Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

Talk page guidelines

• Please do not make disparaging remarks about individuals who do not agree with you.
• Please do not post long quotes of Jehovah's Witnesses publications here. If long quotes are necessary to support or counter a statement in the JW articles, create a subpage for the issue.

Resource Links

Why have the Positive and Critical Links section in this article. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, so why have links directing a reader to a website with a 'point of view'? Seems contradictory to me. Jamie 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jamie, you make an interesting point; however, the nature of this forum dictates that articles about anything present the Wikipedia bard of a neutral point of view. (See WP:NPOV.) What this essentially means is that the final product will actually be no one's point of view, but represent as many sides, elements, and even controversies as are significant and relevant. This doesn't mean that every view is presented, nor equally, but in porportion to its overall significance. The idea of having global real-time edit and discussion about articles offers the goal of representing as close to a global impersonal view as possible. Part of this is mentioning significant resources which discuss issues relating to the main topic, even if they conclude with a point of view. By including major points of view, a rough outline of the topic can be seen from the Wikipedia neutral point of view.

As this set of articles is part of a serious ongoing academic endeavor, it is essential that opposing perceptions be presented, even if it makes us uncomfortable with respect to our own point of view.

Hope this helps! - CobaltBlueTony 17:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What Cobaltbluetony said, basically. It's not that we're not supposed to not present any points of view, it's that we're supposed to present all documented, non-trivial ones. The policy might be better called "Balanced Point of View", since, as you implied, there's nothing neutral about a bunch of non-neutral points of view, it's just a bunch of different non-neutral points of view.Tommstein 07:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand, its just you would necessarily see that in any other encyclopedia. How come the links aren't balanced in number? Are there positive links pending approval or something? Jamie 08:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the NPOV policy makes things look funny, but it's probably the best we can do in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be edited by anyone. If we had to present one view and that's it, I am currently actively laughing at what would occur in this article, to say nothing about what would go down throughout Wikipedia. As to the links, there's no special reason they're one way or the other, it's just kind of how it evolved, and everyone seems happy with it, save a sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer who were recently raising high hell about it and adding apparently every link they could find on Yahoo. The disparity looks greater than it is because some negative links have longer descriptions than positive links (on my screen, there's one multiline positive description and five critical ones, including two that take three lines). If you have any good, useful, topical, nonrepetitive links, feel free to add them.Tommstein 09:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Date format

For all date formats, please refere to date formatting. - CobaltBlueTony 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty handy. Thanks. Although I can probably personally count all the dates I've ever added on one hand and have a bunch of fingers left over.Tommstein 08:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My changes

Misc. Minor changes

• Line 34 I changed "brotherhood" to "society". Obviously our congregation consists of both male and female members.

The (main) problem is, the word "society" kind of has its own life when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses, not to mention that I've rarely if ever heard it used in this context, while "brotherhood" is a term used by the Witnesses themselves (I'm pretty sure). You can change it to something else that is gender-neutral, but pick a better word than "society."Tommstein 08:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Pocket American Thesaurus of Current English (2002), "society" is the gender neutral synonym for "brotherhood". Yes, "brotherhood" is used within the congregation (along with 'fellowship' and 'society') to describe us. However, we know what it is connoting: a worldwide society of male and females. To be unequivocally clear in this public article: 'society' is the better choice. Duffer 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you don't appear to have read my argument.Tommstein 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You did not present an argument. You presented your opinion. Duffer 12:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That the word "society" has a special connotation in the context of Jehovah's Witnesses is a fact, not an opinion.Tommstein 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That is nonsense. We are a society of men and women. It goes against the basics of logic and common sense to attempt the refutation of a thesaurus with nothing more than your personal opinion. Duffer 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Duffer, you would be prudent to check out this quote from the Watch Tower Society's Insight book, volume 1, p.200: "The united body of true Christians, though composed of small groups, congregations, or physically isolated individuals, constitutes an "association of brothers," or a brotherhood, designated by the Greek expression adelphotes. (1Pe 2:17; 5:9) To remain a part of that brotherhood, true Christians avoid all association. . ."

"Being a part of the worldwide Christian brotherhood will help you to stay close to Jehovah. And as we shall see, you can find true security among God's people."—Knowledge book, 1995, p.159

"The Governing Body does what is possible to provide assistance and to inform the international brotherhood". . . "Conventions—Proof of Our Brotherhood."—Proclaimers book, 1993, pp.117, 113

"Brothers and sisters in the disaster areas expressed again and again their deep appreciation for the love shown by the worldwide brotherhood."—Yearbook, 2000, p.12

"We will hold fast to our Scriptural position as a worldwide Christian brotherhood"—Watchtower magazine, 15 May 1999, p.19

You should also look up the word "brotherhood" on the Watch Tower's CD ROM, and you will see that phrase used over and over in regard to Jehovah's Witnesses. Central 12:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • In the same paragraph I changed "weak" to "unsteady". "Unsteady" is a far less provocative adjective.

"Weak" is a term used by the Witnesses themselves, probably the main one used in describing "weak" members. If it is a provocative term, then that just means the Witnesses are guilty of provoking their "weak" members.Tommstein 08:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

An examination of our publications will show that the term "weak" was only used 3 times in regards to brothers/sisters, and that was in 1966, the term is no longer used due to it's provocative and derogatory connotation. Duffer 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Duffer, a very quick check of WT publications reveals that the term "spiritually weak" was used at least as recently as 2003; from 1950 to 2003, the expression has been used 55 times in The Watchtower alone, mostly in 2003, and most uses of the phrases refer to Witnesses in the JW catchphrase sense of the term. It is unclear why you said the term hasn't been used since 1966.--Jeffro77 08:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I searched "weak brothers/members". It's use is unfortunate. I have never experienced it's use in my local congregations.. Duffer 12:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You lend great credibility to yourself with such marvelous research skills. As a bonus, we now have you stating that calling someone "weak" is provocative and derogatory; ergo, that the Watch Tower Society actively provokes and is derogatory towards its "weak" members. I fully expect you to try to spin out of your own words now, of course. I wonder what the Society would think about you hurling such accusations at them....Tommstein 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In many instances being labeled "weak" is provocative and derogatory. I'm not accusing the WTS of anything, do you not understand connotation and context? Duffer 09:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's called "theocratic warfare," what everyone else calls a "lie." Wow, the guy that took up Retcon/Missionary's banner as soon as they left is similarly, how shall we say, truth-challenged. I'll comment no further.Tommstein 09:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Humility Tomm, know when you're wrong. Duffer 12:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm wrong because you lied? Come again? Shouldn't I be the one telling you to know when you're wrong and truth-challenged?Tommstein 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong, not deceitful. Duffer 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Same paragraph I changed ..standard of "irreprehensibility" as overseers than are other .. to: ..standard as overseers than other baptized... "irreprehensibility" is not a word. Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Changes

• I removed: The Greek Scriptures (Matthew to Revelation) are written primarily for the 144,000 "anointed" brothers of Christ.. This line is nothing more than a rouse to incite prejudice. The entirety of the source this "quote" came from (United In Worship ch. 14, pg. 111):

Special attention was being given to making up the government that would rule mankind for 1,000 years, and nearly all the inspired letters in the Christian Greek Scriptures are primarily directed to this group of Kingdom heirs—“the holy ones,” “partakers of the heavenly calling.” Along with the footnote: See the opening verses of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter; also Galatians 3:26-29, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 2 Timothy 4:8, Hebrews 3:1, James 1:18, 1 John 3:1, 2 and Jude 1.

Yes, a large majority of the New Testament directly addresses the "holy ones" (the 144,000), especially where it speaks about organizational responsibility, and worldwide ministry, however, this does NOT mean that it was primarily written FOR them, as the bulletin infers. The bible is written FOR EVERYONE who will listen. The footnote clearly indicates nothing more than the fact the letters were indeed addressed to the "holy ones" among others. You are reading into the quote something that it does not say, and portraying the quote in a manner that infers something that it does not actually infer. Such a misleading quote greatly overshadows EVERY Jehovah's Witnesses convictions summed up in 2 Tim. 3:16: 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. It's misleading and only partially true.

Do you not see that the quote is talking about those whom the letters were directly addressed to? It does not mean (and more importantly) it does NOT say that it was written FOR them (well.. written them only). Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Matthew (Duffer), You start: "This line is nothing more than a rouse to incite prejudice. The entirety of the source this "quote" came from (United In Worship ch. 14, pg. 111)"

Point one: I removed the Matthew to Revelation bit before you even posted the above here in talk, so why are you bringing it up? Point two: I was the one to add the direct quote from the United book, so why are you acting like you found it? Point three, even after the quote was put in you still removed it again for no reason!

You go on: "a large majority of the New Testament directly addresses the "holy ones" (the 144,000) . . . this does NOT mean that it was primarily written FOR them, as the bulletin infers."

Are you serious? What is the difference of "primarily directed" and "primarily written"? They are interchangeable. If someone sends you a letter and it's "primarily directed" to you, what does that mean? It's for your attention primarily! If they say "primarily written" to you, it's just the same. You are arguing semantics, and trying to make an issue where there is none. Deleting the whole Watch Tower Society quote is not a reasonable solution, as you seem to think. As for "2 Tim. 3:16" that is a straw man, as that scripture is only validating the trustworthiness of the Bible, is says nothing at all about who the Greek scriptures are primarily directed/written for. Please stick to the subject. Central 18:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The letters of the NT were written to, and sent to the "holy ones" AND the "elders" of the congregations. That's who the couriers physically gave the letters to. The elders etc then disseminated the contents of the letters amongst the congregation. The contents of which is/was for THE WHOLE CONGREGATION. That point is entirely lost by the way the quote is presented (without surrounding, and footnote, context). 2 Tim 3:16 is not a strawman, it is a legitimate example of the prejudicial nature of the way the quote is presented. Personal conviction of every active Jehovah's Witness is a stark contrast to the misleading connotation of the quote. Duffer 00:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Duffer, according to JW teaching, in the first century, "THE WHOLE CONGREGATION" were the "anointed class", which does not help to determine whether the 'NT' was intended to apply to anyone else.--Jeffro77 08:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem you have is that the quote from the United book says "are primarily directed," not "were primarily directed." Not to mention that the sentence is clearly talking about all of the anointed, not the specific people that got first-run copies of the letters back in the day.Tommstein 09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Dtbrown's addition is an amicable solution Duffer 02:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this addition something that only you can see?Tommstein 09:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=32198722&oldid=32183380 Duffer 12:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that. That was so old that it was either far down the history page or gone. But yes, I agree, the solution is agreeable, and has already been there for a couple days now.Tommstein 17:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I removed: Humans who do not actively side with Jehovah by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses will be killed at Armageddon without consideration for age. (based on Ezekiel 9; Insight On the Scriptures 1988, Vol. 1 p. 849). This is a complete falsehood. User Central pointed me to archive page 16 where poor Uberpenguin was brow-beat into exasperation. Don't you think you may be wrong when EVERY member of an organization that you come across is telling outright that what you believe is our doctrine, is in fact, not?! Does that not set off ANY alarms? I'm telling you flat out, the fate of unbelievers at Armageddon IS uncertain. That is official JW doctrine. Uberpenguin has told you that, CBT has told you that, the brothers from the Touchstone website (http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl?az=read_count&om=4&forum=DCForumID4) have told you that. I am telling you that. Perhaps if you want to alleviate your confusion on this matter you can contact the WTS (http://www.watchtower.org/how_to_contact_us.htm) directly.

w95 10/15 28 What Future for the Sheep and the Goats?

23 Many are exposed to our message as we preach from house to house or informally. Others may learn of Jehovah's Witnesses and what we represent in ways unknown to us. When judgment time arrives, to what extent will Jesus consider community responsibility and family merit? We cannot say, and it is pointless to speculate.

w98 8/15 20 Strengthening Our Confidence in God's Righteousness

18. With complete confidence in Jehovah's righteousness, we need not worry about finding answers to questions like: 'How will babies and small children be judged? Might it be that a large number of people will not yet have been reached with the good news when Armageddon arrives? What about the mentally ill? What about...?' Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way. We should never doubt that. In fact, we may be amazed and delighted to observe him resolve them in a way that we never even considered."

How can the statements: ..We cannost say, and it is pointless to speculate. and ..at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. be ANY more unequivocal?!

This is a quote, from the user Uberpenguin found burried in the discussion on archive page 16, that makes the crucial distinction that you (Central) fail to make: ..in speaking of JWs belief of Armageddon events, it is much more accurate and correct to talk about the class of people who JWs believe WILL be destroyed (the wicked) than those whose fate is uncertain (unbelievers). Why should we continue this debate simply because you won't take the time to contact the WTS directly (or even listen to ANY Jehovah's Witness you may have spoken to about this issue). Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the topics they like to vacillate over depending on the mood at the time. In the 'you're not doing enough' Watchtower articles, it is often emphasized that even baptized Witnesses who are over-confident may not get through (often quoting Zephaniah 2:3) which leaves little hope for the poor 'worldlings'. In the more touchy-feely 'join our religion' articles, it is left a bit more open. The general attitude overall is that the men, women and children who do not become Witnesses will likely be mercilessly slaughtered like dogs in the street, though they like to water the language down a bit there too.--Jeffro77 09:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are admonishments explicitely directed towards active Jehovah's Witnesses. Your statement: "..which leave little hope for the poor 'worldlings'" infers that JWs must therefore naturally assume: "well shoot, I may not even live, what possible hope do these people have?" Besides this is merely your point of view, it is the exact opposite of reality. Every active JW is well aware of the basic biblical precident: "the more you know, the more liable you are." This is not dependant on my current mood. My internet just got turned back on, and I have every intention of facilitating an ACCURATE portrayal of every Jehovah's Witness belief and doctrine that arises on this website. Since this bulletin has not ever been, nor is, a teaching (belief or doctrine) of Jehovah's Witnesses it has absolutely no business masquerading as an official policy in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Duffer 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an example of the language that Duffer thinks is so ambiguous. I love this next picture, you can see how Evil these people are, just look, one woman has a bad hair do, and she didn't want to buy the magazines! She certainly deserves to get what's coming, and look, booboo the cat, he's evil for peeing on those Watchtower mags, bad kitty! Central 18:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Again you fail to make the distinction that now both Uberpenguin and myself have presented to you. Read the article again, it is in no way "ambiguous." "Christ's angels will smite all OPPOSERS of God's kingdom..". The second picture directly quotes Psalms, Luke, and 1 Cor. ALL of which specifically state "wicked, unrighteous, idolaters, etc.." The bible, however, does not mention AT ALL righteous people who are not affiliated with God's organization. Their fate is not mentioned once in the entirety of the bible. The quotes I presented above specifically state this fact, where-as the qoutes in archive page 16 are SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TOWARDS the wicked, opposers, fornicators, drunkards etc.. This is not dependant on "which article you may be reading at the time", it seems to be dependant on WHO is reading said article. A Jehovah's Witness knows exactly who is being addressed, an opposer reads the same article, assumes the worst, and remains entirely ignorant of the truth. The problem arrises when such a person continues to believe his/her misguided assumption despite the witness of EVERY Jehovah's Witness he/she has come across. As for the pictures themselves, wicked people come in all shapes and sizes. Have a look at http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/index.html . Duffer 00:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You might want to review the archive a little more carefully. His story was the same as yours, he was shown tons of references proving otherwise, and he never bothered responding to any of them, let alone all of them. You are correct, the Bible may not teach what Watch Tower Society publications say, but that doesn't stop them from teaching them. The 'you're an ignorant non-Jehovah's Witness' defense ain't gonna fly here, or even make life easier for you. At this point, given the archived discussion that was never thoroughly rebutted, the best you can hope for is a statement that their story varies depending on which of their 'spirit-directed' publications you are reading.Tommstein 09:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Matthew you said: "Christ's angels will smite all OPPOSERS of God's kingdom.." yes, and guess who all the opposers are? Anyone who is not a Jehovah's Witness. As you are aware, there is no fence sitting with the organization, those who do not respond to the JW message are classed in the same ranks as opposers and all others who are to die, and you know this. As for your next comment: "despite the witness of EVERY Jehovah's Witness he/she has come across" what on earth are you on? I know many JWs and they are all open enough with me to acknowledge that non-JWs are taught by the organization to be wiped out/destroyed/annihilated according to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses via the Watch Tower Society's literature. The only ones I have ever met who try and side track this reality are ones that don't know me and who have knocked on my door. The usual public face is not the same as the private face. I'm not saying that they all agree with the Watch Tower's teachings, many are embarrassed and uncomfortable with its intense judgementalism and would never admit such realities on the doors, but they have the guts to admit in private that this is the Governing Body's official line, like it or not. And they are supposed to be "God's channel" to you and mankind, so their words are the be all and end all, not your own more subjective liberal views. PS. Matthew, how long did it take you to interview 6.5 million JWs? You must be a lot older than the 23 you state on your name page! Here one quote for you form that same article:

"Their flesh shall rot wile they are still on their feet, their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths. (Zechariah 14;12, RS) Eaten up will be the tongues of those who scoffed and laughed at the warning of Armageddon! (Those who rejected the Govering Body's false prophecies) Eaten up will be the eyes of those who refused to see the sign of the time of the end! (Again, those who dared to disbelieve the false prophecies of the Governing Body) Eaten up will be the flesh of those who would not learn that the living and true God is named Jehovah!" (Those who rejected/ignored JWs and their dogma)-Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained (book) 1958 pp.208-209 Central 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

For one, no one cares what Witnesses are saying on a public website about their beliefs. And I most certainly don't care what anyone at that Touchstone website thinks, seeing as it appears to be run by someone trying to overcompensate for a small penis by running it much like the Nazi propaganda ministry was run. Now, with regard to the things that the Watch Tower Society has actually printed, which is all that matters, you brought up some excellent quotes. The only thing is, they also could not have been more unequivocal in saying the opposite in the Knowledge book, the Reasoning book, the Insight books, etc., all major books that they use all the time. A couple quotes from random Watchtower articles can't really completely bury the statements in such major, still-used books. Thus, since it can't in fact be established just what the heck they're teaching, since they've made unequivocal statements both ways (you know, their old 'play every side of the fence and then point you to the appropriate quote when needed' game), I'm going to reinsert the paragraph, but with a disclaimer that it depends on which publication you go by.Tommstein 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sean Hannity would be proud of you. http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl is a discussion board. The "Setting Matters Straight" section of the website is a direct response to the most common accusations we come across. Your honesty about not carring what we say in public is admirable, but misguided. They have not said "the opposite" in ANY of our publications. Read them again. EVERY one of them is specifically addressing "the wicked, opposers, idolators, fornicators, apostates, etc..." NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM SAYS: "righteous non-believers, and/or children, will be destroyed at Armageddon." Do you know why not a single one of the quotes say that? Because the bible doesn't say that. The two quotes I provided and several more in the article I originally linked to highlight this point unequivocally. I must wait until 24 hours has passed since my last edit of this line to avoid being banned for a 3RR violation, when that time is up, rest assured I will delete it. Duffer 01:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of that has already been addressed. Not caring what you say in public is wise given your lying policies, as reinforced by Retcon/Missionary. The rest is a personal attack by someone with no point.Tommstein 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Matthew (Duffer), You do really need to learn to stop projecting your own personal views and mixing them up with the Official doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses that are supposed to come from the "channel of God" (the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses) not Mr Matthew McGhee (you). I have met some JWs with personal ideas that are verging on psychotic, but I don't post them here as they are not representative of the official doctrines, and you need to stop projecting your own views here as they are not remotely relevant. As Jeffro77 pointed out above, what JWs are taught to say in public is not the same as what they teach in private. As the saying goes, honey catches more flies than vinegar. You also seem to have a cognitive dissonance when you read negative material from your leaders at Watch Tower house. You have quoted a few fluff comments in regard to those "people will not yet have been reached with the good news". You carefully forget to mention that "Good news" in Watch Tower speak = unique Watch Tower doctrines.

You have also paid no attention to the veritable mountain of quotes on archive 16, section 7 and 7.1. Why? One or two fluff quotes do not extinguish the fire from the mountain of negative and dogmatic quotes, you are not being honest to yourself or readers; again I believe we are seeing the Watch Tower's PR machine in action with more "Theocratic Warfare" moves, to hide the real truth. I laughed out when I read your comment here: "Why should we continue this debate simply because you won't take the time to contact the WTS directly." LOL, who is "we" exactly? And as for "continue", what are you talking about. The debate was done, dusted and dead ages ago, you chose to make no comment back then, and now you are the one reviving all this, not me! Why should I need to contact them when I have their words on paper and CD ROM? Uberpenguin was the one with uncertainties, not me, not Tom, not Evident, not any one else who chose to get involved in that very long debate. You really need to stick to written doctrines, not your own personal interpretations and hopes. Regarding very rare comments like "We cannot say, and it is pointless to speculate." These comments of theirs are without substance as they do say and they do speculate. They made the same claims about setting dates, and we all know their history of that! Central 18:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Getting mad at people who stubbornly parody official Jehovah's Witness doctrine on a PUBLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA is not cognitive dissonance. Besides, ignoring the testimony of every Jehovah's Witness on this website, on the Touchstone website, and direct quotes that actually specifically adress the issue is 'denial'. Your confusion can be quickly alleviated by contacting any Jehovah's Witness, CBT and I have both provided you with the address to contact the WTS 'HQ' yourself. "The veritable mountain of quotes" that don't say what what you want them to, those? If you had an ounce of interest in finding the truth of the matter you would drop the bullshit, re-read the quotes, man-up, and face your mistake. Your caricature of both our beliefs on Armageddon survival and Theocratic Warfare are proven wrong by the quotes you've provided. Armageddon survival has already been addressed, and your lie about our theocratic doctrine is proved wrong by all of the quotes from quotes.ca, but most specifically: We dare not lie against God's Word, adding to it or taking away from it, reading into it what it does not say and denying, passing over or explaining away what it does truthfully say. Don't hide behind your ignorance and prejudice of our beliefs to justify denial of truth and accuracy. Duffer 01:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Central, it may be wise to not waste much valuable time on him until he takes some remedial reading comprehension courses and takes care of that problem.Tommstein 09:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think he is still at the boiling point stage and unable to see clearly due to too much emotion. Tom you have to treat them like a slow cooking stew, just let them simmer away, and the truth will eventually penetrate and they will soften up and be more palatable. The seeds of reality are there, but he is still trying to stop them growing, but they will come though, and he will get more and more reality attacks, and see how silly he was to defend all this stuff he's doing now, and the rest is history. . . Central 22:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Arianism again..

• Since it's such a big deal for the opposers on this website to have a link to the Arianism page (from a religion that ISN'T Arian...), I directly linked to the only relevant information on the Arianism page: Arianism#"Arian" as a polemical epithet. This the recommended inter-wiki linking etiquette (Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context).

Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments... again...

• I removed: ", or even just thoughts rejecting non-biblical organizational doctrines by baptized members,". I replaced it with: "..divergent views, continuously expressed, will consistently..". Besides the fact that "non-biblical organizational doctrines" is someones point of view, it is untrue, such "thoughts" will NOT "consistently result in DFing". Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It would have been much easier and more sensible to just remove the "consistently" part than the whole thing you did. I will reinsert the part you deleted and remove the "consistently" part.Tommstein 09:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just removing "consistently" from the sentence still fails to provide accuracy, and NPOV. "non-biblical organization doctrine" is POV. "even just thoughts rejecting.." is innacurate. Duffer 01:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, I'll remove the "non-biblical" part too. The other part is accurate.Tommstein 09:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No.. it is far from accurate. Hence the removal of it. "Thoughts rejecting blah blah blah.." is IMPOSSIBLE to police. Are you a mind reader? Ya, and neither are congregational elders. Besides, even if thoughts COULD be policed by the elders, it's still not a DF'able offense. Your statement is nothing more than conjecture and hot-air, it is your unrealistic point of view. Duffer 12:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We're not tapping this dance again. DannyMuse said basically the exact same things verbatim. Review DannyMuse's RFC in the Practices article. Basically, he was told that he needed to stop jumping through mental hoops to insert bias, by someone that was actually friendly to him.Tommstein 18:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ya I read it, Danny cut to the heart of the matter fairly concisely:

"...should be dealing with the current Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, not obscure, unverifiable letters from decades ago that have no current bearing on judicial hearings involving apostasy. However, if the consensus of the WP community is that--since Franz claims to have a copy of this letter in his book--it should be included for reasons that have yet to be clearly articulated, then I would contend that since the accuracy of this assertion by Franz cannot be independently verified and neither this quote or any other statement remotely resembling it in form or content appears in any of the official publications of the WTB&TS."

That letter in Ray Franz's book is a letter to all District and Circuit overseers the world over, which would hardly make it "obscure". You should also note that the Watch Tower Society has never challenged or refuted anything in Raymond Franz's books, especially the proof of letters. If those letters were remotely falsified in Franz's Crisis of Conscience book, or In Search of Christian Freedom they would be on him in a flash with their high profile expensive layers demanding it be removed, but there is no refutation at all. You also ignore the fact that the overseers and elders are the ones who deal with excommunication, not the Watchtower mags that are there for the public. Why on earth would a private confidential letter from the world headquarters to all District and Circuit overseers on expulsions matters and thought control be published in a public journal? If you are confused I suggest you get a copy of the book, photo copy the letter, post it to the Watch Tower Society and ask them in no uncertain terms, "did you write this", and "what are your views on apostate thoughts now?" Until you can be bothered to write to them, I suggest you keep out of matters that you know very little about. Central 12:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you respond to that fact Tomm? You didn't then and you still havn't now. Duffer 10:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I replaced: "..with accompanying intense restriction of rights.." with the proper terminology: "..intense restriction of congregational privileges..". Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In a normal part of the article, you would be correct. The problem is, the beginning of that very same sentence makes it clear that was is being said is "the contention" of critics, not necessarily fact. And, of course, the whole criticism centers around rights. Thus, I will reinsert the previous wording that more-accurately reflected the critical viewpoint.Tommstein 09:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The contention of critics is POV and by definition of the rules of this very website, is forbidden. The only reason it is there is you have absolutely no respect for truth or accuracy, and you're stubborn about it. Regardless if it is the POV of the critic, it is inaccurate. The article is "addressing" "Human rights" and "basic freedoms", 'congregational privilages' does not fall in either of those catagories. Duffer 01:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey stupidass, review WP:NPOV, and cease commenting on policies you apparently have no clue about. And if you don't like being called a stupidass, stop insulting people.Tommstein 09:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomm, while I appreciate your frustration with Duffer misunderstanding NPOV policy, please don't call people names like that. It's not necessary and only increases the already high tensions around here. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The dude can't post anything without insulting Central and I, usually with something thrown in for all non-Jehovah's Witnesses to boot, and you get on my case?Tommstein 10:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

..Where have I "thrown (something) in for all non-JWs.."? I'm combative and shrewd (contrary to biblical and JW teaching...) to people who have continuously demonstrated zero regard for truth and accuracy (you and sometimes Central). Duffer 12:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You weren't seriously expecting me to piss time away on that, insults just like I just finished saying and all, were you?Tommstein 18:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I changed: "The organization sees this as a perfectly reasonable private internal matter by the organization and its followers, and states it right to remove members." To: "However, the organization sees this as a non-issue. They view it as: litigation to ensure the legal practice of their religious beliefs and biblical interpretations, including the right to excommunicate members." This change barely begins to scratch the problems with this paragraph. Obviously my edit is from the perspective of the WT (POV), presented as a contrast to the POV of the critic. It doesn't even explain the mutually exclusive nature of the things being compared and contrasted. So what if we litigate on our behalf to ensure that WILLING participants of a religion get to practice the religion THEY FREELY CHOOSE? You're calling disciplinary action (that EVERY JW is well aware of before baptizing): "a major restriction of the basic human rights.." (and hilariously say it's a direct contradiction to scriptural precedent.. LOL!). As I've said from the beginning the whole concept of this paragraph is inept, prejudiced, and highly POV. I think it hould be deleted completely, but that won't happen, but at the very least, indicators such a "major" and "severe" need to be removed completely or toned down considerably. Duffer 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, it was a Witness that inserted that. Take it up with him. Or have another powwow in your secret Yahoo group and get your stories straight. Regarding your commentary there, I would comment and compare again regarding how Witnesses are also free to follow the laws and regulations of the country they willingly live in or get out, but why bother, the 86th time won't be the charm.Tommstein 09:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Matthew, you have failed to address the main points about JWs being excommunicated for merely thinking non-conforming thoughts, as the 1980 letter to all Distinct and Circuit overseers states. They do not have to teach their thoughts. There is no biblical precedent for abusing such ones, or expelling them, slandering them, shunning them, inciting hate against them, and encouraging family break ups, all of which are severe. You have also ignored the fact that many have been expelled for doctrines that have no biblical basis like 1914. Show me scholars that say that's when Jesus was enthroned? The same goes for many others like "the Watch Tower organization, two classes of Christian, 144,000, and who is anointed" etc. Prominent members were excommunicated in 1980 for just discussing those points in private. You also ignore the lack of public trial that the Bible clearly sets out, this again is seen as "persecution" if done to the organization. All these matters you are surreptitiously ignoring as you focus on a straw man like "well we demand the right to disfellowship that serial killer and the evil opposers says we are unreasonable for doing that", or along that line. Please look at the real points, not some made up false straw man argument so you can refute that instead. Central 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

JWs are not routinely DFed for "thinking non-conforming thoughts". As has been explained more than once (but perhaps obsured in off-topic bantering), it takes more than merely thinking -- and this is a logic problem, not a procedural one. No one can read minds, therefore, it is impossible for any elder to respond to the thoughts inside someone's head. Moreover, expressing a doubt, and even persisting in this doubt, does not automatically incur punitive action. It is the action of verbally expressing a willful departure from doctrines established within the organization, especially core beliefs, that elicits a disciplinary response, and even then this action is not always disfellowshipping. The fact that it is difficult to document this hinges on the simple fact that it just doesn't happen that often. The desired goals of unity and continuity (1 Cor. 1:10, NWT) certainly cannot be maintained if widely divergent views are held, especially on core or critical issues.

It is an NPOV error to write into the article interpretations as fact. Words such as "major" and "severe" reflect an interpretation of the facts, not a simple presentation of them. And just because you have excepts from publications that are not widely available to even verify, it doesn't mean that you have the context of the excerpts faithfully preserved. The fact that members of the organization are telling you that this practice simply isn't widespread and not well-represented by your presentation of it, and you insist on shoving your excerpts into the articles, suggests that you do not yet fully understand or accept the concept of NPOV. Until you yourself remain focused on the facts and presenting them in NPOV, your edits will continue to generate negative feedback, and may be consistently reverted if they violate NPOV. - CobaltBlueTony 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We're not tapping this dance again. Review DannyMuse's RFC in the Practices article. Basically, he was told that he needed to stop jumping through mental hoops to insert bias.Tommstein 09:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Tony, you said: "JWs are not routinely Dfed. . ." I think you will find that phrasing was removed a while ago from the article and is not longer used, so there is no reason to argue against it anymore. Next: "it takes more than merely thinking -- and this is a logic problem, not a procedural one". The problem is a catch 22, if you let someone know your thoughts (without teaching anything), then they imply that to admit a thought, is the same as teaching it, as it comes out of your mouth, keyboard or pen just by the default admittance, and that is where they stick in the hook.

It seems as if you are on a witch hunt for witch hunts. Ironic! (and slightly amusing) - CobaltBlueTony 21:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You said: "Words such as 'major' and 'severe'" I disagree. How can it not be a major thing for someone to be expelled, humiliated, slandered by default and ensuing gossip, lose all their friends and possibly their family, and be branded some evil doer, and all for just disbelieving many times doctrines that have no scholarly back up at all. I do wish you would not quote scriptures, as you know well if I asked for the scriptures that back up many JW doctrines you would not be able to produce them, and you would run off complaining that you do not wish to argue a point. As for rejecting publications, that is your choice. You are supposed to believe these are the writings of Jehovah; the publications that is, not mine. LOL. (Well you cold be mistaken). Central 21:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"How could it not be?" This is an opinion. Frankly, some who are disfellowshipped are relieved, and some have already been "gone" so long it doesn't matter what action the elders take -- a point I would have thought you would jump on. But then again, you are only hearing from those that do have a problem with their experiences.

The scholarly back-up of doctrines is a separate issue, and really has no bearing on whether Witnesses believe something or not. After all, we believe that humans were created roughly 6,000 years ago, and a good number of scientists and anthropologists would hotly debate that in a New York minute (before the transit strike). The point is, the article is to present what Witnesses as a group believe, and what criticisms exist, and the extent of this criticism. There is a threshold as to what divergence is notable and worth mentioning, and how extensive coverage of it should be, and your views simply do not represent the percentage you seem to think or hope for.

You said, "Maybe you should write to them ... and see what they say." You are the one who seems to want/need the answer to this, so perhaps you should write to them yourself.

Watch Tower, 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11201-2483 USA - CobaltBlueTony 21:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitiveness of WT beliefs

I think it's a good idea for both JWs and ex-JWs here to keep in mind that the Society does not publish an up-to-date explanation of current doctrine. If a doctrine is changed, the Society publishes the new thoughts while rarely mentions previous doctrine. Sometimes, what is publishes appears to contradict what has been already published.

Due to the often vague details of particular beliefs (such as who will be destroyed at Armageddon), I think we need to decide on two things:

• When stating what JWs currently believe, the newest reference wins. Older references can be used to explain what JWs previously believed.
• Often there is a discrepancy with what individual JWs profess to believe and what the WT appears to say. In this case, the sentence should simply say that the Watchtower says this. This allows for the WT statement to be interpreted by individual JW how he/she sees fit.
• If a newer reference is vague, and the older reference is more specific, it's probably a good idea to mention both. For example:

"While The Watchtower has stated that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot speculate on who will survive Armageddon^Ref, it has previously indicated that ...^Ref."

Hopefully this will help settle the quote wars. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

An excellent set of guidelines which could go a long way towards settling the differences that seem to be ongoing to say the least. Perhaps something similar could go onto the project page as disagreements over old and new quotes from the WT have an impact in all such articles. Lucille S 03:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a good idea in principle, however in the case of your example (who will survive Armageddon), the doctrine protrayed by Central and Tomm has never been, and is not a belief of Jehovah's Witnesses. It has never been, and is not an official teaching. The quotes havn't indicated anything; the discrepancy arrises from nothing more than an ignorance of official Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Allowing "it has previously indicated", in this case, would be deceitful. In this case a more accurate sentence would read: "Bias often influences how one reads Jehovah's Witness publications. This is exemplified by the misreading, and misrepresentation of several out of context quotes posted on quotes.watchtower.ca regarding the issue of "who will survive Armageddon". More often than not, prejudic takes over and the mislead individual parrots the misinterpreted in order to bias others regardless if they believe what they're saying to be true or not." Duffer 03:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's discuss that specific example. See below. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing that occurs to me is that footnote 13c buried on page 29 of an Awake cannot supercede major, still-used stuff like the Insight volumes, Reasoning and Knowledge books, etc. Otherwise, we would probably have to change their list of beliefs somewhat every time a new magazine comes out.Tommstein 09:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous teachings about who will be destroyed at Armageddon

Have Jehovah's Witnesses ever taught that only Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon?

From [1]:

*** Watchtower 1989 September 1 p. 19 Remaining Organized for Survival Into the Millennium ***

⁷ Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.

My understanding of this passage is that only JWs have any hope of surviving Armageddon, even if that is no longer the case. Does anyone have any other understanding of it? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Every Jehovah's Witness has a different understanding of this teaching than Central/Tomm. (We believe) The bible specifically states the fate of Witnesses as an organization. We OFFICIALLY TEACH that we do not know what will become of upright, moral, people/children that are not affiliated with us. The quote clearly states: "any Scriptural hope". Duffer 10:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The bible does not "specifically" state anything at all about "the fate of the Witnesses as an organization." The quotes by Tommstein clearly indicate that OFFICIAL Witness doctrine is that non-Witnesses are gonna die. The Witnesses also OFFICIALLY teach that children of bad people are gonna die. Yes, the quote says "any Scriptural hope", and from the claims of Witnesses, there could indeed be no higher appeal to authority than (their interpretation of) the Scriptures.--Jeffro77 10:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are some quotes, copied and pasted from the archives since some of us have already had this discussion:

"You Can Live Forever" book (which you quoted from), p. 255:

"You must be part of Jehovah's organization, doing God's will, in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life."

Everlasting life doesn't come until after the 1000 years of peace, after the final test when Satan is released from the abyss, 1000 years AFTER Armageddon. This quote doesn't even apply to the issue. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bzzt, wrong answer. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that perfection and such come at the end of the 1,000 years, not some kind of immortality. They believe that you're still just as perfectly welcome to be bad and get zapped after the 1,000 years as you are before, and don't teach that people are going to naturally die of old age during the 1,000 years. Beyond your factual misrepresentations, the context is clearly telling you what you have to do know. You are seriously unversed in your own religious beliefs.Tommstein 18:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Living for 1000 years, with the possibility of dying at the end of it is not immortality. Perfection/immortality comes after the second death, after the 1000 years, after Armageddon. Therefore, you are wrong. Duffer 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

December 1, 1981 Watchtower, p. 27:

"Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do." I wonder where the alternative to "the road to life" might lead to....

I wonder also, Jehovah's Witnesses officially teach that we do not know. Your quote infers your a-proiri.. when you read it as prejudicially as possible. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Come again? Was that supposed to be a refutation of the quote?Tommstein 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you read something you do not have? Duffer 21:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

September 1, 1989 Watchtower, p. 19:

"Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil."

That's exactly right. Again you are not seeing the nuanced, yet clear, indicator: "any scriptural hope". There is no scriptural hope BECAUSE it is not mentioned in the bible. That's why we teach that we do not know, and that it is "pointles to speculate" (accurate quotes provided in original link to touchstone). Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeffro77 already discussed this above too.Tommstein 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"What Does God Require of Us?", p. 13:

"Soon Jesus will judge people, separating them as a shepherd separates sheep from goats. The 'sheep' are those who will have proved themselves his loyal subjects. They will receive everlasting life on earth.... If you want to be one of Jesus' 'sheep,' you must listen to the Kingdom message and act on what you learn." Note that the sheep have to prove themselves (and the last sentence even clarifies that that involves listening to their message and acting on it, i.e. becoming one of them). That doesn't leave space for unbelievers.

Again specifically speaking about good and bad (sheep and goats). "Good" who have heard the message of the kingdom and listened, "Bad" those who have heard, listened, then turned away. This quote does not specifically address those who are "sheeplike" (or children etc..) and not part of the Jehovah's Witness society. This quote is not speaking about them. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be a rebuttal of the quote and subsequent commentary?Tommstein 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"What Does God Require of Us?", p. 30:

"Such knowledge is essential in order for you to gain eternal life. However, others also need to hear the good news so that they too can be saved." That quote is quite clear, and doesn't leave room for unbelievers. And don't give me that 'they just need to hear it, so what if it goes in one ear and out the other,' because I think I'll just drop out of this conversation if you do.

Again, gaining eternal life doesn't happen until 1000 years AFTER Armageddon. The "..others need to hear.. can be saved.." is a highlight of the urgency of our current work. The best chance for a person to be spared is with us, conforming your life to biblical principle and wisdom. Even then you're not assured a safe pass through Armageddon. The only pass through Armegeddon that the bible specifically speaks about is as an organization (an Ark). So naturally, they're best chance is with us. It's bad to be against us. It's not mentioned what it is to be a child or someone who does not know of us. This is not a conversation. This is a refutation of your ignorance. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bzzt, wrong answer again. Now that we know what the Probabilistic Church of Duffer teaches, Jehovah's Witnesses teach that perfection and such come at the end of the 1,000 years, not some kind of immortality. They believe that you're still just as perfectly welcome to be bad and get zapped after the 1,000 years as you are before, and don't teach that people are going to naturally die of old age during the 1,000 years. Beyond your factual misrepresentations, the context is clearly telling you what you have to do know. The quote is unambiguous, and does not speak of probabilities 'with us' and probabilities 'without us', it states a "need" in order to survive. You are seriously ignorant of your own religion's beliefs.Tommstein 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived", very last page (when was the last time you saw a book with no page numbers?):

"All who would gain everlasting life must take in knowledge not only of God but also of his Son, Jesus Christ." Notice that "all... must." Surely I don't have to find a bunch of quotes to convince you of what they consider to be the only source of 'real' knowledge of God and Jesus, as opposed to everyone else's lies and false crap.

They're not on every page, but they're there. Everlasting life comes 1000 years AFTER Armageddon. Repetition is a key to learning. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're on no pages. Chapter numbers do not constitute page numbers. But you are correct about repetition, so here's a copy-and-paste job: Bzzt, wrong answer again. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that perfection and such come at the end of the 1,000 years, not some kind of immortality. They believe that you're still just as perfectly welcome to be bad and get zapped after the 1,000 years as you are before, and don't teach that people are going to naturally die of old age during the 1,000 years. Beyond your factual misrepresentations, the context is clearly telling you what you have to do know. You are seriously ignorant of your own religion's beliefs.Tommstein 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Revelation" book, p. 8:

"If you want to survive into that new world, it is urgent, yes, mandatory, that you pay attention to Revelation's graphic description of the epoch-making climax now at hand." Here we have that this stuff is mandatory, again leaving no ambiguity for unbelievers. Again, they believe that they're the only source of biblical enlightenment in the world, so it wouldn't even be possible to "pay attention" by listening to "Babylon the Great," who they say will be destroyed with all its members, although if someone did then come to believe this stuff they wouldn't really be an unbeliever any more anyway.

How can you pay attention to something you do not know of? Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Since paying attention is "mandatory," you therefore don't get the reward that it is "mandatory" for, to "survive into that new world." This quote is especially good because it leaves you no wiggle room to play your 'after 1,000 years' piece of stupidity; the quote unambiguously refers to 'surviving into that new world.'Tommstein 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Revelation" book, p. 129:

[After going on for pages and pages about how they're gathering together the "great crowd"] "There is no evidence that any apart from these two groups [the 144,000 and the "great crowd"] will 'stand' in the day of Jehovah's wrath." They themselves are saying that there's no evidence that anyone else is surviving, unbelievers or whoever, with the obvious implication that they don't believe that anyone else is surviving. To hold that they actually believe that others will survive would just be asinine arguing for the sake of arguing.

That's absolutely correct. There is no evidence. The bible simply does not say. Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT fill in this gap as clearly outlined in the link to the touchstone article. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey genius, pop quiz time: If I say there's no evidence that man ever stepped on the moon or that the world is round, what am I saying?Tommstein 18:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Revelation" book, pp. 223-4:

"By reason of community responsibility, mankind is guilty of gross shedding of innocent blood. When Jehovah's day of anger arrives, they will literally die at the hands of his executional forces." They state that mankind, period, is screwed, except for them presumably. Again, there's no avenue left for some to not die.

Your problem(s) is presumption (and prejudice.. bias.. stubbornness.. ignorance..). "Presumably" those guilty of the shedding of the blood are the ones to face Jehovah's wrath (JW or not), no? Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No. The quote says mankind generally is guilty, period, and even throws in "By reason of community responsibility" to excuse condemning the whole world.Tommstein 18:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Revelation" book, p. 225:

"Today, though, during the spiritual plague, there is nowhere in Satan's world that people can find life-giving waters. The pouring out of this third bowl involves proclaiming that the world's 'rivers and the fountains of the waters' are as blood, bringing spiritual death to all who imbibe them. Unless people turn to Jehovah, they reap his adverse judgement." Again, a pretty clear statement that everyone else is screwed.

The quote, now with context, followed by a setting straight of your ignorance of Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Again.

"8Such tainted “waters” have led men to become bloodguilty, for example, in encouraging them to shed blood on a monumental scale in the wars of this century, which have now taken more than a hundred million lives. Particularly in Christendom, where the two world wars erupted, have men been “in a hurry to shed innocent blood,” and this has included the blood of God’s own witnesses. (Isaiah 59:7; Jeremiah 2:34) Mankind has also incurred bloodguilt by its misuse of huge quantities of blood for transfusions, in violation of Jehovah’s righteous laws. (Genesis 9:3-5; Leviticus 17:14; Acts 15:28, 29) On this account, they have already reaped sorrow by the proliferation, through blood transfusions, of AIDS, hepatitis, and other diseases. Full retribution for all bloodguilt will come shortly when transgressors pay the supreme penalty, being trampled in “the great winepress of the anger of God.”—Revelation 14:19, 20.

9In Moses’ day, when the Nile River was turned into blood, the Egyptians were able to keep alive by seeking other sources of water. (Exodus 7:24) Today, though, during the spiritual plague, there is nowhere in Satan’s world that people can find life-giving waters. The pouring out of this third bowl involves proclaiming that the world’s “rivers and the fountains of the waters” are as blood, bringing spiritual death to all who imbibe them. Unless people turn to Jehovah, they reap his adverse judgment.—Compare Ezekiel 33:11.

10 “The angel over the waters,” that is, the angel who pours this bowl into the waters, magnifies Jehovah as the Universal Judge, whose righteous decisions are absolute. Therefore, he says of this judgment: “They deserve it.” Doubtless, the angel personally witnessed much of the bloodshed and cruelty fomented over thousands of years by the false teachings and philosophies of this wicked world. Hence, he knows that Jehovah’s judicial decision is right. Even God’s “altar” speaks out. At Revelation 6:9, 10, the souls of those who were martyred are said to be at the base of that altar. So “the altar” adds powerful testimony as to the justice and righteousness of Jehovah’s decisions. Certainly, it is fitting that those who have shed and misused so much blood should themselves be force-fed with blood, in symbol of Jehovah’s sentencing them to death."

The "imbibers" of the spiritual blood are specifically said to be (paragraph 8 above): the bloodguilty, the transgressors, NOT "everyone else" as you so decietfully state. As graphic as it sounds, it's nothing more than our interpretation of Revelation 16: 4-7. "They deserve it." Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you figured adding two paragraphs would accomplish, but whatever works for you. The quote still specifically says: "Unless people turn to Jehovah, they reap his adverse judgement." There's no qualification on "people." That someone at Bethel went on a bloodlust fantasy has nothing to do with that. That "people" doesn't mean "murderers and other misusers of physical blood" as you imply is further seen by the comparison to the Egyptians, only that this time there's not supposed to be any way out.Tommstein 18:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Revelation" book, p. 234:

"It is the satanic 'air' breathed by the world today, the spirit, or general mental inclination, that characterizes his whole wicked system of things, the satanic thinking that permeates every aspect of life outside Jehovah's organization." So if you're not in "Jehovah's organization," you're breathing satanic "air," you're part of the "whole wicked system of things," and every aspect of your life is permeated by "satanic thinking." By the way, this is actually a discussion of Armageddon itself, the seventh bowl.

The quote, now with context, followed by yet another setting straight of your ignorance:

"“And the seventh one poured out his bowl upon the air. At this a loud voice issued out of the sanctuary from the throne, saying: ‘It has come to pass!’”—Revelation 16:17.

“The air” is the final life-sustaining medium to be plagued. But this is not the literal air. There is nothing about the literal air that makes it deserving of Jehovah’s adverse judgments, any more than the literal earth, sea, freshwater sources, or sun deserve to suffer judgments at Jehovah’s hand. Rather, this is “the air” Paul was discussing when he called Satan “the ruler of the authority of the air.” (Ephesians 2:2) It is the satanic “air” breathed by the world today, the spirit, or general mental inclination, that characterizes his whole wicked system of things, the satanic thinking that permeates every aspect of life outside Jehovah’s organization. So in pouring out his bowl upon the air, the seventh angel expresses God’s wrath against Satan, his organization, and everything that motivates mankind to support Satan in defying Jehovah’s sovereignty."

Read the last sentence until you figure out how wrong you are, and why. I'll explain it for you just incase: Pooring out the seventh bowl is (believed by Jehovah's Witnesses) to be an expression of "God’s wrath against Satan, his organization, and everything that motivates mankind to support Satan in defying Jehovah’s sovereignty". DO you see yourself mentioned anywhere in there? Does it say anything about children? Does it say ANYTHING that isn't metaphoric? Is it at least specific in regards to WHO and WHAT the interpretation is aimed at? Yes. I direct you to read the final sentence once more (read it a few times). Besides, this quote is actually NOT a discussion of WHO (individually) will survive Armageddon itself. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, so much work, except that you didn't read my commentary after the quote and must have been responding to your invisible friend's comments.Tommstein 18:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are some quotes clarifying the official view, (my comments are in brackets) all the rest are direct quotes:

"The Watch Tower has shown from the Scriptures that there are just two principal organizations—Jehovah's and Satan's. And, as 1 John 5:19 states, "the whole world"—that is, all mankind outside of Jehovah's organization—"is lying in the power of the wicked one. . . But why does God permit it? Is any good being accomplished? Jesus Christ explained that before he as heavenly King would crush Satan and his wicked organization, there would be a separating of people of all nations, as a Middle Eastern shepherd separates sheep from goats. People would be given opportunity to hear about the Kingdom of God and to take their stand on its side.."—Proclaimers book, 1993, p.676

"But to what was Jesus referring when he said "the world"? In the Bible the expression "the world" sometimes simply means humankind in general. God sent his Son to give his life as a ransom for this world of humankind. (John 3:16) Yet Satan has organized most of humankind in opposition to God. So Satan's world is this organized human society that exists apart from or outside of God's visible organization."—Live Forever book, 1982, 1989, p. 209

"That will be the start of the great tribulation! After that, Jesus turns his attention to what remains of Satan's organization,. . . he will put the wicked one to death. . . That will be a day of doom, indeed, for disobedient nations and humans but a day of relief for all (JWs) who have made Jehovah and his Warrior-King their refuge! . . . The list of those whose corpses would be left lying there shows the range of the destruction: kings, military commanders, strong men, freemen, and slaves (note: all normal people, i.e., non-JWs). No exceptions. Every last trace of the rebellious world in opposition to Jehovah will be eliminated. After this, there will no more be a restless sea of confused humans ( no more non-JWs). (Revelation 21:1) This is "the great evening meal of God," since it is Jehovah who invites the birds to share therein... . . In this way, all of Satan's earthly organization comes to an end. The "former heaven" of political rulership has passed away. The "earth," the seemingly permanent system that Satan has built up over the centuries, is now utterly destroyed. The "sea,"the mass of wicked humanity opposed to Jehovah, is no more."-Isaiah 11:4.—Revelation book, 1988, pp. 282-286 (Note! Anyone who is not a JW is automatically classed as the "mass of wicked humanity opposed to Jehovah", and will be eternally destroyed. This includes ex-JWs, non-believers, agnostics, Christians who are not JWs, and all others of humanity. And no Duffer, your straw man about the end of the 1,000 years is not here!) Central 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Knowledge" book, p. 183:

[Regarding Armageddon] "All who oppose God's Kingdom and who are a part of Satan's wicked system will be eliminated. Only those loyal to Jehovah will survive." Again, everyone that's a part of Satan's system dies, which in Jehovah's Witness-ish means 'everyone that's not a Jehovah's Witness.' As if that wasn't clear enough, it then explicitly says that "only those loyal to Jehovah will survive," which kind of eliminates unbelievers, and everyone else for that matter, especially in Jehovah's Witness World where they're Jehovah's only loyal servants.

Who specifically is eliminated? "ALL who oppose God's Kingdom AND who are a part of Satan's wicked system". Who will survive? "Only those loyal to Jehovah". How can you be loyal to one you do not know? How can a Jehovah's Witness child know to be loyal to Jehovah? Are Jehovah's Witnesse children to die as well? Obviously this sentence is speaking about those who remain loyal to Jehovah once they have known him. If this sentence is talking about you, then it must equally be talking about Jehovah's Witness children, but it isn't, and you know that. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, being "a part of Satan's wicked system" constitutes 'opposing God's Kingdom.' If you want to argue that "Only those loyal to Jehovah will survive" means kids are gonna die, go for it. Although the first time this discussion was had it was agreed that they're specifically unclear about children. But if you think they're all gonna die because of this, something no one but you is claiming, go for it.Tommstein 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I should add, you are correct, how can you be loyal to someone you don't know? The problem for this web of bullshit that you're spinning is, it says that the loyal are the "only" ones that "will survive," proving the point that you're just some idiot that doesn't know what your own religion teaches.Tommstein 18:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", p. 190:

"Since the Bible shows that practicing true religion... opens the way to enjoy everlasting life in paradise on earth, it surely will be worth your while to make such an investigation." Note that this is what opens to way to the possibility of everlasting life. Which implies that otherwise said way isn't open.

It may imply that to people who do not understand Jehovah's Witness doctrine, such as yourself, but to an informed person, it does not. Besides, to "enjoy everlasting life IN PARADISE" one must have already SURVIVED ARMAGEDDON. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that half of that was an unwitting agreement with me, but was the other half supposed to be a rebuttal or something?Tommstein 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", pp. 210-1:

"The organized human society under Satan the Devil is indeed wicked and corrupt. It is opposed to God's righteous laws, and it is filled with all kinds of immoral practices." Well, there you have them equating human society with wickedness, as opposed to what you were claiming, that they only consider some individuals to be wicked.

I never said, nor claimed that. How is this relevant to Armageddon survival? Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The first person that wanted to have this argument was claiming that only the "wicked" will be destroyed at Armageddon. Is it your argument that 'wickedness' is now OK after all?Tommstein 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", p. 216:

"For remember, if you are not serving Jehovah, then you are serving Satan." There's some of the 'with us or against us' business I mentioned earlier. They claim to be the only people serving Jehovah, leaving everyone else as a servant of Satan. Surely you're not fixing to argue that they believe that God will save some servants of Satan at Armageddon.

So? Matthew 1:30... Surely you're not reading into the text something it does not say.. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get this on record: are you saying that God will in fact save some servants of Satan at Armageddon? Have you no mental hoops that you won't jump through?Tommstein 19:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", p. 250:

"But living then depends upon your doing God's will now." Kind of eliminates unbelievers, since they don't believe anyone else is doing God's will.

The full quote:

JEHOVAH GOD offers you something wonderful—everlasting life in his righteous new system of things. (2 Peter 3:13) But living then depends upon your doing God’s will now. The present wicked world, including all who remain a part of it, is about to pass away, “but he that does the will of God remains forever.” (1 John 2:17) So you must choose between two courses. One leads to death and the other to eternal life. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) Which one will you take?

How can you choose a course if you have not been given the option? Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't choose the course, you die; it gives no exemption for those that weren't offered the opportunity to make the 'right' choice. Thanks for bringing up though what I left out though, that "The present wicked world, including all who remain a part of it, is about to pass away." It's fun arguing with an incompetent.Tommstein 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", pp. 252-3:

"Others must know the things you have learned about God's purposes if they are to survive this system's end and live forever." Notice the word "must." No space for unbelievers, since anyone who knows these things and rejects them would then go under the category of wicked or willful rejecter or whatever.

The quote with context:

"Before the flood, Jehovah used Noah, “a preacher of righteousness,” to warn of the coming destruction and to point to the only place of safety, the ark. (Matthew 24:37-39; 2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7) God’s will is that you now do a similar preaching work. Jesus foretold regarding our time: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14) Others must know the things you have learned about God’s purposes if they are to survive this system’s end and live forever."

The Ark was the only supplied means of escape. The only place of (relatively) ASSURED SAFETY. Just as today (we believe) that the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is the only place of (relatively) ASSURED SAFETY. The sentence doesn't literally mean you "must know to survive Armageddon". It's a rally cry to get your but in gear and tell some people about Jehovah. It's basically saying: "YOU MUST MAKE others know the things you have learned." Context is everything. It is fully decietful to pluck this sentence out of context and abuse it as you do. Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was quoting the entire paragraph intended to help your case? The ark wasn't the only place of "(relatively) ASSURED SAFETY," it was the only place of safety, period, seeing as 100% of the people inside survived and 100% of the people outside died. The quote even specifically says, "Others must know the things you have learned about God's purposes if they are to survive this system's end and live forever," which is an explicit requirement "to survive this system's end." Whining and flailing your arms while screaming 'out-of-context' don't help you here.Tommstein 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Duffer1, start refuting. Oh yeah, those were only my quotes. There were a buttload more from Central and Evident that I will allow them the pleasure of also posting here, or I'll post them myself if necessary.Tommstein 10:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You cannot brow-beat me into silence with your abuse of truth. To head off further assualts against reality I will shortly post quotes (with context) that, unlike ALL of your quotes, specifically addresses the "grey area". Duffer 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If you consider having some facts dropped on you a browbeating, so be it. I suppose you're about to prove that their story varies per publication, which I already acknowledged. But hey, if 'proving' something that has already been agreed to is the closest you can come to proving anything, you do what you need to do.Tommstein 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The ONLY teaching of who will survive Armageddon

These are cut and paste directly from the Touchstone link since none of you bothered to read it Duffer 12:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC):

w76 6/1 347-8 Look Forward with Confidence in God's Righteousness and Justice ***

16. Observe, however, that Jesus did not leave it up to humans to determine who are the "sheep" and who are the "goats." How fine that is! For, if we humans were responsible to judge, how could we properly evaluate factors such as: How much of an opportunity did a person have to hear and accept the good news? Did his genetic, family or religious background affect his response? What is his heart condition—does he love righteousness? If he is a child or was born mentally retarded, how much bearing should family or community responsibility have on the matter?—1 Cor. 7:14; Deut. 30:19.

17. Unquestionably, not one of us is qualified to weigh these, and perhaps many other, vital factors and principles. We could not reach judgments that are 'perfect, righteous and upright.' (Deut. 32:4) Hence, why should any of us become needlessly involved with trying to decide who will survive and who will not? If we say, 'I think these people in this certain situation are "goats" and will perish eternally, but those in that other category will live,' are we not making ourselves judges? (Jas. 4:12) Rather than trying to decide whether a certain person, family or group of persons fits the description of the "goats" or not, we can be content to leave the matter in the hands of "the Judge of all the earth."—Gen. 18:25.

18. God's judgments are not merely a matter of applying strict, unfeeling justice. His mercy, compassion and love are involved. As the psalmist David put it: "He has not done to us even according to our sins; nor according to our errors has he brought upon us what we deserve." (Ps. 103:10) Actually the only wages that imperfect, sinful humans deserve is death. (Rom. 6:23) Yet, in his mercy and compassion Jehovah has purposed that the message of salvation be spread extensively so that humans might gain life. He wants them to do so. (Ezek. 33:11; Isa. 55:6, 7) If God's mercy, love and compassion have been displayed so consistently down to this time, and we have benefited from them, cannot we be absolutely certain that they will come into play, too, in the judgment at the conclusion of the system of things? Yes, the survivors will be absolutely right when they proclaim, "Jehovah God, the Almighty, true and righteous are your judicial decisions."—Rev. 16:5-7; 19:1, 2.

w95 10/15 28 What Future for the Sheep and the Goats? ***

23 Many are exposed to our message as we preach from house to house or informally. Others may learn of Jehovah's Witnesses and what we represent in ways unknown to us. When judgment time arrives, to what extent will Jesus consider community responsibility and family merit? We cannot say, and it is pointless to speculate.

Regardless of this noble suggestion that "it is pointless to speculate", the quotes given above by Tommstein quite clearly indicate that they have specifically done just that, and most often their speculation is that non-Witnesses are gonna die.--Jeffro77 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've often heard and read that since Matthew 24:14 does NOT say that every PERSON would be reached, but 'all the nations,' and since we cannot account for EVERY nuance of personal circumstance of EVERY individual on the face of the earth, that it is indeed quite possible that we will be surprised at the number of those who are not Witnesses that we will find standing on the other "side" of Armageddon. This attitude has been repeatedly reflected again and again; preaching is beneficial directly ONLY to the preacher, and not necessarily to the audience. So Witnesses are required to preach ("with the lips one makes public declaration for [their own] salvation"), but JEHOVAH judges in the end. I grew up in the faith thinking that everyone had to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and so I remember learning (over time) that such a position was essentially not Scripturally sound. However, if someone has been given ample opportunity in God's eyes and rejected it, then it is quite likely they would not survive Armageddon.

I don't understand any of the arguments above (who said what, who tipped up, but I have to say that Duffer's copypaste represents the views Witnesses currently hold, especially the hope that "we may be amazed and delighted to observe him [Jehovah] resolve them [issues relating to individual's privelege to pass into the New World] in a way that we never even considered." To me at least, that is a key and critical element of my faith, and my beliefs regarding the end of the world. - CobaltBlueTony 19:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow this thread. Is there a way to harmonize the two sorts of quotes (the ones highlighted by Duffer and those by Tommstein)? I find it hard to believe that the quotes which seem more "hardline" are now superseded. I would think a harmonization could be possible. Dtbrown 22:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How about something to the effect of, "While Witnesses have long held to the generalization that non-Witnesses would die at Armageddon by default, recent publications suggest that they have since thought on the matter and concluded that since it is not their place to judge others, they cannot say for certain who exactly will face execution by Jehovah's hand at Armageddon. Just the same, they do feel that those who in God's eyes have been given ample opportunity to respond to the warning of the Bible and deliberately fail to accept this of their own accord and with all of their faculties in place will more than likely not survive the coming judgement." Or hopefully something less verbose? ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 22:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Conjecture based on biblical precedent is far different than baseless speculation, and NOT ONE of Tommstein's quotes specifically addresses this grey area. Contrary to that FACT, everything I have provided does address the grey area. (As if the testimony of EVERY Jehovah's Witness isn't good enough..) Duffer 13:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We have "the testimony of EVERY Jehovah's Witness?" Man, I knew their numbers stopped really growing and/or started declining in most of the non-third world, but who would have thought that there were actually so few left. In any case, congratulations, you've proven that they print conflicting things in different publications. You're only a few days behind the rest of the article now.Tommstein 19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasoning From the Scriptures pg. 47 Armageddon ***

What will happen to young children at Armageddon?

The Bible does not directly answer that question, and we are not the judges.

w98 8/15 20 Strengthening Our Confidence in God's Righteousness***

18. With complete confidence in Jehovah's righteousness, we need not worry about finding answers to questions like: 'How will babies and small children be judged? Might it be that a large number of people will not yet have been reached with the good news when Armageddon arrives? What about the mentally ill? What about...?' Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way. We should never doubt that. In fact, we may be amazed and delighted to observe him resolve them in a way that we never even considered."

The lack or quotable quotes on this issue is easily explained; the question is DIRECTLY ADDRESSED in the Reasoning book (see above). For those of you that don't know, the Reasoning book is a small quick reference, like a "Frequently Asked Questions" booklet about our beliefs and doctrines. Duffer 12:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It was agreed last time to put in a disclaimer that possibly small children would survive. I don't know if it's still in the article. Hurray, you're engaging in groundbreaking research only 2-3 months behind the rest of us.Tommstein 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The point was to end quote wars, not start one

This is ridiculous. First, as noted earlier, the point of the dicussion was to establish if at any time JWs have taught that non-Witnesses will not survive Armageddon. IMO, this has been clearly established in the affirmative.

Duffer, you must understand, that the personal views of each and every JW editing here are irrelevant to what goes in the article. The article must state what the Watchtower says, not what individuals take it to mean.

Tony, I thought your sentence was excellent in concept. If we can come up with a more concise version then I think we've solved the problem. For now. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is rediculous. At NO point in time has Jehovah's Witnesses taught that ALL non-Witnesses will die at Armageddon. Not ONE of the quotes provided says this. Contrary to that, EVERY quote that I provided SPECIFICALLY states that "we do not know", "the bible does not say", "we are not the judges" etc.. Not only is this what Jehovah's Witnesses take it to mean, it is what the Watchtower has SPECIFICALLY STATED as I have proven. NOT ONE of Tomm's quotes specifically states otherwise (in context). Duffer 09:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check

I was asked to investigate allegations of the use of sockpuppetry related to this article. Here are the results of my investigation: Retcon (talk · contribs), Missionary (talk · contribs), Netministrator (talk · contribs), Steven Wingerter (talk · contribs), Satrap (talk · contribs), IP Law Girl (talk · contribs), and Tomnstein (talk · contribs) are all pretty certainly being controlled by the same person. The others listed in the original request all appear to be distinct individuals. I am somewhat concerned about there being both a IP Law Girl and a IP law girl as that suggests impersonation; the same can be said of Tomnstein (impersonating user:Tommstein). It is my recommendation that the editor using the above group of sockpuppets choose one account and use it to the exclusion of the others. The impersonation accounts should be blocked indefinitely, but I would like an uninvolved admin to investigate these accounts to determine which is the original and which the impersonation before deciding which one to block. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC), amended 14:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's to hoping that it is not determined that I am in fact impersonating Tomnstein.Tommstein 19:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

IP_law_girl and IP_Law_Girl are the same person, but it's hardly sockpuppetting. She edited on only one day with the capitalized version of her name, and the rest of her edits come from the lower-case version. In any case, she is not trying to sockpuppet straw-man anything. Tomnstein doesn't seem to have made any contributions at all, so I don't know where this accusation has any merit either. I cannot speak as to Netministrator (talk · contribs), Satrap (talk · contribs), or Steven Wingerter (talk · contribs), but I highly doubt that they are either IP Law Girl (talk · contribs)/IP law girl (talk · contribs) or Tommstein (talk · contribs). - CobaltBlueTony 14:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And on what do you base those 'high doubts' other than them being of your same religion?Tommstein 19:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me be clear on this: IP Law Girl (talk · contribs) is unquestionably a sockpuppet of Retcon (talk · contribs); furthermore, this editor edits from a different part of the country than does IP law girl (talk · contribs). Thus IP law girl and IP Law Girl are almost certainly not the same person, and one of them is quite likely an impersonator. This is based on server security logs (which I, as an administrator with CheckUser rights, have access to). The basis for the allegation that Tomnstein (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Retcon (talk · contribs) is that Tomnstein was created using one of the IP addresses that Retcon (talk · contribs) customarily edits from (specifically, 67.166.40.198); this does not show up as a contribution but does appear in the server security logs. All of the sockpuppets identified above were identified on the basis of server security evidence, and not specifically on any analysis of contributions. If you prefer to have my conclusions verified, ask one of the other six users with CheckUser rights. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was unaware of the level of your security and admin capabilities, and was not calling your integrity into question in that aspect. It seems to me that Retcon "has some issues," and I intend to address them within Wikipedia so that accusations against JWs being secretive can be dissuaded. I appreciate your efforts and dilligence in this. Respectfully, CobaltBlueTony 15:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This all from a guy that went to some lengths to defend Retcon/Missionary, after my page exposed them and they confessed.Tommstein 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony you need to learn to stop being so naïve. Tom and I suspected most of those sock puppets above, but I was shocked to see even more! At least that has confirmed my gut instinct/sixth sense is always right, and thank goodness it's still working fine, and you can see I was not paranoid when I listed many of those bogus IDs not long ago. But, CobaltBlueTony, you really need to give up this compulsive urge to defend others just because they are JWs, as you are doing massive damage to your religion, as the posters here are not the only ones to see these pages, and you defending the indefensible just makes you (personally and as a claimed "representative of Jehovah") look all the more unreasoning, biased and dishonest. I respect you when you argue honestly, and we have our differences, but all this underhand shit is despicable and well below the belt, even I'm shocked to see a JW doing that kind of stuff. It's bad enough when they lie in private, but to do it here as a Jehovah's Witness representative has done your religion a good deal of damage, and you would be well suited to distance yourself from this person before you worsen the situation.

Your Witness "brother" has some serious personal issues with reality and maybe you can help him before he does far more damage than good. What made me shake my head even more was his latest admittance here, saying "sorry to IP Girl" when he is IP Law Girl! He still doesn't grasp the problem; also, his problem likening himself to saint Peter were just more conceited insults to Bible characters. That kind of lying behaviour is only seen in compulsive liars, who are often so ingrained in their habit they totally fail to see the difference between reality and lies, as the lines have become so blurred. Mind you, Tom and I have been warning about this mentality in Jehovah's Witnesses for ages, here at least all can see we were not just making this stuff up, it's here in its full ugliness for all too see. Maybe we should make an article on the main JW pages about religious honesty and "Theocratic Warfare?" I hope you Tony, are gong to condemn Retcon and his multiple personality disorder the same as you would another religion when caught with its members pants down, lying like Satan himself had taught him. Regards. Central 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony, while I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt, clearly in this case RetCon/etc. has been very dishonest in his dealings and apologies, and is yet to fully come clean about the situation.

Central, please don't take the actions of one JW as an excuse to denigrate JWs. This is not the place to do so. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I would have had a lot more respect for Tony if he had not consistently tried to blindly defend the actions of his fellow Jehovah's Witness when they were clearly out of order. To be honest I am surprise Tony did what he did and didn't see the consequences of defending someone who was doing very sly and deceptive things. Tony chose to try and cover-up for Reton, so it's understandable that he has to take some of the flack. Also, this mentality is not unique here, I've seen it hundreds of times with Jehovah's Witnesses, and one only has to see how their organization handles their own actions when they are negative or false to see where Jehovah's Witnesses get this habit and mentality. Again, this is not remotely unique to this website or incident, just normally they have enough intelligence to be a bit more discreet with it. Central 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the procedures here? Once this is settled can the poster return? I thought some of the edits by Steven Wingerter to be beneficial to the project. Is there a way to resolve this and then go on? Dtbrown 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment

I think it would be best for all involved to give Missionary/Retcon (I will use Retcon because it is the oldest of the accounts) a chance to redeem himself, and for all parties to terminate the inquisition against him. Using a sockpuppet or changing to a different account to escape unwanted criticism is permitted at Wikipedia. If his actions had been limited to that, I would not have responded to Tommstein's request at all as an ill-founded request. However, what led me to respond were two factors: one, that Retcon had fraudulently attempted to mislead people into believing he and Missionary were different people, and two, that he created at least one impersonation account, impersonating a person who he was clearly at odds with.

In any case, Retcon has acknowledged and apologized for his inappropriate acts; Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy all but requires to accept his apology and move on. So let's please do so. I'd especially call on Tommstein and Central to lay off the rhetoric; it will not help defuse the situation. Personal attacks (such as Central calling Retcon a "compulsive liar") are neither helpful nor welcomed. There is bad blood on both sides of this issue, and frankly I'd like to see y'all work this out on your own with civility, rather than escalating the situation to the point that intervention by the Arbitration Committee is required. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Kelly, Calling someone a compulsive liar is technically correct if they have lied compulsively and habitually and we have clear evidence of. But, to keep the peace I will refrain from using such provocative language, but you must understand some here are very angry at the level of underhand sly deception used to try and win, manipulate and sabotage an argument, and all orchestrated by Retcon and his fantasy characters, and to add insult to injury we have had our intelligence insulted by his constant attempts to hide this clear reality. Thanks for your comment; I will not use that label anymore. Central 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Disappearance of quotes.watchtower.ca

What happened to http://quotes.watchtower.ca? When did it go offline? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's offline or if this is a temporary situation. This has happened before. I started noticing it today. Since it is not clear what has happened, I thought it best to put up mirror links in the Wikipedia article. Dtbrown 05:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)