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)

To skip over the parts of that that were too stupid for me to bother responding to, which was pretty much all of it, I'll just clarify that calling you an "illiterate dumbass" had nothing to do with the content dispute, it was in reference to, and I quote myself above, when "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."

Now, care to explain comments you have made such as "Don't hide behind your ignorance," "you have absolutely no respect for truth or accuracy," "people who have continuously demonstrated zero regard for truth and accuracy (you and sometimes Central)," "refutation of your ignorance," "Your problem(s) is presumption (and prejudice.. bias.. stubbornness.. ignorance..)," "you so decietfully [sic] state," "such as yourself, but to an informed person," "If you would like to persist in ignorance," "just responding to Central's prejudice," "lets talk about your bias," "it was your prejudice that started this," etc., so on, and so forth? Do you still wish to play your little 'I'm a victimized little saintly fairy' game despite constantly calling anyone that disagrees with you stupid, ignorant, and biased, and imputing bad motives galore to them?Tommstein 05:24, 29 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)

Thank you for screaming, we wouldn't have seen it otherwise. What you need now is a dictionary. I suppose you really, really think you're intimidating people by mentioning your 'list of sin'.Tommstein 05:28, 29 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)

The 'gray area' is your invention, attempting to obfuscate the issue. The rest is just too asinine to bother responding to.Tommstein 05:33, 29 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)

That's funny, since mention of those destroyed at Armageddon not being resurrected was one of the many things you tried removing from the article.Tommstein 05:36, 29 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)

Correction: You're trying to settle a dispute with pretty much every single other editor of the article. Don't try to minimize the breadth of the opposition you face like it's just this one crazy dude. By the way, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

To everyone else, see the crap we have to deal with here? He states, and I quote, "I know it is not our place to judge, that's one of the things I'm trying to get across to Tomm." The problem is, this was quickly accepted like a week ago, and he has been reminded of that the 68 or so times he has brought it up since then, which now includes on this page. I don't know if the dude is slow, illiterate, or what, and I'm not claiming that he is necessarily any of the above, but this victim complex is ridiculous.Tommstein 06:02, 29 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)

Please do provide specific examples of how all these quotes are being taken out of context, seeing as Duffer ignored my request to do the same instead of continuing to blow hot air. I won't address the rest of your mess, since I am not a fiction critic.Tommstein 06:07, 29 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)

It's not talking about survival for organizations, it specifically says "that you can follow" and "You must be part of Jehovah’s organization," which are addressed to the reader, not organizations. Saying that "You must" do A to get B makes A a requirement, with no space allowed for obtaining B without A, contrary to your story above. This is all basic literacy stuff. The rest has already been addressed with the mountain of references.Tommstein 06:16, 29 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)

It's not really the same thing as the later part of the quote is refering to the period of 1000 years after Armageddon where everyone who wants to survive that final judgement must be part of God's organization, under the enthroned king Jesus. Eventually everyone will have to join themselves ultimately, but MAYBE not necessarily to survive Armageddon (don't oppose/obstruct us consciously, live righteously, etc.., etc..). Make no mistake, it's a big MAYBE. We do have past biblical precedents of such instances where only the faithful survived, we can point to these precedents and say this is what has occured before, so it just may happen this way again, but we cannot say for a certainty as the bible does not tell us. So the first sentence of your above suggestion still isn't accurate. It would have to say something like: "The fate of righteous, non-Witnesses, who do not consiously oppose their ministry, is uncertain. Their publications cite past instances in the Bible where such ones have not survived and indicite this may be the case for Armageddon, however, they are uncertain in this matter saying: "The Bible does not directly answer that question, and we are not the judges..". That's fairly long for the section we're editing, however, specific nuances need to be covered in order to accurately portry Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Duffer 04:19, 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)

I do not understand what you're saying here. Duffer 04:19, 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)

Did you not read the first sentence? Duffer 04:19, 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)

These scriptures do not contradict what I have been saying. Matt. 24:37-39 gives us precedent to believe that it just might happen like that, but the language does not mandate that such will occur again in the same manner, especially when you consider the text of Revelations. Duffer 04:19, 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)

I think it needs to be stated that it inconsistantsy on the part of whoever that they do not make it clear which way. I think what is said in the reasoning book should be eknowlaged at least. weither This means that the watchtwower has new light or is just inconsistant --Greyfox 04:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In the witness community the reasoning book takes pressident over the paradise book which is not used much any more--Greyfox 04:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As Greyfox mentions, the problem with these compromises is that they declare as a fact that Jehovah's Witnesses teach that non-Witnesses can/might/whatever live through Armageddon, without mentioning that according to the vast majority of the references provided, they in fact condemn all non-Witnesses to die. I think people are focusing too much on one selected reference here and trying to write everything in accord with it in isolation, without looking at the rest of the mountain of references where they say that the only way to get through Armageddon is to be a Jehovah's Witness.Tommstein 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tommstein, I think consensus editing at times requires compromise. The references which Duffer cites cannot be ignored. I think Konrad was right to say that we need to avoid crafting a statement which in harmonizing the two positions might actually be original research. I think all we can do is cite the two positions. I think the position which has the most statements (one needs to be a faithful part of "Jehovah's Organization" to survive Armageddon) should go first. The view which expresses the idea that some might be spared due to ignorance should go second since there are fewer statements in that vein. The Watchtower Society does express both views. As I see it, it is not our job to evaluate or interpret the two sets of views. I think Duffer's interpretation of the "Live Forever" statement (on page 255) is incorrect. From what I can see the context is speaking of surviving the "Great Tribulation" or "Armageddon," and is not referring to a future judgment at the end of the 1,000 years. Because of that and other citations which have been provided, I can't agree with Duffer that the Watchtower Society's interpretation of who will survive Armageddon changed around 1976. I think the "hardline" statements are still valid. However, there are a few statements in recent years which indicate there might be a few exceptions (young children, mentally ill, totally ignorant of the message, etc.) Again, it's not for us here to pass judgment on the Watchtower Society's position on these things. The section we're editing is in a presentation of what JWs beliefs are. Since, that is the context we only need to present what the belief is. Dtbrown 07:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. Who said anything about ignoring Duffer's citations though? As has been explained to him the 80 times he has brought it up, his citations were quickly accepted by the non-Witnesses almost the moment he presented them. The bullet point was quickly changed to take them into account, but that is exactly what Duffer doesn't want, he wants all of his way (one or two citations) and none of everyone else's (literally dozens and dozens of citations). Since mentioning one first and one second doesn't of itself mean much to anyone, however, I think the final version should mention that the vast, vast majority are of the 'not Witness = you're toast' variety, instead of presenting the two like they're used equally (this is basically the same thing you said, except being more explicit about it and saying what we mean by the 'first and second' thing).Tommstein 23:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Dtbrown, You said: "The references which Duffer cites cannot be ignored", but they can be explained as he only gives partial quotes. The few "we cannot say" quotes are related to individuals, not groups/classes of people. Yes, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses admit that in regard to 'Mr Smith of 16 Orchard Road' possibly surviving "we cannot say, we leave it in Jehovah's hands" (note they don't even give any real possibility of survival, they just instead avoid the issue altogether by referring it 'back to God' in a typical public relations attempt to circumvent the uncomfortable subject), and that is just towards individuals, not groups. What they do say is the classes/groups of "sheep or goats" will clearly survive or be destroyed, and they clearly say anyone who hears their message and ignores it is the same class as one opposing it, and they are "all goats", so therefore "going to perish at Armageddon". The only possible hope for anyone not a Jehovah's Witness is to already be dead, or to be one hundred percent ignorant of who Jehovah's Witnesses are, and what they teach. But again, there are very few publications that give them even a slight possibility of survival, and the vast majority say no, no and no, as they are not "in the Ark", and do not have the "mark" of survival including baptism. Please don't be fooled by vague Watch Tower quotes about "we cannot say what will happen to the individual", as they are red herrings. If the individual does not accept the Jehovah's Witnesses' message then he or she automatically goes in the "goat class", receives "no mark of survival" and is "outside the Ark of salvation", and "has no scriptural hope of survival" and so totally doomed. Central 11:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I heartily agree. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 10:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be worded something like this.

Although most refrence material states that only those stand with jehovah (site reasoning book)survive armegodon some recent magizine articles have stated the it is possble to survive (site magizne) this sound to be either inconsistant or new light that has not may it into other publications. {by the way the quotes from the reasoning book are from watchtower libary 2001 edition} GREYFOX

I'm not sure, but going by the time stamps I believe Konrad agreed with my last post. Central, I agree with your statement that the type of quotes Duffer is referring to is directed to individuals. However, I think phrases like "don't be fooled" or "red herrings" are out of place here. Greyfox, the problem with using the Reasoning book is that it's only quotes from Scripture. Yes, it's pretty clear to us who know how the Witnesses interpret those passages but I don't think it's definitive enough for our purposes. To say "inconsistent" in this section would be POV. Dtbrown 16:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Their answers might be just quotes from the Bible, but if that's how they explicitly choose to answer a self-posed question, I don't think that means we have to ignore their answer, especially when a Bible text uses clear language. I get what you mean about calling things inconsistent being POV, generally speaking, but what else can you call mutually exclusive things (other than "mutually exclusive")?Tommstein 23:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Dtbrown, there are some nice points here, where the quotes show how the language used by the Watch Tower is specifically vague and creates constant straw men diversions from the subject. Scroll down to the long post from, Alan Feuerbacher, 28-Dec-05 00:03: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/104492/1.ashx Central 21:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how Mr. Feuerbacher sees any duplicity in this. The "public" answer, addresses the question from a de facto uninformed inquisitor, whereas the "secret reality of [their] beliefs" is directed at those who are already being educated in Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs. The uninformed are given the aforementioned response because of the hope that they too might make the choice. However, it should be clear to the reader that the Witnesses are talking about the "stand for truth and righteousness" as interpreted/understood by Witnesses. "Oh, I thought they meant Hare Krishnas! So they think they're right? What a bizzare concept, thinking your own religion is right!" Obviously, Witnesses are speaking from their own perspective, and the common reader is expected to grasp that de facto notion. More detail is then given to the students, still well before they are expected to abide by the requirements of the organization. The undedicated, unbaptized student is well-informed as to the position of Jehovah's Witnesses, that they believe that they comprise the overwhelming majority of those who will survive Armageddon. (The caveat should be presented that Witnesses believe active voluntary participation in Witness activities, such as preaching and teaching their faith to others, as well as living a morally clean life as defined by basic Bible principles, are required of Witnesses; so just being a Witness, or, just saying you're a Witness and not doing what one 'knows' one should be doing does not constitute being "marked for survival". Witnesses expect some members who seem otherwise obedient but who are insincere or otherwise lax in their faith according to God's judgement (and not theirs) may die at Armageddon along with the wicked. - CobaltBlueTony 22:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony said: "I don't understand how Mr. Feuerbacher sees any duplicity in this. The 'public' answer" The duplicity is the double speak used by the Governing Body and Watch Tower's writing department. They use carefully selected words to say one thing to the public, and something completely different to the members. Using words like "stand for truth and righteousness", or "true Christians", or "the Truth", or "following God's scriptural ways", all mean something different to the public than they do to the organization. It's the same deceit used on the main page where before some JW put the edit, as "Those putting faith in Jehovah will be saved" or something to that effect. That sentence means "all those serving God" to the public and would include every religion and faith on the planet that believes in monotheism, but this is certainly not the real position of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Putting these deliberately deceitful terminologies in candy-coated wrappers just demonstrate the length the organization will go to get good public relations, even when they are lying and deceiving to give themselves a good image to draw in more converts. The same is used in the magazines in regard to 'will the uniformed be saved?'; they avoid the answer all times, and cloak it in seeming liberal terminologies, that are actually not saying anything at all, just fluff, and hot air, not real opinion, just diversions. The last thing the public want to hear, is "you will die forever if you don't join our religion", so the Watch Tower lie, coat it all in sugar, and carefully word it all in public statements to make it seem like they are more liberal, but they clearly are not from the mountain of qualifiers they print in their literature. The Wikipedia article is not the place for public relations machinations, it's supposed to be about factual realities of doctrine, not the sweetest way to present them to the public hidden in deceitful ambiguous terminologies. Central 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

More useless info this basically stims from a question most new people ask what if some is on a island and the he isn't reached before the end what happen to him nothin the end cant come until he reached. but what if he studies and is about to be baptized when he get's stuck there. The kind way is to say well Jehovah won't destroy him. But, in reality the society says he should of been baptized before he got stuck on that stupid island so he will be destroyed.--Greyfox 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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) It should benoted that some of the other books that the Jehovah Witnesses use apear to contradict this but this maybe due to the lack of recent revisions, or replacement of those books.

I think this might work--Greyfox 00:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 00:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not just rework the reasoning book's statment so ther is no copyright problem? It states the subject perfectly.

RB:

'"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?"'

A rewrite: JW's believe that they do not pass judgement as to who will survive armageddon. They believe the Bible makes it plain that although God does not want anyone to be destroyed, he has and will again destroy all who reject His standards in the Bible. JW's believe they are the only ones teaching these standards. They therefore find it unlikely many will survive armageddon who do not associate with them.

George 00:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I like your rewrite george --Greyfox 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is the JWs do allow for the possibility that some non-JWs might not be destroyed. To be fair we have to put that in the final product. Dtbrown 00:41, 30 December 2005

(UTC)

I like that rewrite. An allowance that I would like to see: "They therefore find it unlikely many will survive Armageddon who do not associate with them, however, they do not discount the possibility. I really think that works. Duffer 05:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask this question acording to the reasoning (see above)if you are not with god than you are against him weither you are ignorant is not brought up, and then it sites the time of noah as an example. So how ignorant of Jehovah do you have to be to qualify under this provosion ?--Greyfox 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't answer that one since I don't know the answer. Dtbrown 01:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a logic problem. 1998 watchtower quote is a good one but is canceled out with the neutrality issue from the reasoning book. If your not with Jehovah because you are ignorant about him and worship another god or none you are toast because you are immoral.--Greyfox 02:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The 1998 Watchtower quote is later than the "neutrality" quote from the Reasoning book. Dtbrown 05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think many of you are being hoodwinked by the double speak and word play that is practised in these Watch Tower Society articles. They never give any real possibility of survival to non-Jehovah's Witnesses, and we are specifically talking about the only group on the fringe of their comments, those who are totally oblivious to what Jehovah's Witnesses stand for and believe. They always make a politician's answer when confronted, and after all the careful words, the end reality is "no comment", it certainly isn't "well it's possible non-JWs will survive, hey lets hope they do!" Here is one of Duffer's posts where he gave his "proof" from a recent Watchtower magazine 15 Aug 1998 p. 20. My comments are in bold:

"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? (Again, no comment) Might it be that a large number of people will not yet have been reached with the good news when Armageddon arrives? (They still have time to become a JW and be saved?) What about the mentally ill? What about...?' (They've not said anything but just asked one question) Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. (Again, no comment, also note how they say, "may" not know instead of "do" not know.) He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way. (Again, no comment, throwing the question back to God) 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." (Again, no comment, just some cheesy diversion with no substance at all)

I also find it fascinating how this line managed to hide from Duffer's posts and found in the same Watchtower on just one page before, page 19.

"It is imperative that we strengthen our confidence now. Without confidence in our Christian brothers, in Jehovah's organization and, above all, in Jehovah himself, survival will be impossible." (note the word impossible)

A later Watchtower from 1999 says the same thing (10 years after the Reasoning book, 11 years after the Insight book volumes.):

"As a result, they become members of an international brotherhood known for cleanness and good manners, the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. . . .Soon the world will be filled with such people because these will be the only ones who will survive and live forever."-Watchtower 15 June 1999. p.6

Impossible is a bit more clear than "we need not worry about finding answers to questions", yes indeed as the answers are already there! No mark of survival from the "secretary's Ink Horn" and they are dead. Not in "Jehovah's Ark organization" and they are dead! Not a baptised Jehovah's Witnesses, and they are dead. Not for "Jehovah's and His organization", then they are opposing it, no fence sitting here, so they are dead! Not a "sheep", then they are "goats", no middle ground here, so they are dead. None of the "no comment" Watchtower's give any hope at all to those ignorant of Jehovah's Witnesses, those articles (small in number as they are) all give the same conclusion, paraphrased as: "We the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses would rather not answer this uncomfortable question, so we will give 'no comment' in the hope that you will think we are liberal, but in reality we are not, we have made it explicitly clear in many, many of our articles and publications that all non-JWs ignorant or not, will be destroyed. They will have no essential mark of survival, and are outside of Jehovah's symbolic Ark, and so have no scriptural hope of surviving Armageddon." The current edits on the main page are inaccurate, as the Watch Tower Society's references do not say "a possibility" anywhere at all, and the one listed [Watchtower magazine 15 Aug 1998 p. 20] says it's "impossible" for one to survive outside "Jehovah's organization". Central 15:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that exactly the soceity has a problem in it's writng staff and sometimes they say thing they believe (not what the WT teaches) and then get corrected sillenty later but if it helps the society they try to leave up in the air as long as possible.--Greyfox 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Central, using terms like "hoodwinked" is out of place here. The second part of the edit I proposed only referred to people who are ignorant of the preaching by JWs. That's all that has been suggested by WT literature. True, the word "possible" is not used in WT literature and I did not put that in quotes. But, that is clearly what was meant by the statement. Dtbrown 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Unofficial Vote on Change

1)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) It should benoted that some of the other books that the Jehovah Witnesses use apear to contradict this but this maybe due to the lack of recent revisions, or replacement of those books.

2)'"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?"'

JW's believe that they do not pass judgement as to who will survive armageddon. They believe the Bible makes it plain that although God does not want anyone to be destroyed, he has and will again destroy all who reject His standards in the Bible. JW's believe they are the only ones teaching these standards. They therefore find it unlikely many will survive armageddon who do not associate with them.

feel free to make change's to paragraph's above Please vote and comment--Greyfox 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

2)I think this is as close as we are gonna get--Greyfox 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Greyfox, just a question. Is there a Watchtower source you are familiar with that says God will destroy people at Armageddon who are ignorant of the preaching done by Jehovah's Witnesses? Dtbrown 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am tired of this Dtbrown I have quoted and will quote it again. in fact technicaly this post dates your quote 2001 watchtower libary in the watchtower index it reads like this under

Armageddon

survivors: rs 47

anointed remnant possibly: w90 8/15 30-1; w90 12/15 30

children: rs 47-8

the reasoning book pages pages 47-8

Armageddon

Definition: The Greek Har Ma·ge·don´, taken from Hebrew and rendered “Armageddon” by many translators, means “Mountain of Megiddo,” or “Mountain of Assembly of Troops.” The Bible associates the name, not with a nuclear holocaust, but with the coming universal “war of the great day of God the Almighty.” (Rev. 16:14, 16) This name is applied specifically to “the place [Greek, to´pon; that is, condition or situation]” to which earth’s political rulers are being gathered in opposition to Jehovah and his Kingdom by Jesus Christ. Such opposition will be shown by global action against Jehovah’s servants on earth, the visible representatives of God’s Kingdom.

Will humans be permitted by God to ruin the earth by what some call a “thermonuclear Armageddon”?

Ps. 96:10: “Jehovah himself has become king. The productive land [Hebrew, te·vel´; the earth, as fertile and inhabited, the habitable globe] also becomes firmly established so that it cannot be made to totter.”

Ps. 37:29: “The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.”

Rev. 11:18: “The nations became wrathful, and your own [Jehovah’s] wrath came, and the appointed time . . . to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

What is Armageddon, as referred to in the Bible?

Rev. 16:14, 16: “They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and perform signs, and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty. And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Har–Magedon [Armageddon].”

Will Armageddon be fought only in the Middle East?

Rulers and armies of all nations will be assembled in opposition to God

Rev. 16:14: “They go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty.”

Rev. 19:19: “I saw the wild beast [human political rulership as a whole] and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage the war with the one seated on the horse and with his army.”

Jer. 25:33: “Those slain by Jehovah will certainly come to be in that day from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth.”

Use of the name Armageddon (Har–Magedon) cannot mean that the war will be fought at a literal Mountain of Megiddo

There is no literal Mountain of Megiddo; only a mound about 70 feet (21 m) high where ruins of ancient Megiddo are found.

The kings and military forces of “the entire inhabited earth” could not fit into the literal Plain of Esdraelon, below Megiddo. The plain is triangular, only 20 miles (32 km) long and 18 miles (29 km) wide at the eastern end.—The Geography of the Bible (New York, 1957), Denis Baly, p. 148.[1]

The name is fitting because of Megiddo’s role in history; the plain below Megiddo was the site of decisive wars

There Jehovah caused the defeat of Sisera, the chief of the Canaanite army, before Judge Barak.—Judg. 5:19, 20; 4:12-24.

Thutmose III, pharaoh of Egypt, said: “The capturing of Megiddo is the capturing of a thousand towns!”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, N.J.; 1969), edited by James Pritchard, p. 237.[2]

The reference to Megiddo (meaning “Assembly of Troops”) is appropriate because Armageddon is a world situation in which the troops and other supporters of the rulers of all nations will be involved.

Who or what will be destroyed at Armageddon?

Dan. 2:44: “The God of heaven will set up a kingdom . . . It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”

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.”

Will the destruction be forever?

Matt. 25:46: “These [who refused to do good to Christ’s “brothers”] will depart into everlasting cutting-off.”

2 Thess. 1:8, 9: “Those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus . . . will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction.”

Will there be survivors?

Zeph. 2:3: “Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who have practiced His own judicial decision. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you may be concealed in the day of Jehovah’s anger.”

Rom. 10:13: “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”

Ps. 37:34: “Hope in Jehovah and keep his way, and he will exalt you to take possession of the earth. When the wicked ones are cut off, you will see it.”

John 3:16: “God . . . gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”

Rev. 7:9, 10, 14: “I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: ‘Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.’ . . . ‘These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation.’”

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?

Is the love of God violated by destruction of the wicked?

2 Pet. 3:9: “Jehovah . . . is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.”

Luke 18:7, 8: “Shall not God cause justice to be done for his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night, even though he is long-suffering toward them? I tell you, He will cause justice to be done to them speedily.”

2 Thess. 1:6: “It is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you [his servants].”

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.

Whose influence is pushing the nations to the world situation that will result in war against God?

Rev. 16:13, 14: “I saw three unclean inspired expressions that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon [Satan the Devil; Rev. 12:9] and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and perform signs, and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty.”

Compare Luke 4:5, 6; 1 John 5:19; also Acts 5:38, 39; 2 Chronicles 32:1, 16, 17.

DO YOU SEE ANY POSIBILTY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Greyfox 04:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)