last part is in fact an indisputable exception to the first part, or two, they can leave confused about the two parts contradicting themselves without even trying to explain what's going on. Neither is good.Tommstein 07:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm about to sound like Bill Clinton here, (a) is true, (b) depends on what you mean by "more or less," and (c) and (d) depend on what you mean by "reject" in (c) (a lot of this is caused by how Jehovah's Witnesses like to use words among themselves in somewhat different ways than the rest of the world uses them, and I'm not sure how much of what you're saying is influenced by vocabulary that you've seen in their publications or heard from Witnesses here).Tommstein 07:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, I share your concern about overstating the degree to which JW teaching allows for God to rescue "non-believers". I have tried to clarify my meaning of "more or less" and "reject" in the proposals below. Plus, I have also tried to maximize their teaching about who will survive and perish, and minimize their recognition of God adding those from the, so called, "grey ones." (I know you do not believe that JWs have a grey area, and I agree, but some of their writings recognize that children, and those who have not heard, require God's consideration.) Thanks, SteveMc 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A - Is true. B - would be true if tempered by specifics such as "they do not discount the possibility of non-Witness survivors". C - Is true. D - Is true, we can only speculate based on past biblical precedent. Duffer 10:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is actual objection to the current post as it is?
A "'The only flesh saved' at Armageddon will be faithful Jehovah's Witnesses". This is factually correct in their literature, and it in no way states "all Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved", or even "All faithful Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved. ." It's like saying, "Giraffes will be saved on Noah's Ark", it does not state, "all giraffes will be saved" and so is accurate.
B "according to the vast majority of the Governing Body's approved publications through the Watch Tower Society" The Governing Body needs a mention as all doctrines and changes come from them, and are then put in print. They do not come from the rank and file Witnesses' interpretations.
C "A few other Witness publications do not comment either way about individuals at Armageddon who are uninformed of Jehovah's Witnesses' message." This is correct, as there are relatively few publications, (most outdated), and none of them give a real opinion, just innuendo cloaked in evasive terminologies.
D "These publications leave the fate of these people in 'God's hands'" Note, "these" [few] not all.
E "whether or not they might be spared destruction is left inconclusive in those publications." The main point being 'inconclusive' rather than a "possibility" which is never written. This is probably the biggest problem many JWs have. They know very well these few articles are written in such a winding and carefully worded way, surreptitiously trying to make the reader think they are stating one thing, when in fact they are clearly saying nothing at all.
(deleted superfluous comments)SteveMc 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Central 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's response

Greetings, I think I am ready to give some sort of educated response. One thing upon which we all agree is that an encyclopedia should present a "balanced" understanding of WTS teaching. Here is how I see that teaching: God (through the WTS interpretation of the Bible) shows people a certain means to survive Armageddon, those faithful to that teaching survive, those derelict thereto perish, God alone discerns between being faithful and being derelict.

Therefore, I make the following proposal, drawing from several suggestions given at various places. Here is what I suggest:

Mediator's Proposal 1

Here it is

"Witnesses believe that "the only saved flesh" at Armageddon will be faithful Jehovah's Witness. Those who reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. However, Witnesses teach that God alone judges who is a faithful Witness (thereby recognizing, what seems an unlikely possibility, that God may add to the faithful, as He determines), which does not undermine Witnesses' belief that the only known means of survival is to be a faithful JW believer."

Please provide input to me, here, (and me alone) on this proposal. In your feedback, please provide changes to the text only, I should be able to discern the reason for the suggested change. If not, I will ask. As the input is received, I will revise the proposed text, and make a new offer. Thanks, SteveMc 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you like the feedback, here or on your talk page? Duffer 21:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here, sorry. SteveMc 21:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Witnesses believe that in order to have the best hope of surviving the comming Armageddon you must adhere to the biblical principles, and interpretations as presented by the Watchtwer Bible & Tract Society. Those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. Due to biblical precedents, such as the events surrounding Noah's Ark, they find it unlikely that those who do not associate with them will survive Armageddon, though they do not discount the possibility. Duffer 21:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duffer, excellent suggestions. I used many of your changes, since it appears that you and I are both trying not to over or under state JW's belief about how much God will add to the faithful from the so-called "grey ones." I believe that the statement, "do not discount that possibility", is a little soft, so I deleted it, and added "very" to "unlikely", see below. SteveMc 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's Proposal 2

Here it is:

"Witnesses believe the best hope for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the Biblical principles and interpretations presented by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society--these being among the "anointed" and the "great crowd." And those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. Witnesses recognize that God alone judges who is a faithful Witness (an acknowledgement that God could add survivors at Armageddon), but due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark, Witnesses find it very unlikely that those who do not associate with them will survive Armageddon."

SteveMc 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best compromise I've seen so far - George
agreed--Greyfox 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it still shares the same problem that most other proposals have. By saying that "Witnesses believe the best hope..." and "Witnesses find it very unlikely...," the paragraph implies that there is a non-best hope or small probability of survival for non-Witnesses. However, that is the very point under contention, whether they do offer any hope at all to non-Witnesses, no matter what the probability may be, or whether no such hope is offered at all. The paragraph goes with the former view, and makes no mention of the latter view. I don't think that this is something that can be explained correctly without a 'branching' explanation, if you will. What we have are two different sets of completely mutually exclusive, contradictory teachings: teaching number one, that there is no hope, at all, for non-Witnesses, and teaching number two, that there is in fact some small nonzero hope for (some?) non-Witnesses. These are mutually exclusive, since one assigns the probability of 0 to the survival of any non-Witnesses, while the other assigns a nonzero probability. Such is not mathematically reconcilable. I think that an accurate explanation will almost of necessity have to be roughly of the form 'according to mutually exclusive teaching one, they say this, while according to mutually exclusive teaching two, they say this other thing' (obviously, there's tremendous leeway for how that could be worded). I do not see how these two different teachings can be reconciled without explicit mention of both of them, and, in fact, I wonder whether our even trying to do so doesn't break WP:NOR.
The other thing I would like to mention is that "Witnesses recognize that God alone judges who is a faithful Witness (an acknowledgement that God could add survivors at Armageddon)" is a non sequitur, in my opinion, besides having much the same problem that I mentioned above. Witnesses hold that God will in fact be the judge of who is a faithful Witness at Armageddon, but all that can be derived from that, which is a point that they like to remind their members of, is that people 'secretly practicing sin' while publicly proclaiming to be Witnesses will get busted at Armageddon; stating that God will make the decision as to which Witnesses are faithful does not open the door to people that are not Witnesses at all.
I would again like to commend you for all the time and effort you put into this. God knows how much time just writing these responses and trying to make them halfway decent takes me.Tommstein 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tommstein, thanks for the consider responses.
  • Regarding the views being mutually exclusive, I definitely see your point, and I am not opposed to a type of "mutually exclusive teaching" statement, however, at this point, I am not convinced that JW's teach that these view are mutually exclusive.
    1. Let's review the phrase that seem to be hanging us up here: My use of the phrase "best hope" is not intended to imply that non-Witness can get in through some "back door", but rather to state that Witnesses are not 100% sure about how to survive Armageddon. If this is not true, then it certainly needs to be changed. So, maybe some other word would communicate that better. I had other words in there, such as "sure" or "certain", but those words to not communicate the uncertainty of Witnesses belief. Frankly, this appears to be a confusing point for the faithful, since there is no certainty about how to survive Armageddon (as I read it).
    2. I am strongly influenced by the WTS admonition to its believers not to spend their time speculating about the end times. This, seems to me, is a strong indication that they really do not know how to answer this question for the faithful.
    3. Tom, looking at the current statement on the JW page (which you acknowledged as "good enough"), I can see how that statement is consistent with your position. My next proposal will include something more to that effect.
  • I agree with the "non sequitor" observation, and struggled with it quite a bit when I wrote it. I settled into it because it appears that the WTS intended meaning of in "God's hands" is more about God adding to the survivors rather than removing disingenuous Witnesses, especially in this context. (That is not to say that being disingenuous is unimportant.) But I could be wrong, especially given the uncertainty of survival, even for Witnesses. Even so, a small statement could be included in the parenthesis to that effect.
  • One more thing, don't I remember reading your support for the idea that JWs do believe that children at Argageddon may receive a special dispensation of God's grace. Doesn't that alone show that JWs do not teach a mutually exclusive position?
Thanks,SteveMc 16:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I miss all the references to WTS publication to backup the statements. On the dispute about the NWT[1] it was said these are essential. --Mini 09:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that references should be there. I will add them in the next proposal. Which ones do you suggest? SteveMc 16:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My recomendations from the disputed paragraph are:
  • "only JW": Watchtower magazines 15 November 1983, p.24; 15 June 1999, p.6 (1999 is needed, because it is newer than 1998 (see below); 1983 clearly talks about Armageddon; Live Forever was a primary study-aid but it could be dropped as it is contained in the other ones)
  • "even others": Watchtower magazines 15 August 1998, p.20; (maybe) Reasoning book, p.48 (1976 is "old light"; reasoning book needed for the "children", but already contained in watchtower)
I think it should be as few sources as possible - at best only one. And if someone finds a better fitting one, imho it should replace one of the others instead of being appended.--Mini 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's got my vote. Duffer 11:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One point to an otherwise perfectly acceptable proposal, ,SteveMc . "God alone judges who is a faithful Witness " in this case might be changed to "God alone judges who is worthy to survive" as we are speaking of people who have not heard the message, or are incapable of a difinitive response in some way; they cannot be a "faithful Witness" at the judgement hour, but they can be counted as worthy. (Also, thanks for all the hard work!) - CobaltBlueTony 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's Proposal 3

Here it is:

"Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the Biblical principles and interpretations presented by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society--these being among the "anointed" and the "great crowd." (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6) And those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. Witnesses do not teach that being an adherant ensures survival, but rather recognize that God alone judges who is worthy to survive, thereby acknowledging that God could add survivors at Armageddon, condemn imposters of the faith, or choose to save none at all. However, due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark, Witnesses have a near certain belief that they will survive and that those who do not associate with them will perish. (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20; Reasoning book, p.48)"
I like it for the most part. Changes I would make:
  • Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the Biblical principles and interpretations presented by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society--these being among the "anointed" and the "great crowd" (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6). Those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. Witnesses do not teach that being an adherant ensures survival, but rather recognize that God alone judges who is worthy to survive, thereby acknowledging that God could add survivors at Armageddon, or condemn imposters of the faith. Due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark, Witnesses believe that survival of Armageddon is highly unlikely outside of their association (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20; Reasoning book, p.48).
"Certain" or "near certain" is just too much as the references I have provided are decidedly uncertain. We are certain that some will survive so I disagree with "or choose to save none at all." Other than those 2 points, I believe this to be a very eloquent and accurate portrayal of Jehovah's Witness theology. Duffer 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
..."or choose to save none at all" is really not an option, as it is not found in the Scriptures, and Witnesses believe all faithful will absolutely be saved. - CobaltBlueTony 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My thoughts:
1. I would not put "but not an absolute guarantee" as the old quote never said "every Witnesses" it just said only faithful JWs will survive. This also missed out the extreme exclusivity of the references listed, i.e., non-JWs don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of surviving.
2. "through adherence to the Biblical principles" is POV as many Witness teachings are not in the Bible or approved by Bible scholars. I would not put it as it's over complicating it. I would not bring in comments on doctrines, when the main points were about who will survive. (Which groups).
3. "interpretations presented by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society--these being among the "anointed" and the "great crowd". That sentence doesn't make sense.
4. "but rather recognize that God alone judges who is worthy to survive" This comment gives no information. It's like saying a cloud decides when it will rain. It does not tell us who the rain will hit or if it will rain or not. It gives no information, but rather distracts from the emphasis on what the Governing Body teaches.
5. "thereby acknowledging that God could add survivors at Armageddon, condemn impostors of the faith, or choose to save none at all" This is not consistent with JW doctrines. And still does not really say anything, it just blurs the original paragraph by adding more innuendo, and evasively takes all the focus off the Watch Tower's articles that do make very strong judgements.
6. "However, due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark" Is this sentence necessary?
7. "Witnesses have a near certain belief that they will survive and that those who do not associate with them will perish" This contradicts the other sentences, and also saying "near certain" is a bit woolly, it is either certain or not, I would not use "near certain", and it's repeating the points in number 1.
Things to remember:
1. Focusing on "God's judgements" more than briefly is just distracting the subject, and removing the whole point of putting a paragraph on what Jehovah's Witnesses teach.
2. Giving more space to the ambiguous quotes is unfounded, as they are very few and far between compared to the large body of clear judgmental ones.
3. Putting the article in vague wishy-washy language will only go to make the whole paragraph less meaningful or accurate. This is the aim of JWs, but should not be the aim of an encyclopaedia. As I have said, I think the one already there on the main page is just fine.
Central 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(moved remainder of Central's post to "Mediator's questions 3", above. SteveMc 01:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
1. The discussion of context has progressed to a point where inclusion of "but not an absolute guarantee" is a good idea.
2. This objection is without merit. Survival of Armageddon is attributed to adherence of the Biblical principles and interpretations as set forth by the WTB&TS. The WTB&TS has set forth interpretations and principles that must be adhered to, which is what the above quote says.
3. It does make sense though it is rather ambiguous.
4 & 5. Beyond the phrase: "or choose to save none at all" (which has already been removed in Proposal #4), it is a rather concise and eloquent reflection of Witness theology.
6. Yes, it is necessary to provide context to the conclusion of the paragraph. It is that precedent (among others) that allows the speculation regarding who will, and who will not, survive Armageddon.
7. We are agreed on "near certain".
[It seems that Central cannot] accept the fact that the articles I have presented clearly leaves room for the possibility of non-Witness survivors. [Nor can Central] acknowledge that out of all the quotes we've seen from [him], Tommstein, and myself, only the ones I have provided specifically answer the question by telling us in no uncertain terms: "we don't know". They've already settled the matter, . . . probably they won't survive, but maybe some will. "Anyone who knows" their own religions' doctrines as much as the average, active, Jehovah's Witness knows that [Central's] unique view of our doctrine comes from websites that proliferate nonsense about us in order to dissuade interest in us. I think it's fascinating how you, someone who is not, nor ever has been, a Jehovah's Witness can suppose to know more about the WTB&TS belief system then people who have been a Witness all their lives; or even, suppose to know more than the dozens of active Witnesses on the Touchestone site that literally wrote the article on how wrong you are. What is the root of [Central's] animosity? Duffer 23:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(removed superfluous exchange between Tom and Duffer. SteveMc 15:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I see [that Duffer] just ignored the whole post and decided that [his] personal subjective views outweigh the volumes of printed material from [his] religious leaders. Just look at question 1., [he] ignored my points altogether. My points about the original post not saying "every witness will be saved" has fallen on deaf ears.
(removed portions of Central's post. SteveMc 15:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) No personal interpretations are allowed—something that [he] offend with all the time. . . .If [he] can bring forth proof in direct and clearly unambiguous language from the Watch Tower's literature that there is a "possibility" of survival of Armageddon for those who are not JWs, then post it. Otherwise, all the actual quotes of destruction hold their weight. If [Duffer] and Cobaltbluetony, argue as [he does], demanding over and over that a specific word be found . . . like: "A possibility, some possibilities, a good chance, a fair chance, will be survivors, good chance of survivors etc." all stated about non-JWs at Armageddon. All these divisions about God judging are a massive red herring, and say nothing at all in regard to what the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses actually teaches and have taught in many of their publications. Central 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's Proposal 4

OK, finally, here it is:

"Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6) Those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. Witnesses believe that the fate of the "uninformed" (such as children, the mentally ill, etc.) are unresolved by scripture, therefore their fate remains in "God's hands" to decide in a "righteous and merciful way." (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20) However, due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark, Witnesses believe that some (if not all) adherents will survive and that those who do not associate with them will perish. (Reasoning book, p.48)"

SteveMc 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Central: Regarding the justifications for the text currently in the article:

A. I believe that the revised text provides a clearer representation of JW beliefs. For example, "the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee)" is clearer than "the only flesh saved."
B. The Watchtower organization is referenced appropriately.
C. D. E. addressed in the proposed text.

In addition, I do not find the text currently in the article to be succinct or clear. It needs some work as well.

Regarding objection to the proposed text:

  1. see "A." above.
  2. so noted in the text above.
  3. so noted in the text above.
  4. so noted in the text above.
  5. a clearer statement is given in the proposed text. The proposed text clearly states that JWs believe that non-JWs will perish. Only a very, very, small sliver of hope is left for the "uninformed."
  6. I believe the last sentence (with Noah in it) helps to clarify JW beliefs. It seems to me that this sentence stiffens the belief that JWs see little hope for non-adherents, even the uninformed.
  7. so noted in the text above.

SteveMc 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work here. I think caution should be made in citing children as "uninformed" (I prefer the term "ignorant") because some Watchtower publications do address that issue and say children will be judged according to how God will judge their parents. (removed remainder of Dtbrown's post.SteveMc 15:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) Dtbrown 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This version is very, very close. The only two possible problems that I see at this time come from the same sentence that Dtbrown has commented on above. The first is that, while the examples following "uninformed" clarify somewhat the intended meaning, "uninformed" also applies to any random normal adult who is just uninformed about their beliefs. I'm not sure that "ignorant" really fixes the problem though, since I think that what I just said about "uninformed" can be said verbatim about "ignorant". The second problem I see is how that sentence also succumbs to the same thing as many previous ones, by stating that belief as a definitive. There are explicit mentions of 'we don't know what's going to happen to children,' but there are also explicit mentions of 'all non-Witnesses (which would include non-Witness children) are toast,' and the above clear quote by Dtbrown. The problem of the sentence not 'branching' seems to bite us again. The way that children were addressed when we settled this issue previously was to say something like 'non-Witnesses will die, except possibly small children,' as a simple concession to some ambiguous statements about children. Upon hindsight, I'm not sure that even that fully takes into account that they sometimes say that all non-Witnesses are going to die, period, no exceptions made for children, but at the time we didn't have anyone making such a large issue over this despite the literally dozens of quotes.Tommstein 05:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, but again, I have a problem with the last line: "Witnesses believe that some (if not all) adherents will survive and that those who do not associate with them will perish. (Reasoning book, p.48)". For the sake of accuracy I believe it should read: "Witnesses believe that most adherents will survive and that those who do not associate with them will likely perish." "Likely" here is used to underscore the uncertainty, and the fact that it is in God's hands and he will carry out His will mercifully; this nuance is important. Also the words "uninformed" and "ignorant" sound out of place but I'm too tired to offer an alternative. Duffer 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. SteveMc 15:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more i am following the dispute the more i get to the idea, we as exJW and JW have one problem: we belive(d) that JW do have only one faith. But i am close to the point to say, some believe all are to be killed while some others believe there is hope for non-JWs. This means the WTS teaches all non-JWs (and some unfaithful JWs) will perish but not all adherents believe this. Could it be a solution to state some believe this and some believe that?--Mini 09:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "not all adherants believe this" gives me pause as I am concerned about adding anything on the page that is not official JW doctrine to the page. Nevertheless, the "branching", as suggested here by Mini and earlier by Tommstein, may be the only way to resolve this. SteveMc 15:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's Proposal 5

Here it is:

"Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6) Those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. Witnesses believe that the fate of some, such as young children, and the mentally ill, and others incapable of moral reasoning, are unresolved by scripture, therefore their fate remains in "God's hands" to decide in a "righteous and merciful way." (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20) However, due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark, Witnesses believe that most (if not all) adherents will survive and that those who do not associate with them will likely perish. (Reasoning book, p.48)"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2005-12-27_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=34625746"