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

Request for cabal mediation

Initial request

Request made by: Duffer 10:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

The Jehovah's Witnesses and related pages.

Who's involved?

Duffer (myself), Tommstein, Central, due to the distinct lack of editors for this and related pages, others will likely want to be involved Konrad West, CobaltBlueTony, and Dtbrown.

What's going on?

A lengthy edit war is taking place over several aspects of the Jehovah's Witness page; the most significant of which is the matter of who will survive Armageddon according to Jehovah's Witness theology. I know such matters may sound abstract to people unfamiliar with Jehovah's Witness theology and/or biblical prophecy. Please bear with me.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and officially teach, that many Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon to live life on a paradise earth. Those who actively, and conscientiously oppose and/or obstruct the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry will be killed at Armegeddon with no hope for resurrection. This 'with us-or-against us' message is proliferated in nearly all Jehovah's Witness publications. The problem is this message often gives the false impression that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that if you are not with us, then you will die at Armageddon. Such a belief is not accurate Jehovah's Witness theology. When confronted with questions about who will survive and who will not, Witnesses know that the "sheep" will be saved and the "goats" will not be. But what of those who are not a Jehovah's Witness yet still live righteously? Witnesses teach that the bible does not specify, and "we are not the judges" of such ones. It is this grey area of non-witness, yet righteous people, that is at the core of this edit war. The reverts:

Mine: Those who consciously, and actively, oppose the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry will be eternally killed at Armageddon along with the unrighteous. Those who have no knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses, and live righteously, may possibly be spared.

Tomm's and Central's: Humans who have had contact with Jehovah's Witnesses or know of them, and yet still do not actively side with Jehovah by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses will be eternally killed at Armageddon without consideration for age (based on Ezekiel 9; Insight On the Scriptures 1988, Vol. 1 p. 849) Depending on which of the Witnesses' publications you are looking at, some who never had contact or knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses may possibly be spared death due to their ignorance.

My edit accurately reflects current Jehovah's Witness theology. I cited sources for this entry here: talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#The ONLY teaching of who will survive Armageddon. Tomm and Centrals' edit reflects old Jehovah's Witness theology that was revised around 1976. To support their edit they cite Watchtower Bible & Tract Society publications: talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Previous teachings about who will be destroyed at Armageddon. The problem is the quotes they cite are not specifically talking about the "grey area" (as I call it). They are talking about the "sheep" or "goats", not a single one of the quotes is specifically addressing the "grey area", contrary to that, the WBT&TS quotes that I have provided do specifically address the "grey area". WTBTS articles are themed, they follow a specific bible theme for that particular issue. These articles avoid specifics of off-theme subjects (such as the "grey area") so as to not detract from the overall theme of the article, which can cause confusion to non-Witness readers. This is not a new controversy to our page (see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 16#Unbelievers eternally destroyed?) the Jehovah's Witness Uberpenguin was virtually browbeat into silence through highly abusive language and spamming of out of context quotes. No Jehovah's Witness on this Wiki project agrees with Tomm and Central's edit, and the official WTBTS quotes I have provided unequivoclly speak against their edit. They claim we are lying, and/or ignorant of our faith and official teachings. Besides all of that, the source they cite in their edit itself (Insight On the Scriptures 1988, Vol. 1 p. 849) does not even mention the issue. Duffer 11:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I ultimately see this issue and the related pages/issues seeing official Wiki arbitration due to the abusive language of Tommstein, and the pervasive prejudice of both him and Central.

What would you like to change about that?

What Tomm and Central continuously RV to is an old Jehovah's Witness teaching (there is an appropriate section for this). I want current, official, Jehovah's Witness theology accurately represented, and past teachings (accurately presented) relegated to the appropriate section (which I would link to but the pages are such a damned mess I can't seem to find it..). A comprehensive list of articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#List of articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Duffer 11:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

My E-mail is on my user page, however, I would prefer that this stay public if at all possible since there is really such a small amount of active editors of the articles in question.

Other Issues

An edit war on New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is taking place as well. The disputed entry (first paragraph of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Characteristics of the Translation section):

, and where such would not conflict with their beliefs ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8])

This is grossly POV, libelous, and above all, innacurate; so I remove it. Only conjecture allows the conclusion they posit, not fact. I've even put forth a solution that offers user:Mini, user:Tommstein, and myself an amicable solution, half an hour later it was entirely ignored, and the deletion of the above quote was reverted. They are attempting the libel of an entire Bible translation based on instances of translation where the NWT is still ACCURATE and LITERAL, just the word (or phrase) used is not rendered the same as other instances of the same Greek word (or phrase) in other parts of the translation. NO BIBLE can do this and still be readable. Any of you ever try to read an Inerlinear translation?

Now that we've gotten through the partially quoted, persecution complex side of that, here's the entire sentence:

"To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing, and where such would not conflict with their beliefs ([9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16])."

Note the specific claim: "one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering." The only mentioned deviation from that, without my addition, is "context allowing." The Greek word in question is "proskuneo". As the eight links I provided make clear, this is usually translated as "worship" in this translation. As they also make clear, they translate it differently when its object is one specific entity: Jesus. In those cases, they use "obeisance". So we look at the one mentioned deviation, "context allowing." Does the Greek context demand that Jesus be rendered "obeisance" instead of "worship"? No. The only reason for deviation in this one case is because the object is Jesus, whom Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe should be worshiped. Thus, the need for my addition, with the eight references provided when someone thought I was just making this up. Also, whether it is said that Jesus was "worshiped" or "rendered obeisance" has nothing to do with whether a translation is interlinear or not. Of note, someone else has provided a completely different example of this kind of stuff on the article in question's Talk page. This was not the only example, just the only one I brought up.Tommstein 10:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to mention it, but even earlier versions of this translation translated this word as "worship" at the places where it has now been changed to "obeisance", as the provided references talk about. The Greek certainly still says the same thing that it always has, so even this Bible's translators have unwittingly demonstrated that "worship" is a suitable translation of the Greek before correcting their 'mistake'.Tommstein 10:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

My two cents in away your saying that 6 billion people will live through armagedon because the vast majority of people just go about thier lives when they hear of jehovah's witnesses. This does not jive with what I am being curently tought at my hall. Several talks have been on how those that sit on the fence will not make it through armagedon.

I took this from the reasoning book

Who or what will be destroyed at Armageddon?

Rev. 19:17, 18: “I saw also an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice and said to all the birds that fly in midheaven: ‘Come here, be gathered together to the great evening meal of God, that you may eat the fleshy parts of kings and the fleshy parts of military commanders and the fleshy parts of strong men and the fleshy parts of horses and of those seated upon them, and the fleshy parts of all, of freemen as well as of slaves and of small ones and great.’”

1 John 2:16, 17: “Everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever.”

Rev. 21:8: “As for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death.

Does not sound like your right duffer I rest my case!--Greyfox 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep reading, same page: What will happen to young children at Armageddon? "The bible does not directly anser that question, and we are not the judges." Duffer 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Too bad no one's talking about the fate of "young children."Tommstein 08:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so non-baptized Jehovah's Witness children will die at Armageddon also? The righteous, non-witness man's child will die at Armageddon? Children are very much included in the "grey area". Duffer 11:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no dispute as the current quote is accurate. User Matthew McGhee (Duffer) choose to ignore this with his highly inaccurate and grossly biased portrayal you see here. All this was discussed in detail back in October and he chose to give no objection and no input whatsoever into the subject. He has recently decided he doesn't like the highly judgemental position of his religion's Governing Body, and does not want the public to see it. He has plucked a few ambiguous quotes, and ignored the mountain of clear-cut ones that condemn non-JWs to eternal death. The current quote on the main page is accurate:

"Humans who have had contact with Jehovah's Witnesses or know of them, and yet still do not actively side with Jehovah by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses will be eternally killed at Armageddon without consideration for age (based on Ezekiel 9; Insight On the Scriptures 1988, Vol. 1 p. 849) Depending on which of the Witnesses' publications you are looking at, some who never had contact or knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses may possibly be spared death due to their ignorance."

The main issues are:

• Group 1. What does the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses teach will happen to the public (non-Jehovah's Witnesses) at Armageddon who have rejected, ignored, or criticise the message as presented by Jehovah's Witnesses.

• Group 2. What does the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses teach will happen to the public (non-Jehovah's Witnesses) at Armageddon who are ignorant of Jehovah's Witnesses and their message as taught by their Governing Body?

The answer. Group 1 according to all the literature approved as from Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, or as they state "God's channel to mankind" gives the non-ambiguous stance that they will all be killed eternally. The main objection to Duffer's sentence in the main JW article is that he creates a false stance by saying "consciously, and actively, oppose the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry" which is not the case at all. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses makes it clear all through their writings that one who hears the message as presented by Jehovah's Witnesses on the doors, in their literature, or in conversations with them, and then rejects that message or ignores it, (they do not have to "consciously and actively oppose it", as Duffer falsely states), will be classed as "rejecting God, his Kingdom and His message", and therefore will be doomed to destruction, regardless of how Christian they might be, as they have rejected the "Holy channel of God", or in common English, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, who are supposed to be God's agents on earth. All of the Governing Body's literature makes it very clear, those who hear the message from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and reject it, or ignore it, will be destroyed. None of Duffer's Watch Tower quotes say any different, along with the mountain of quotes in Talk 16

So, the reason Duffers quote was changed was because it gives a false impression of the actual group, as if it's only made up of fanatical opposition, when in reality anyone who merely hears and ignores, or disagrees with Jehovah's Witnesses message is doomed to eternal death according to the Governing Body's literature and teachings. There has been no reversal of this stance.

As for Group 2. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses gives out mixed messages. Some articles are ambiguous and leave a possibility that some might possibly be allowed to live if they are good people, but are also totally ignorant Jehovah's Witnesses' message as presented by Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. But, many more other articles say the opposite, that simply due to ignorance, these ones will not get the "mark of survival", this is illustrated many times by likening it to Noah's Ark, having a blood cross on the door (symbolically), or an invisible spiritual mark so that destroying Angels leave those marked and kill all others. There are many more articles saying to be outside of Jehovah's Witnesses organization is equal to "no scriptural hope of survival", like being outside Noah's Ark. The few ambiguous quotes Duffer is so keen to portray are dramatically outweighed by the much larger group that state if you are not with them, you are doomed, and with no hope of salvation. Tommstein and I, have already compromised, and the current edit reflects this clearly and accurately by giving both points of view: ". . .Depending on which of the Witnesses' publications you are looking at, some who never had contact or knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses may possibly be spared death due to their ignorance." Although Duffer agrees with this point he seems obsessively determined to polarise the first part by deliberately inserting false qualifiers, like "Those who consciously, and actively, oppose the Jehovah's Witnesses", which is not only grossly inaccurate, it does not reflect the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses teachings at all. Since Duffer has not got his way, so he's thrown his toys out of the pram and is desperately trying to manipulate any arbitrators in his biased favour. It must be noted he has also been caught several times in Talk blatantly lying to try and give a better impression of his religion. He has also lied on this page saying "No Jehovah's Witness on this Wiki project agrees with Tomm and Central's edit", in fact Duffer is the only one arguing in favour of his own personal interpretations, no one else has really got involved as this was all discussed in detail back in October and laid to rest then. Duffer has been cautioned many times in Talk about giving his own interpretation rather than giving an accurate account of the teachings as they come from the highest level of Jehovah's Witnesses organization, that being the Governing Body, who are supposed to be getting it all direct from God, unlike Duffer, who seems to think personal opinions and personal interpretations are greater than doctrinal reality from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and should be here on Wikipedia.

There is no issue, as the current quote is accurate according to the literature from "the channel of God" (Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses) as JWs see them.Central 17:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that in the final edit some of Duffer's concerns should be addressed. However, I believe the current teaching of the Watchtower Society (which sets the doctrinal stance for Jehovah's Witnesses) still maintains a hardline approach. I've put together some more recent quotes (post 1976) and temporarily put them on a webpage (so as not to take up too much space here):

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/survivearmageddon.html

I think these type of quotes should also be considered for the final edit. Dtbrown 20:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You can look at my user contributions and see that I was unavailable at the time (zero edits in october). I did not choose to not participate in that particular discussion. Duffer

I am not afraid of accurately presented criticism of my religion. I am afraid that this edit war has escalated beyond the point of reconciliation and is in serious need of objective mediation. That's why I brought the issue here. It's not just this current issue either, it's EVERY edit that is made is met with heated commentary from both sides. Even the most mundane edit that I or any Jehovah's Witness makes is met with an edit war and verbal abuse on the part of both Central and Tomm. Once I changed "brotherhood" to "society", that was the only change made. I did it to reflect an unequivocally gender neutral word for "an association of people". I recieved nothing but edit wars, and verbal abuse for the change. Tommstein: "..it's because you're an illiterate dumbass.." (Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Misc. Minor changes). I finally just deleted both 'society' and 'brotherhood' from the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=32755317&oldid=32755078) and it seems to be accepted by everyone since it has not been reverted, and no comment has been made on the talk page. The situation is out of control.

Back to the subject, I most certainly do not agree with what you have said above. It is not dependant on "what article you're looking at" (unless it's pre-1976 of course), it is dependant on WHO is looking at it. Those who may know of Jehovah's Witnesses may yet survive Armageddon (dependant on the degree of their knowledge, heart condition, we're not their judges anyways, etc..), contrary to your assertion, the quotes you spammed on the JW talk page specifically states "those who REFUSE..". You also misrepresent what I've already said about "no scriptural hope", the WT '98 article I posted specifically says: "at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues". I even gave a link to a forum that is predominately active Jehovah's Witnesses (who don't have anything to do with Wikipedia) who have posted a comprehensive look at this issue (http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl?az=read_count&om=4&forum=DCForumID4) (website seems to be down atm..), as it is a common misunderstanding about Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Duffer 03:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet more lies. One, the problem edits currently seem to be pretty much all yours, not every edit that "any Jehovah's Witness makes," as you state in an attempt to garner sympathy and group protection. Two, you made a buttload of changes at the same time you made the "brotherhood" to "society" change [17], including three in that paragraph. One of the other two wasn't problematic, while you 'saw the light' and gave up edit warring on the other one after someone that wasn't Central or I pointed out to you the same thing that I had already told you multiple times.Tommstein 09:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm the ONLY active Jehovah's Witness editor lately, the others simply don't have the time to fight your abuse of accuracy and NPOV, but when they were editing, it was the same thing. I catagorized each change with detailed information for each. How is it a lie when verifiably, I edited, I catagorized adequitely and specifically, it was a MINOR edit (the one in question), and you gave me an edit war over it which resulted in you calling me an: "illiterate dumbass." Where's this lie you're refering to? Duffer 11:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I put some in Talk that are post 1975 also. Looks like we've been looking at the same forum site. Someone posted a question, I think they might be from this site. Central 23:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mine: Those who consciously, and actively, oppose the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry will be eternally killed at Armageddon along with the unrighteous. Those who have no knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses, and live righteously, may possibly be spared.

What is the point of being baptized then if you live righteously your saved?--Greyfox 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a definitive. It is uncertain, as the WTBTS says. Duffer 00:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This page desparately needs outside, unbiased editors.

I was originally brought to the page because I do a lot of RC Patrol work, and the page kept showing up with what looked like blanking vandalism. In fact, it's been in a prolonged edit war between fierce partisans on both sides. A read (a quick read is impossible) of the talk page and archives (20 and counting!) should make it clear how strong the rhetoric has become on all sides. I feel the quality of the article - for the general reader, rather than partisans - has suffered greatly.

I had been an occasional (and frustrated) contributor, with the aim of making the page usable for the general reader. For example, at least separating the readable, useful material from bloated point-vs-point arguments (take the "Jehovahs Witnesses and Governments" section, for example). Not by deleting it, but by re-arranging the consensus material, and moving the rest towards the end of the section and tagging it with section-only dispute tags. I gave up on the page when an obvious pack of sock puppets showed up a few weeks ago... CarbonCopy (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, "I gave up on the page when an obvious pack of sock puppets showed up a few weeks ago..." is the funniest sentence I have read in a long time. They probably thought they were being slick too. It turned out that the dude had like seven or eight accounts, including sockpuppets, user impersonations, and combinations of both. I was called a witchhunting stalker for reporting this, by the same administrator with CheckUser rights that confirmed it all. Good times.Tommstein 09:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you were called a "witchhunting stalker" by an ADMINISTRATOR for your long history of verbal abuse towards Jehovah's Witnesses, not for merely reporting a sockpuppet. User:Retcon (sockpuppet) e-mailed me an apology for his behavior along with a comprehensive and quite lengthy list of most of your verbal abuse violations. He also indicated that he has e-mailed the list to several Wiki administrators. Duffer 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To summarize what's going on, editor comes out of hibernation, editor starts edit war over something that was discussed at great length months ago, editor is told that he is incorrect by at least four different editors and provided a mountain of quotes proving that he is, editor insists that he is right and everyone else is wrong, editor continues edit warring, editor seeks mediation when he doesn't get his way. Duffer hasn't presented much more than quotes stating that 'we're not the judges of what specific people live or die during Armageddon, God will be the judge,' which is kind of a 'no crap' statement that has nothing to do with anything, but those he now fights with still quickly compromised with him as stated above by Central, no arm twisting or other extraordinary measure required. That wasn't enough for Duffer, who apparently wants all of his way and none of anyone else's way.

As a side note, I would encourage all to read http://www.reexamine.org/quotes/lie.htm regarding this religion's views of lying and deceiving people whenever convenient before believing anything Duffer publicly says about their beliefs simply because he says it. As mentioned by Central above, he has already made several bold, definitive statements on the Talk page in question which he has been forced to retract when editors have proven them to have been completely untrue.Tommstein 09:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I had my internet connection turned back on. Editor sees POV crap all over JW page and gets to work only to be confronted with nothing but unapologetic abuse, and a distinct lack of willingness to compromise. There are 30+ active Jehovah's Witnesses at the Touchestone forum that I linked to in regards to this issue. You go over there and tell them you know better than they do. But that is entirely besides the point. I have provided quotes that Specifically ASK the question, AND specifically answer the question. All you have provided is a mountain of 'us-them' quotes that aren't even talking about the issue of the 'grey area'.

It has been suggested that both quotes be put on the main page so the reader can "decide for themselves". I object to this compromise as it's disingenuous to accuracy, and would undoubtedly hopelessly confuse a reader as there are ALOT of these bullet type belief summaries on the main page. A false conclusion about Jehovah's Witness doctrine is still false. Even saying something like: "WTBTS publications seem to indicate to some readers.." is deceiving as it represents a false interpretation of our doctrine and is inherently innacurate. Why would we fill an encyclopedia with misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and rhetoric?

As a side note, I encourage all to read Tomm's "contributions". Above, again, Tomm misrepresents Jehovah's Witness doctrine, please read the context of the quotes carefully. Silence may be used to avoid "unnecessary harm." Silence may also be used to avoid directly answering questions that opposers frequently ask. That is not license to lie about our beliefs or misrepresent the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses when we do choose to answer such questions. If what Tomm is infering were so, then no Jehovah's Witness would have died during the Holocaust. No Jehovah's Witness would/will be sent to prison for refusing military service in whichever land he may reside. Duffer 12:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved?

No. Many millions who have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before God's time of judgment, and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. Humans look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. God has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours.—Matthew 7:1-5; John 5:22, 27.

source: www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm

--80.20.216.206 10:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Eupeptico

I appreciate your comments however, this does not address the issue we are currently speaking about. We do believe that after Armageddon there will be a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous. This resurrection will not include people who died at Armageddon as they have already been judged by God. So when the question is asked "Who will be saved" it must be specified who you are refering to. The topic of our current discussion is: "Who will survive Armageddon?" Duffer 11:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The question I can read above is "Who or what will be destroyed at Armageddon?". Of course there is a biblical base for the judgment (but it is a biblical base not invented by JWs) as you can read in 2 Thessalonians 1:8 <<In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ>>. So JWs agree with this statement. But we also share what you can read on our official and updated website JWMedia: "Humans look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. God has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours". --80.20.216.206 12:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Eupeptico

The question may insinuate that, however, the answer they give does not address the question of who will survive armageddon. I am a Jehovah's Witness trying to settle a dispute with user:Tommstein. I know it is not our place to judge, that's one of the things I'm trying to get across to Tomm. Duffer 13:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

My take on this is that quotes are taken out of context, misapplied or otherwise misused in such a way as to support Tommstein (talk · contribs) and Central (talk · contribs)'s goal of misrepresenting Witnesses into what they believe we are. They insist Witness editors and Witnesses in general don't know 1/10th of what their organization teaches, but every point they try to force sends up a red flag to myself (and other Witnesses who want nothing to do with these pages) as inaccurate. Witnesses, particularly ones who are interested in scholarly works such as Wikipedia, are keen on the research they do into their own faith, even as such is recommended by our Governing Body. Every meeting I go to, every other Witness I speak with, every publication I read, do not give off the tone and bizzare viewpoint that Tommstein (talk · contribs) and Central (talk · contribs)'s presentations of them do. It is plainly clear by the condescending tone used, even by User:Greyfox above, that the effort is not a simple and sincere interest in editing an encyclopedia article, but to portray Witnesses and their beliefs in the negative and scornful hue in which they themselves see them. Concerted effort is used to bash their views into the faces of other editors, particularly Witnesses, complete with insult and insinuation, while dredging up multiple countless off-topic points designed to derail any serious effort into presenting a truly NPOV article. - CobaltBlueTony 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think both edits in the revert wars miss the mark. Duffer's is:

Those who consciously, and actively, oppose the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry will be eternally killed at Armageddon along with the unrighteous. Those who have no knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses, and live righteously, may possibly be spared.

This does not address the oft stated requirement to be "part of Jehovah's Organization, doing God's will" to survive. For example:

You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (1982) p. 255

"Do not conclude that there are different roads, or ways, that you can follow to gain life in God’s new system. There is only one. There was just the one ark that survived the Flood, not a number of boats. And there will be only one organization—God’s visible organization—that will survive the fast-approaching "great tribulation." It is simply not true that all religions lead to the same goal. (Matthew 7:21-23; 24:21) You must be part of Jehovah’s organization, doing God’s will, in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life.—Psalm 133:1-3"

I suggest this as a compromise edit. I'm sure it can use some tweaking:

To avoid destruction at Armaggedon and to be able to enter the paradise earth one must become a faithful member of Jehovah's Witnesses ("God's visible organization"). (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, p. 255) Witness publications indicate the possibility some may be spared destruction at Armageddon due to ignorance.

Dtbrown 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to Touchestone talks about the quote you provided. The problem is it's speaking about survival as an organization (we believe true Christianity to be that organization), not individuals. "That statement does not preclude the possiblility of God allowing certain individuals to survive as is mentioned above. And yes, everyone must become a member of that organization in order to receive everlasting life, which says nothing more than everyone MUST JOIN THEMSELVES TO TRUE CHRISTIANITY, but, please keep in mind, we do not subscribe to the belief that JUST because you survive Armageddon, you are automatically granted eternal life. That doesn't happen to anyone on earth until the end of the thousand years, so you must keep that comment in its proper perspective ." Duffer 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Aren't we, then, pretty much saying the same thing? I was only referring to suriving Armageddon and not any later judgment periods. I also allowed for the possible survival of individuals due to ignorance. I've changed the suggestion a little bit. Could the statement be tweaked to make it work?:

To avoid destruction at Armageddon and to be able to enter the paradise earth one must become a faithful member of "God's visible organization"--Jehovah's Witnesses. (based on Zephaniah 2:3; You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, p. 255) However, Witness publications indicate the possibility some may be spared destruction at Armageddon due to ignorance.

Dtbrown 01:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I could agree to the above but one of the books that stats the opposing view must be quoted, or their is no leg to stand on with this argument. In other words which book agrees with the others argument. I do not remember one.

Oh, Buy the way most brothers I know in order to reconcile the event in italy with civil service disfellowshipings and later change to allow it. Invented the idea that Jehovah see's the heart of indivdual's and will not destroy those that are repentant even if the society has not reinstated them this. Which is not supported by the society at all. Could this be the samething? --Greyfox 02:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this, then?

To avoid destruction at Armageddon and to be able to enter the paradise earth one must become a faithful member of "God's visible organization"--Jehovah's Witnesses. (based on Zephaniah 2:3; You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, p. 255) However, it is possible some may be spared destruction at Armageddon due to ignorance of the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses. (August 15, 1998 Watchtower, p. 20) Dtbrown 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)What will happen to young children at Armageddon?

form the resoning book again p 47

What will happen to young children at Armageddon?

The Bible does not directly answer that question, and we are not the judges. However, the Bible does show that God views the young children of true Christians as “holy.” (1 Cor. 7:14) It also reveals that in times past when God destroyed the wicked he likewise destroyed their little ones. (Num. 16:27, 32; Ezek. 9:6) God does not want anyone to be destroyed, so he is having a warning sounded now to benefit both parents and children. Would it not be wise for parents to pursue a course that would result in their children being looked on with favor by God both now and at Armageddon?

Check and Mate--Greyfox 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to take a neutral position?

2 Thess. 1:8: “He brings vengeance upon those who [by choice] do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.”

Matt. 24:37-39: “Just as the days of Noah were . . . they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”

Matt. 12:30: “He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters.”

Compare Deuteronomy 30:19, 20.

for added emphasis--Greyfox 03:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Greyfox, for the quotes. The text I proposed does not suggest a "neutral position." It is clear that there are some statements by the Watchtower Society which indicate a possibility some may not be destroyed due to ignorance. Do you think the revised text I proposed would work? Would you have another suggestion to improve it? Thanks! Dtbrown 03:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)