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

Initial request

 * Request made by: Duffer 10:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: actively involved in mediation.SteveMc 04:46, 12 January 2006 (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.  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.  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) 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 WikiProject 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

(removed content regarding another dispute now occuring on Mediation_Cabal/Cases/6_01_2006_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_-_New_World_Translation)

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

Comments by others
Several pages of talk and comment were removed herefrom to Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/surviving_armegeddon by SteveMc 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Response 1
Greetings all, Sincerely, SteveMc 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) How much of this discussion should be occuring on the JW talk page instead of on this one? Please move there.
 * 2) Duffer's original statement about this being a lengthy edit is an understatement. Has anyone heard of concise responses?  Will these replies go on and on forever?  This is not a blog; please spare us with the bloviating.  Please keep the quotes off of this page. Thanks.
 * 3) As I edit the above material to remove the bloviating, and to try to get to the bottom of this controversy. Please do not revert.  Thanks.
 * 4) In the future, please address all edits to me, not to the other users.
 * 5) Please stop insulting each other ("hide behind your ignorance", "zero regard for truth") and stick to the issues. Please assume good faith.

Response 2
It appears that there are three issues disputed here: How does this look? Thanks, SteveMc 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Duffer brought the original issue: What happens to non-JW believers at Armegeddon?
 * Mediator's response: It appears that the editors are on their way to resolution. I moved the discussion to Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/surviving_armegeddon. I am inclined to let it evolve to a solution without my input. SteveMc 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) User:Tommstein brought a second issue: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
 * Mediator's response: If this is the case, and if so desired, please start a new topic on the main cabal page. SteveMc 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) User:Jeffro77 brought yet another issue regarding the use of the word society.
 * Mediator's response: I suggest that this issue be brought up on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses for resolution among the editors. SteveMc 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


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

Editor's response

 * Hopefully something does come from the efforts. Only time will tell.
 * I didn't actually bring that up, Duffer1 brought that up too. He just didn't have any replies to my reply, and went back to just reverting the article.
 * I think that has been long taken care of. It was just brought up by Duffer1 presumably to make it seem like there are problems where there are none.
 * Thank you for your efforts in this, which I know must have taken an unholy amount of time. If I should be posting this on the mediation page, let me know; I just think that "Mediator's initial responses" should only contain mediator's responses.Tommstein 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tommstein, thanks for the response, sincerely. I do not get much feedback from users, so I cherish it.  I see what you are saying, so maybe we need to create some sort of category for "feedback to mediator," or something.  Many thanks, good luck with your pages, and Happy New Year. SteveMc 17:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And you are very much welcome, you more than deserve it for willingly wading into something like this. Happy New Year to you too.Tommstein 22:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 2: You and user:Mini refused compromise, I took it to mediation though apparently I need to start a new mediation process for that one when I start feeling better. I have adequately responded to your criticisms and supplied information resources that dispute your claims.
 * 3:I brought it up to underscore just how difficult it is for any known Jehovah's Witness to edit this page without meeting stone wall resistance, and just how unreasonable the resistance is. "Society" / "Brotherhood" was a more than perfect example of such rediculous behavior.  Duffer 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What we refused was your proposal to turn documented, independently-verifiable fact into a 'claim' made by 'critics'.
 * It was so ridiculous that you saw the point yourself, after someone that wasn't me told you.


 * By the way, I think we should probably not clutter this page with this stuff, seeing as it apparently won't be addressed in this mediation session anyway.Tommstein 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. It is interpretation of fact presented by extremely biased sources, I provided an equally biased source interpreting the facts in favor of the NWT, they are both claims to fact.  Despite this, you and user:Mini have refused any sort of compromise.


 * 3. Someone actually took the time to specify an objection, which lead to me delete the questionable word altogether, which lead to a more readible and accurate sentence for everyone.  My point is, neither you nor user:Central had ANY part in the process of compromise over ONE word.  You both provided nothing but an edit war and verbal abuse.  Sure it was my fault for not seeking mediation, though that was not my fault alone.  Duffer 06:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmmkay. It must be true since you keep saying it.Tommstein 08:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's questions 1
This is good. OK, here are my questions. Please keep your answers succinct and to the point. Thanks.

The main question deals with dates and authority of sources.
 * To Duffer: In your original post, you make note that your references about "non-JW believers at Armegeddon" are more current than the references of editors. Please place the citation '(author, date, title, location of quote, but not the quotation)' of your sources in the space below.
 * http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl?az=read_count&om=4&forum=DCForumID4 The abbreviations may look odd to someone unfamiliar with our literature: w76 6/1 347-8 = Wachtower (magazine) 1976, June 1st edition, pages 347-348.  The issue is a common misconception about Jehovah's Witness doctrine.  So much so that the Witnesses at the Touchestone website stickied a permanent reply that states the current, official, teachings of the bible as interpreted by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.  Though we do believe that survival of un-believers isn't likely, we unequivocally do NOT discount the possibility that they just might.  Duffer 18:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Duffer, thanks. I am looking only at the quotations from WBTS literature, right, not the interpretations thar are also on that page?  What is "rs 47" referring to?  Thanks again, SteveMc 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * RS 47 is the Reasoning Book page 47. The RS book is basically a quick answer guide to our theology.  I tell you honestly when Central posts his quotes it will look bad, you must keep in mind that the large majority of quotes is "good or bad" or "us-or-them" type language, such quotes are not refering to "not-us, but still good".  I appreciate your efforts, ask me anything you like.  Duffer 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am fighting a nasty cold at the moment; what I meant by "it will look bad", was not to infer that Central's quotes would be bad, but that, they will say what he infers them to say to someone that doesn't understand Jehovah's Witness theology. The WTB&TS isn't worried about specifying who's going to survive Armaggedon everytime it comes up in a WT article (which is ALOT) so they use with-us-or-against-us type language, but when an article does talk specifically about who will survive, they specifically say "we do not know", "it's pointless to speculate", " Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way." etc..  However, such uncertainty is tempered by biblical precedents such as Noah's Ark where only he and his family survived, despite this, we unequivocally do not discount the possibility of non-Witness survivors. Duffer 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To Central: In your original post, you state, "according ro all literature approved as from the Governing Body . . . gives the non-ambiguous stance that they will all be killed eternally." Please place the citation ('author, date, title, publisher, location of quote, but not the quotation') of your sources in the space below.
 * (citations from Central)


 * There are only two organizations, Gods (JWs) or Satan's (all non JWs). Anyone not a JW automatically falls into the other camp by default according to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. No extra category's is given for the ignorant, they are by default in Satan's class, unless they change and become a JW. The only way to salvation is through Jehovah's witnesses' organization:
 * Proclaimers book, 1993, p.676.
 * Live Forever book, 1982, 1989, p. 209.
 * Revelation book, 1988, pp. 282-286.
 * 15 September 1992 Watchtower, pp. 23-4.
 * Watchtower magazine, 15 Sept, 1988, pp.14-15.
 * Watchtower magazine 15 January 1999, p.9.
 * 15 June 1999 Watchtower, p. 6.
 * 1 December 1999 Watchtower, p. 18.
 * Ignorance is no excuse, they will still die:
 * 1 April 1982 Watchtower, pp. 30-1.
 * 15 September 1991 Watchtower, p. 17
 * (and all in group 1)
 * Mark of salvation essential for salvation, including baptism as a JW. Only survivors will be JWs.
 * Watchtower 15 January 1989 p.20.
 * Knowledge book, 1995 p.180.
 * Watchtower 15 January 1991 p.29.
 * Watchtower, 15 November 1983, p.24.
 * Watchtower 15 June 1999 p.6


 * All quotes above are listed here


 * Plus of course the rest in archive 16:


 * I can't find any that give a tangible possibility to survival of non-JWs ignorant or not. And Duffer's 1976 listing it totally out of date, and it still declines to make a comment either way, but just evasively avoids the issue. Central 18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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


 * What source, a link to someone's forum post? Whatever stuff the author of the post is talking about?Tommstein 08:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (citations that dispute Duffer's claim)
 * w76 6/1 347-8 is old light, since this separation into "sheep" and "goats" is moved into the future. New interpretation is found in w95 2/1 12 paragraph 11-15
 * w95 10/15 28 par 23 should be read in context with next par 24
 * rs 47 read the whole paragraph, you should hurry to convert
 * w98 8/15 20 main problem on talk page
 * --Mini 10:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Mediator's questions 2
I have read the responses above and the discussion on the talk page, and the discussion on the surviving armegeddon page. I appreciate everyone who answered the question. Also, your demeanor here is excellent, and I hope it spills over to the talk page.

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

Is this the disputed text? Does anyone oppose it? (Please keep it extremely brief.) Thanks, SteveMc 20:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please leave out the Watchtower 1976 as this is not in line with current teaching.--Mini 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the real disputed text was like a thousand versions ago. This current version seems good enough to me, barring someone bringing up something I didn't notice, and without looking at what the references specifically say (which Mini seems to have done though), since the text of the paragraph seems to be pretty accurate.Tommstein 23:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I think it could be simplified a bit. "The Governing Body's approved publications through the Watch Tower Society" could become "Watch Tower publications." I think "ignorant" works better than "uninformed" in the second sentence. I also think the 76 WT reference is still valid despite the re-interpretation of who are the "sheep" and "goats" as that is a different issue. I'd prefer a more concise statement but that may not be possible. Dtbrown 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Sheep and goats" clarification:
 * 1976 edition talks about separation before Armageddon. Therefore you can not say this person is a sheep/goat because he may change in the remaining time till Armageddon. 1995 edition moves separation to Armageddon and at that time there is no question anymore of who will survive and who not. Sheep/goat depends on support of Christs brothers (i.e. 144.000) mainly in preaching work. So this in fact is now another proof of "only JW will survive" (more precisely: only active JW).--Mini 11:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with it:
 * ""The only flesh saved" at Armageddon will be faithful Jehovah's Witnesses—these being just the "anointed" and the "great crowd", according to the vast majority of the Governing Body's approved publications through the Watch Tower Society". Being a faithful Jehovah's Witness ensures the best possible hope for survival, however, we teach that it still does not ensure it.  "The only flesh saved" would more accurately read: "only one organization is said to pass through Armageddon."
 * A few other Witness publications do not comment either way about individuals at Armageddon who are uninformed of Jehovah's Witnesses' message. These publications leave the fate of these people in "God's hands"; whether or not they might be spared destruction is left inconclusive in those publications." This is heavily overstated and inaccurate.  The citations I provided unequivocally leave the matter as a possibility, though maybe not a probability.  The above sentence does not reflect that fact.
 * I suggest a revision of what User:George m previously suggested: "(Witnesses) believe the Bible makes it plain that although God does not want anyone to be destroyed, he has and will again destroy all who reject His standards in the Bible. JW's believe they are the only ones teaching these standards. They therefore find it unlikely many will survive armageddon who do not associate with them." This is in line with what is actually taught.  I propose:
 * "The Witnesses believe that Jehovah will destroy all of those who (consciously) reject His standards. Witnesses believe that they are the only ones teaching these standards, as a result, they find it unlikely that those who do not associate with them will survive Armageddon, though they do not discount the possibility."
 * I feel this is alot more concise, and accurate than what is stated above. Duffer 08:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * An addendum to my previous comment. I would agree to using "possibility" in the bullet but feel Duffer's proposal does not cover the stronger statements in WT literature. In researching this last night I came across this statement from the April 15, 1995 Watchtower, p. 22 about how children will be judged at Armageddon: "In that day of accounting, young children, or boughs, will be dealt with justly according to Jehovah’s assessment of their roots, their parents, who have oversight of these children. Wicked parents will have no posterity to perpetuate their wicked ways. But those who exercise faith in God’s Kingdom promises will not be shaken." Dtbrown 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Duffer, Thanks for the response, they are well made. Here are my questions:
 * Regarding your first point: I do not see that either the current text or the proposed text addresses the issue raised, i.e. WTS teaching regarding the faithful's chances of surviving Armegeddon.
 * Regarding your second point: Again, I see little actual difference between the current and the proposed versions. Is there some nuànce that I am missing?
 * I do agree that the proposed text is much more concise and to the point, which I like.
 * Thanks, SteveMc 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SteveMc 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with his proposal is that it eliminates mention of the vast majority of their publications saying that only Witnesses will survive, no others. In other words, it says exactly what he has wanted all along, and completely ignores every argument and source presented by everyone else, like this mountain of sources where they claim that only they will survive just doesn't exist or something. He has provided like one source that explicitly leaves open the possibility for non-Witnesses, and wishes to ignore the literally dozens and dozens of sources that explicitly leave no possibility for non-Witnesses.Tommstein 07:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's questions 3
Is this accurate? SteveMc 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that much of this disagreement is over nuance of meaning that the general reader of an encyclopedia is not going to appreciate anyway. Please understand that the general reader will not understand the nuance of JW-speak, so it is your responsibility to make it clear.  My point here is that it does very little good to argue about nuance that the general reader will not catch any way.  If it is important, though, then state the theology without nuance, in certain and clear (un-nuanced) language.
 * I think I am ready to summarize the points here: Seems to me that
 * (a) WTS believes that survival of Armegeddon is important;
 * (b) WTS believes there is sufficient scriptural evidence to state that survival of Armegeddon depends more or less on being a faithful JW;
 * (c) WTS believes that there is sufficient scriptural evidence to state that those who reject Jehovah (or more precisely the teachings of WTS) will not survive Armegeddon, and
 * (d) other than those two groups of people, WTS does not have absolute certainty on who survives since scripture does not make it 100% crystal clear.


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

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


 * How about this?


 * Witnesses believe that to survive Armageddon one must be be a faithful Jehovah's Witness. Those who reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face destruction at Armageddon. A few Witness publications leave the question of whether due to ignorance certain individuals might be spared destruction at Armageddon in God's hands. Dtbrown 01:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the last part reads too much like an undisputed exception to the first part, whereas the very existence of this exception is the exact point under contention. As written, one of two things can happen when a casual reader encounters this: one, they can figure that the last part is in fact an indisputable exception to the first part, or two, they can leave confused about the two parts contradicting themselves without even trying to explain what's going on. Neither is good.Tommstein 07:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'm about to sound like Bill Clinton here, (a) is true, (b) depends on what you mean by "more or less," and (c) and (d) depend on what you mean by "reject" in (c) (a lot of this is caused by how Jehovah's Witnesses like to use words among themselves in somewhat different ways than the rest of the world uses them, and I'm not sure how much of what you're saying is influenced by vocabulary that you've seen in their publications or heard from Witnesses here).Tommstein 07:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tom, I share your concern about overstating the degree to which JW teaching allows for God to rescue "non-believers". I have tried to clarify my meaning of "more or less" and "reject" in the proposals below.  Plus, I have also tried to maximize their teaching about who will survive and perish, and minimize their recognition of God adding those from the, so called, "grey ones." (I know you do not believe that JWs have a grey area, and I agree, but some of their writings recognize that children, and those who have not heard, require God's consideration.)  Thanks, SteveMc 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A - Is true. B - would be true if tempered by specifics such as "they do not discount the possibility of non-Witness survivors".  C - Is true.  D - Is true, we can only speculate based on past biblical precedent.  Duffer 10:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Those who have not heard, require God's consideration. This is illrelevent because the according to past watchtower pubs the end can not come until the are reached. This is an answer to those that have a about the generation of 1914 dying before the they are preached to. As I have pointed out Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/surviving armegeddon(scroll to bottom) This leaves the watchtower painted into a corner the have to get everyone before they (the 1914 generation) dies out.( Oops!!! to late, Sorry we need new light on this GB. Oh Wait! Thats right they changed the definition of generation to something else so now this is mute argument again they have to reached no matter how long it takes as long as it is less than 900 years).--Greyfox 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What is actual objection to the current post as it is?


 * A "'The only flesh saved' at Armageddon will be faithful Jehovah's Witnesses". This is factually correct in their literature, and it in no way states "all Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved", or even "All faithful Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved. ." It's like saying, "Giraffes will be saved on Noah's Ark", it does not state, "all giraffes will be saved" and so is accurate.


 * B "according to the vast majority of the Governing Body's approved publications through the Watch Tower Society" The Governing Body needs a mention as all doctrines and changes come from them, and are then put in print. They do not come from the rank and file Witnesses' interpretations.


 * C "A few other Witness publications do not comment either way about individuals at Armageddon who are uninformed of Jehovah's Witnesses' message." This is correct, as there are relatively few publications, (most outdated), and none of them give a real opinion, just innuendo cloaked in evasive terminologies.


 * D "These publications leave the fate of these people in 'God's hands'" Note, "these" [few] not all.


 * E "whether or not they might be spared destruction is left inconclusive in those publications." The main point being 'inconclusive' rather than a "possibility" which is never written. This is probably the biggest problem many JWs have. They know very well these few articles are written in such a winding and carefully worded way, surreptitiously trying to make the reader think they are stating one thing, when in fact they are clearly saying nothing at all.
 * (deleted superfluous comments)SteveMc 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Central 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Mediator's Proposal 1
Here it is
 * "Witnesses believe that "the only saved flesh" at Armageddon will be faithful Jehovah's Witness. Those who reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. However, Witnesses teach that God alone judges who is a faithful Witness (thereby recognizing, what seems an unlikely possibility, that God may add to the faithful, as He determines), which does not undermine Witnesses' belief that the only known means of survival is to be a faithful JW believer."

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


 * Where would you like the feedback, here or on your talk page? Duffer 21:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here, sorry. SteveMc 21:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


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

Mediator's Proposal 2
Here it is:
 * "Witnesses believe the best hope for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the Biblical principles and interpretations presented by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society--these being among the "anointed" and the "great crowd." And those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. Witnesses recognize that God alone judges who is a faithful Witness (an acknowledgement that God could add survivors at Armageddon), but due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark, Witnesses find it very unlikely that those who do not associate with them will survive Armageddon."

SteveMc 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Best compromise I've seen so far - George
 * agreed--Greyfox 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that it still shares the same problem that most other proposals have. By saying that "Witnesses believe the best hope..." and "Witnesses find it very unlikely...," the paragraph implies that there is a non-best hope or small probability of survival for non-Witnesses. However, that is the very point under contention, whether they do offer any hope at all to non-Witnesses, no matter what the probability may be, or whether no such hope is offered at all. The paragraph goes with the former view, and makes no mention of the latter view. I don't think that this is something that can be explained correctly without a 'branching' explanation, if you will. What we have are two different sets of completely mutually exclusive, contradictory teachings: teaching number one, that there is no hope, at all, for non-Witnesses, and teaching number two, that there is in fact some small nonzero hope for (some?) non-Witnesses. These are mutually exclusive, since one assigns the probability of 0 to the survival of any non-Witnesses, while the other assigns a nonzero probability. Such is not mathematically reconcilable. I think that an accurate explanation will almost of necessity have to be roughly of the form 'according to mutually exclusive teaching one, they say this, while according to mutually exclusive teaching two, they say this other thing' (obviously, there's tremendous leeway for how that could be worded). I do not see how these two different teachings can be reconciled without explicit mention of both of them, and, in fact, I wonder whether our even trying to do so doesn't break WP:NOR.


 * The other thing I would like to mention is that "Witnesses recognize that God alone judges who is a faithful Witness (an acknowledgement that God could add survivors at Armageddon)" is a non sequitur, in my opinion, besides having much the same problem that I mentioned above. Witnesses hold that God will in fact be the judge of who is a faithful Witness at Armageddon, but all that can be derived from that, which is a point that they like to remind their members of, is that people 'secretly practicing sin' while publicly proclaiming to be Witnesses will get busted at Armageddon; stating that God will make the decision as to which Witnesses are faithful does not open the door to people that are not Witnesses at all.


 * I would again like to commend you for all the time and effort you put into this. God knows how much time just writing these responses and trying to make them halfway decent takes me.Tommstein 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tommstein, thanks for the consider responses.
 * Regarding the views being mutually exclusive, I definitely see your point, and I am not opposed to a type of "mutually exclusive teaching" statement, however, at this point, I am not convinced that JW's teach that these view are mutually exclusive.
 * Let's review the phrase that seem to be hanging us up here: My use of the phrase "best hope" is not intended to imply that non-Witness can get in through some "back door", but rather to state that Witnesses are not 100% sure about how to survive Armageddon.  If this is not true, then it certainly needs to be changed.  So, maybe some other word would communicate that better.  I had other words in there, such as "sure" or "certain", but those words to not communicate the uncertainty of Witnesses belief.  Frankly, this appears to be a confusing point for the faithful, since there is no certainty about how to survive Armageddon (as I read it).
 * I am strongly influenced by the WTS admonition to its believers not to spend their time speculating about the end times. This, seems to me, is a strong indication that they really do not know how to answer this question for the faithful.
 * Tom, looking at the current statement on the JW page (which you acknowledged as "good enough"), I can see how that statement is consistent with your position. My next proposal will include something more to that effect.
 * I agree with the "non sequitor" observation, and struggled with it quite a bit when I wrote it. I settled into it because it appears that the WTS intended meaning of in "God's hands" is more about God adding to the survivors rather than removing disingenuous Witnesses, especially in this context.  (That is not to say that being disingenuous is unimportant.) But I could be wrong, especially given the uncertainty of survival, even for Witnesses.  Even so, a small statement could be included in the parenthesis to that effect.
 * One more thing, don't I remember reading your support for the idea that JWs do believe that children at Argageddon may receive a special dispensation of God's grace. Doesn't that alone show that JWs do not teach a mutually exclusive position?
 * Thanks,SteveMc 16:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I miss all the references to WTS publication to backup the statements. On the dispute about the NWT it was said these are essential. --Mini 09:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that references should be there. I will add them in the next proposal.  Which ones do you suggest? SteveMc 16:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My recomendations from the disputed paragraph are:
 * "only JW": Watchtower magazines 15 November 1983, p.24; 15 June 1999, p.6 (1999 is needed, because it is newer than 1998 (see below); 1983 clearly talks about Armageddon; Live Forever was a primary study-aid but it could be dropped as it is contained in the other ones)
 * "even others": Watchtower magazines 15 August 1998, p.20; (maybe) Reasoning book, p.48 (1976 is "old light"; reasoning book needed for the "children", but already contained in watchtower)
 * I think it should be as few sources as possible - at best only one. And if someone finds a better fitting one, imho it should replace one of the others instead of being appended.--Mini 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's got my vote. Duffer 11:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * One point to an otherwise perfectly acceptable proposal, ,SteveMc . "God alone judges who is a faithful Witness " in this case might be changed to "God alone judges who is worthy to survive" as we are speaking of people who have not heard the message, or are incapable of a difinitive response in some way; they cannot be a "faithful Witness" at the judgement hour, but they can be counted as worthy. (Also, thanks for all the hard work!) - CobaltBlueTony 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's Proposal 3
Here it is:
 * "Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the Biblical principles and interpretations presented by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society--these being among the "anointed" and the "great crowd." (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6)  And those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. Witnesses do not teach that being an adherant ensures survival, but rather recognize that God alone judges who is worthy to survive, thereby acknowledging that God could add survivors at Armageddon, condemn imposters of the faith, or choose to save none at all.  However, due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark, Witnesses have a near certain belief that they will survive and that those who do not associate with them will perish. (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20; Reasoning book, p.48)"


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


 * ..."or choose to save none at all" is really not an option, as it is not found in the Scriptures, and Witnesses believe all faithful will absolutely be saved. - CobaltBlueTony 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My thoughts:


 * 1. I would not put "but not an absolute guarantee" as the old quote never said "every Witnesses" it just said only faithful JWs will survive. This also missed out the extreme exclusivity of the references listed, i.e., non-JWs don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of surviving.


 * 2. "through adherence to the Biblical principles" is POV as many Witness teachings are not in the Bible or approved by Bible scholars. I would not put it as it's over complicating it. I would not bring in comments on doctrines, when the main points were about who will survive. (Which groups).


 * 3. "interpretations presented by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society--these being among the "anointed" and the "great crowd". That sentence doesn't make sense.


 * 4. "but rather recognize that God alone judges who is worthy to survive" This comment gives no information. It's like saying a cloud decides when it will rain. It does not tell us who the rain will hit or if it will rain or not. It gives no information, but rather distracts from the emphasis on what the Governing Body teaches.


 * 5. "thereby acknowledging that God could add survivors at Armageddon, condemn impostors of the faith, or choose to save none at all" This is not consistent with JW doctrines. And still does not really say anything, it just blurs the original paragraph by adding more innuendo, and evasively takes all the focus off the Watch Tower's articles that do make very strong judgements.


 * 6. "However, due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark" Is this sentence necessary?


 * 7. "Witnesses have a near certain belief that they will survive and that those who do not associate with them will perish" This contradicts the other sentences, and also saying "near certain" is a bit woolly, it is either certain or not, I would not use "near certain", and it's repeating the points in number 1.


 * Things to remember:


 * 1. Focusing on "God's judgements" more than briefly is just distracting the subject, and removing the whole point of putting a paragraph on what Jehovah's Witnesses teach.


 * 2. Giving more space to the ambiguous quotes is unfounded, as they are very few and far between compared to the large body of clear judgmental ones.


 * 3. Putting the article in vague wishy-washy language will only go to make the whole paragraph less meaningful or accurate. This is the aim of JWs, but should not be the aim of an encyclopaedia. As I have said, I think the one already there on the main page is just fine.
 * Central 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (moved remainder of Central's post to "Mediator's questions 3", above. SteveMc 01:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC))


 * 1. The discussion of context has progressed to a point where inclusion of "but not an absolute guarantee" is a good idea.
 * 2. This objection is without merit. Survival of Armageddon is attributed to adherence of the Biblical principles and interpretations as set forth by the WTB&TS.  The WTB&TS has set forth interpretations and principles that must be adhered to, which is what the above quote says.
 * 3. It does make sense though it is rather ambiguous.
 * 4 & 5. Beyond the phrase: "or choose to save none at all" (which has already been removed in Proposal #4), it is a rather concise and eloquent reflection of Witness theology.
 * 6. Yes, it is necessary to provide context to the conclusion of the paragraph. It is that precedent (among others) that allows the speculation regarding who will, and who will not, survive Armageddon.
 * 7. We are agreed on "near certain".
 * [It seems that Central cannot] accept the fact that the articles I have presented clearly leaves room for the possibility of non-Witness survivors. [Nor can Central] acknowledge that out of all the quotes we've seen from [him], Tommstein, and myself, only the ones I have provided specifically answer the question by telling us in no uncertain terms: "we don't know".  They've already settled the matter, . . . probably they won't survive, but maybe some will.  "Anyone who knows" their own religions' doctrines as much as the average, active, Jehovah's Witness knows that [Central's] unique view of our doctrine comes from websites that proliferate nonsense about us in order to dissuade interest in us.  I think it's fascinating how . . . someone who is not, nor ever has been, a Jehovah's Witness can suppose to know more about the WTB&TS belief system then people who have been a Witness all their lives; or even, suppose to know more than the dozens of active Witnesses on the Touchestone site that literally wrote the article on how wrong [Central is].  What is the root of [Central's]  animosity?  Duffer 23:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (removed superfluous exchange between Tom and Duffer. SteveMc 15:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC))


 * I see [that Duffer] just ignored the whole post and decided that [his] personal subjective views outweigh the volumes of printed material from [his] religious leaders. Just look at question 1., [he] ignored my points altogether. My points about the original post not saying "every witness will be saved" has fallen on deaf ears.


 * (removed portions of Central's post. SteveMc 15:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) No personal interpretations are allowed—something that [he] offend with all the time. . . .If [he] can bring forth proof in direct and clearly unambiguous language from the Watch Tower's literature that there is a "possibility" of survival of Armageddon for those who are not JWs, then post it. Otherwise, all the actual quotes of destruction hold their weight. If [Duffer] and Cobaltbluetony, argue as [he does], demanding over and over that a specific word be found . . . like: "A possibility, some possibilities, a good chance, a fair chance, will be survivors, good chance of survivors etc." all stated about non-JWs at Armageddon. All these divisions about God judging are a massive red herring, and say nothing at all in regard to what the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses actually teaches and have taught in many of their publications. Central 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's Proposal 4
OK, finally, here it is:
 * "Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6)  Those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon.  Witnesses believe that the fate of the "uninformed" (such as children, the mentally ill, etc.) are unresolved by scripture, therefore their fate remains in "God's hands" to decide in a "righteous and merciful way." (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20)  However, due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark, Witnesses believe that some (if not all) adherents will survive and that those who do not associate with them will perish. (Reasoning book, p.48)"

SteveMc 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

SteveMc 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your work here. I think caution should be made in citing children as "uninformed" (I prefer the term "ignorant") because some Watchtower publications do address that issue and say children will be judged according to how God will judge their parents. (removed remainder of Dtbrown's post.SteveMc 15:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) Dtbrown 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Was there a special reason for removing the quote Dtbrown presented above? It seemed quite topical to what we are discussing.Tommstein 08:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This version is very, very close. The only two possible problems that I see at this time come from the same sentence that Dtbrown has commented on above. The first is that, while the examples following "uninformed" clarify somewhat the intended meaning, "uninformed" also applies to any random normal adult who is just uninformed about their beliefs. I'm not sure that "ignorant" really fixes the problem though, since I think that what I just said about "uninformed" can be said verbatim about "ignorant". The second problem I see is how that sentence also succumbs to the same thing as many previous ones, by stating that belief as a definitive. There are explicit mentions of 'we don't know what's going to happen to children,' but there are also explicit mentions of 'all non-Witnesses (which would include non-Witness children) are toast,' and the above clear quote by Dtbrown. The problem of the sentence not 'branching' seems to bite us again. The way that children were addressed when we settled this issue previously was to say something like 'non-Witnesses will die, except possibly small children,' as a simple concession to some ambiguous statements about children. Upon hindsight, I'm not sure that even that fully takes into account that they sometimes say that all non-Witnesses are going to die, period, no exceptions made for children, but at the time we didn't have anyone making such a large issue over this despite the literally dozens of quotes.Tommstein 05:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it, but again, I have a problem with the last line: "Witnesses believe that some (if not all) adherents will survive and that those who do not associate with them will perish. (Reasoning book, p.48)". For the sake of accuracy I believe it should read: "Witnesses believe that most adherents will survive and that those who do not associate with them will likely perish."  "Likely" here is used to underscore the uncertainty, and the fact that it is in God's hands and he will carry out His will mercifully; this nuance is important.  Also the words "uninformed" and "ignorant" sound out of place but I'm too tired to offer an alternative.   Duffer 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dtbrown, Tommstein, and Duffer. I understand. Excellent input.SteveMc 15:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) updated SteveMc 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * It is beyond a doubt that different members believe different things. The thing is, we should only talk about the official beliefs of the religion, because the articles are in fact about the religion and its official teachings and such, not what individual people who identify as Jehovah's Witnesses decide they want to believe. Listing all the variations in personal beliefs of 6.6 million people is a task that would take us the rest of our lives to do.Tommstein 08:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's Proposal 5
Here it is:
 * "Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6)  Those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon.  Witnesses believe that the fate of some, such as young children, and the mentally ill, and others incapable of moral reasoning, are unresolved by scripture, therefore their fate remains in "God's hands" to decide in a "righteous and merciful way." (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20)  However, due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark, Witnesses believe that most (if not all) adherents will survive and that those who do not associate with them will likely perish. (Reasoning book, p.48)"


 * I'll take it, as soon as my eyes stop bleeding from trying to keep up with reading all the comments. :P - CobaltBlueTony 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it. Duffer 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove likely from the last line. Others incapable of moral reasoning, are unresolved by scripture And No there are quite resolved.I will spare the lengthy quotes, see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/surviving armegeddon. There is no basis to support this from logic, scripture, or the watchtower.--Greyfox 00:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As Greyfox said, the ending, "will likely perish," has the same problem as previous versions, verbatim, in that the vast majority of the time, they have not just deemed it likely, but an absolute certainty. The sentence about the young and mentally ill is passable to me, even if arguments of the same 'non-Witness = birdfood' variety could be mounted against it.


 * I would like to offer a suggestion to see where we stand moving forward. It appears that versions are often deemed incorrect by Duffer1 due to his insistence that his point of view is 100% correct and the 14,963 quotes that contradict it should be completely ignored wholesale in any proposed solution. I propose that you ask Duffer1 directly whether he does in fact continue to be of the belief that the view espoused by said 14,963 quotes is invalid and will never be agreeable in any solution, because, if that is the case, it becomes readily apparent that we will never satisfy him short of throwing out all 14,963 quotes in favor of giving him his way, all of his way, and nothing but his way, which we cannot do. This could possibly save you much wasted time and effort if the answer is ascertained in the positive.Tommstein 08:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

JWs Talk page and vandalism
Moved comment and discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses. SteveMc 18:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Writing "for the enemy"
I recieved an e-mail from Steve requesting an exercize in writing for the enemy. Here's mine:


 * Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6) Those who consciously reject the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses face certain destruction at Armageddon. They believe that the fate of those who have not been reached by their message, along with those incapable of moral reasoning, are unresolved by scripture, therefore their fate remains in "God's hands" to decide in a "righteous and merciful way." (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20) Though the majority of their publications strongly infer that they will be the only survivors of Armageddon, Witnesses themselves, along with several more specific publications, will tell you that their theology surrounding this issue is far more nuanced.  Due to Biblical precedent, such as the survivors of Noah's Ark, Witnesses believe that most (if not all) adherents will survive and that those who do not associate with them will likely perish. (Reasoning book, p.48)

My reasoning: The 1998 Aug. 15, pg, 20 WT does say: "Might it be that a large number of people will not yet have been reached with the good news when Armageddon arrives? What about the mentally ill? What about . . . ?’ Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues."  Again, I have kept: "..will likely perish", as it does reflect that our belief in this regard is speculation based on Biblical precedents; however likly we believe the precedent to be, it is still not a certainty. I know this is may not truly be "for the enemy" it is, I feel, one of the most objective assessments possible. Duffer 10:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That contains more problems than are worth enumerating, although I will gladly do so if requested. I am not at all certain what enemy's viewpoint this is supposed to be.Tommstein 05:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My points on the above.

(numbers added by Mediator, SteveMc 19:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC))
 * 1) "But not an absolute guarantee." This is redundant, as the original and current post never said "all, or every", so why have superfluous comments? The current "only faithful JWs will survive" is accurate, nowhere does it state, "all faithful", and nowhere does the literature say: "Unfaithful JWs will survive."
 * 2) "Those who consciously reject" is also one sided, as many Watch Tower quotes state anyone who just ignores, or is not interested will be automatically classed as "goats" i.e, "those who do not know God", not just those who oppose God.
 * 3) "Witnesses themselves, . . will tell you that their theology." This is gross POV. Personal interpretations are not valid, only factual teachings should be presented, not the 1001 personal views of JWs.
 * 4) "survivors of Noah's Ark. . .Those who do not associate with them will likely perish." This insertion of "likely" is vague, especially when it directly contradicts the previous statement about Noah's Ark. Only those in the Ark are described as being saved, none outside it were saved, not even one.
 * 5) Reasoning book p.48 does not back the comments given, it uses scriptures to state that there is no middle ground, no fence to sit on, and ignorance is not an excuse. If you are not for them, you are automatically against them.
 * 6) The Watchtower magazine, 15 August 1998 p.20, is highly ambiguous, and gives no opinion. "Might it be . . .not yet have been reached with the good news" All this says is that their preaching work is not going to predicted plan. "What about the mentally ill? What about . . . ?" Yes, what? Anyone can ask one vague unspecified question and then ignore even discussing it; no information is given at all. "We may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues", note the words "may not know" instead of "do not know"; they have not said a thing except divert attention away from their own teachings. I also hope you will note Steve, that Duffer's quote carefully missed out a quote from the previous page, 19, which states: "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." This is very clear, and not ambiguous at all.
 * 7) So are later quotes from 1999, like: "The Only Way to Everlasting Life. . .'This is the way. Walk in it, you people,' in case you people should go to the right or in case you should go to the left. How do we hear this voice? . . by following the direction that our Grand Instructor, Jehovah God, provides through it and through his modern-day Christian organization [Watch Tower Society]. Indeed, to do this is the only way to everlasting life'." (Watchtower magazine 15 January 1999, p.9) No other methods of salvation are even hinted at. There are other publications that say the same, as you have seen, lots, and lots, and lots of them but just this example demonstrates that Duffer's argument is void. Central 13:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Central, this was merely an exercise, not a legitimate proposal. Please provide your own if you'd like.  You have taken the time to critique so I will briefly respond:  You have a point about pg. 48 of the Reasoning book in that it does not say what the article says, it is specifically talking about the issue of survival in regards to children by providing biblical precedents on how such situations have unfolded in the past.  Pages 46 and 47 quotes scriptures of who will be destroyed at Armageddon, the only ones mentioned in this instance being: "cowards, faithless, murderers, fornicators, those practicing spiritism, idolaters, and liars" (Revelation 21:8).  It does not speak about people who are not these things, however, the 1998 article quoted, does.  I did not "carefully miss[ed] out a quote", I provided relevant resources of my point.  I take offense, again, that you infer deceit on my part, again.  The page 20 quote I provided is explication of the page 19 quote you offered.  It is THAT nuance that you refuse to accept, nevertheless it is still very much there (in the words of our publications, and in the hearts and minds of every Jehovah's Witness)  Why do you think every Jehovah's Witness (involved in Wikipedia or not), that talks about this issue, says you're wrong?  Could it be that you are?  So Steve can have an accurate knowledge of what the 1998 WT article states:


 * "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. So how appropriate it is that during 1998, Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the world have repeatedly been reminded, by the words of their yeartext, that “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved”! (Romans 10:13) Of that we must continue to be confident. If we detect even the slightest tinge of uncertainty in this confidence, we should work to rectify it now, yes, today.


 * Jehovah’s Judgment Will Be Righteous


 * At Hebrews 3:14, anointed Christians are warned: “We actually become partakers of the Christ only if we make fast our hold on the confidence we had at the beginning firm to the end.” In principle, these words also apply to Christians who have an earthly hope. Initial confidence can erode if it is not developed. How vital that we continue pursuing accurate knowledge, thereby strengthening the foundation upon which our confidence is based!


 * All nations will shortly be examined by Christ so that he can “separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” (Matthew 25:31-33) We can be confident that Christ will be righteous in judging who is worthy of survival. Jehovah has given him the wisdom, insight, and other necessary qualities “to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness.” (Acts 17:30, 31) Let our conviction be like that of Abraham, who said: “It is unthinkable of you [Jehovah] that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?”—Genesis 18:25.


 * With complete confidence in Jehovah’s righteousness, we need not worry about finding answers to questions like: ‘How will babies and small children be judged? Might it be that a large number of people will not yet have been reached with the good news when Armageddon arrives? What about the mentally ill? What about . . . ?’ Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way. We should never doubt that. In fact, we may be amazed and delighted to observe him resolve them in a way that we never even considered.—Compare Job 42:3; Psalm 78:11-16; 136:4-9; Matthew 15:31; Luke 2:47."
 * Duffer 20:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Revelation 21:8 talks about "those without faith," which is of importance since Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only they can truly have "real faith" (it's hard to put faith in something you don't know about regardless). Not mentioned were scriptures from the same place in the Reasoning book that talk about birds eating "the fleshy parts of all" and say "He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters." I also find it an honor to be among someone who can authoritatively tell us "the hearts and minds of every Jehovah's Witness."Tommstein 05:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply:


 * 1. "It is specifically talking about the issue of survival in regards to children by providing biblical precedents". I did not see that subject was at issue, am I incorrect? The Bible states clearly that children of 'righteous' parents will be given the blessing of the parents, and children on wicked parents will get the condemnation of the parents. If this is applied at Armageddon, only JWs' children will survive, as they see themselves as the only 'righteous' before God.


 * 2. Not sure why you keep making deliberate and completely false statements like: "Why do you think every Jehovah's Witness (involved in Wikipedia or not), that talks about this issue, says you're wrong?" I have addressed this false accusation from you before (as you well know), you are the only main objector, not based on the Watch Tower's articles, but your own subjective interpretations, or at lease the ones you would like the public to see. As for "every Jehovah's Witness", this is totally incorrect. I have already told you this not that long ago, I know many JWs, and all of them admit to me that the organization's teachings are as I have explicated on the destruction of non-JWs. Most of them don't like this (like you), but they have the scruples to admit that this is the official doctrine as taught in the literature, from the "channel of God/Jehovah's organization". Some of them as individuals have a different view, in some cases that is more liberal and open. But again, they freely acknowledge that this liberal view is not the one officially taught as approved doctrine from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. You need to understand the difference between official church teachings, and the individual subjective views of members. You religion teaches that God uses the Governing Body to convey His thoughts and interpretations, not the rank and file members who tell the Governing Body what to teach and print. So, the Governing Body's views are the ones that count, not individual subjective views of members. The only JWs who try and play down the destruction of non-JWs are those who do not know me, and are trying to portray their religion to a member of the public, by putting it in a good public light, and so they dodge the issue like you are doing.


 * 3. "Jehovah's Judgment Will Be Righteous", there was no need to clog the board up with massive quotes that do not say anymore than a condensed version. I have questions for you; it's a yes, or no answer.
 * A. Will 'Jehovah's Judgment Will Be Righteous' if He choose to save millions of non-JWs at Armageddon and kill millions or most of JWs?


 * B. Will 'Jehovah's Judgment Will Be Righteous' if He choose to save just JWs, and kill all non-JWs?


 * C Will 'Jehovah's Judgment Will Be Righteous' if He choose He's had enough of all this, and football kicks the planet into the Sun?


 * Please answer just yes or no to A, B and C.


 * 4. One last question:


 * A. 95%+ of the Governing Body's articles say all will die who are not JWs, and they say it clearly and openly.


 * B. Less than 5% of articles say neither way that there is a possibility or a direct condemnation, they just avoid the issue by diverting to God, or change the subject.


 * Why in your posts (and you have done this a lot) does A have zero validity, and B have all the power/weight, and not just the power to say "inconclusive" but an "actual possibility" when that phrase or any similar one is never used in even one single quote from the 5% group? You are not being reasonable. Central 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. I'm talking about people who actually exist; like the dozens of active Witnesses on the Touchestone forums who say that you are wrong, and even wrote an entire article explaining how and why (something that every English speaking Jehovah's Witness, who edit Wikipedia, have already told you).  Get Mini to ask the German Witnesses, they'll tell you the same thing.  Your's and Tomm's unique beliefs and theories about Jehovah's Witness theology are not welcome.  Nor is your hostility.


 * 3. "He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way. We should never doubt that. In fact, we may be amazed and delighted to observe him resolve them in a way that we never even considered", that is all we need focus on. Duffer 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Duffer1 said: "I'm talking about people who actually exist." So you're calling me a liar? Where is your evidence for this accusation? Bring it on or apologise. You have already been told below by Mini "I am fully confident that official teaching is join or die." This contradicts your claims. You are also using a logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum over and over again. I could not care less what you have posted on your message board "touchstone." You as a Jehovah's Witness are supposed to look to the Governing Body for direction, doctrines and their interpretations, not make them all up yourself. You also know you are counselled not to set up/get involved with Web pages discussing spiritual matters, so why are you doing it all the time? If you believe your subjective opinions are greater than the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses then why don't you write to them and tell them? Regardless of how many of your groupies on that website love to pontificate, it means nothing here, as you have been told multiple times, it's not the official policy/doctrines from the "channel of God", and therefore irrelevant POV.


 * Steve, look at these typical opinions of Jehovah's Witnesses, take a look here at this site, you will find a good representative of Jehovah's Witnesses' views about "God's will and plans". This will also demonstrate to you the mindset of Jehovah's Witnesses and may explain why some act and "reason" the way they do. JW's views on paradise 1 page 2 (even more strange), here are some posts on "apostates that advocate violence. When you see the way the JW's mind words, you will understand why some JWs here (no names mentioned) find it so hard to accept the material in the Watch Tower's literature that does not fit their own subjective opinions. Remember next time a JW calls on your door it may be one of those posters.


 * Duffer1 said: "He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way". Well I will take that as a yes answer to the 3 points in question three. This demonstrates that inserting the comments about "'Jehovah's Judgment Will Be Righteous'" is totally valueless, as no matter what the outcome the same claim will be made, proving how meaningless it is, and it is only there as a diversion. It would be perfectly accurate to just say these very few articles say "no comment, no comment and no comment". Dragging the red herring of God into it says absolutely nothing at all in regard to the outcome. You have also ignored the questions in point four.Central 13:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Duffer1's claim about this being a unique thing of Central and myself is an easily demonstrable lie, as the most cursory glance at this page's entire history and both of the discussions of this on the Jehovah's Witnesses Talk page will reveal. Lying about the opposition is not conducive to mediation and is neither appreciated nor welcome. I also fail to see how ascribing righteousness and mercy to one's chosen deity resolves this issue and "is all we need focus on."Tommstein 06:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As my name was mentioned i'll give a short reply even if it is already OT. I am fully confident that offical teaching is "join or die". Why then do i not go into strong konfrontation? If both parties take their version as the only one acceptable there will never be a mention of this teaching on the article at any time.--Mini 11:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Touchestone forums is not the source for official doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses. The governing body thru the publications is and I'm still active (attending meetings) and very much disagree with Duffer and the others. I have tweenty three years of listening at meetings assemblies and DC and never have I heard anyone say what you are saying from the platform. They say leave it to Jehovah, and read the bible about what he has done in the past to those who did not side with him. But I have heard what you are saying in car groups and at bible studies with new ones it is a unintended tactic to keep you going as a witness. Duffer please study up on groupthink as well as memes and Ignoratio elenchi AKA Red Hearing for good measure.--Greyfox 00:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will add to that. Duffer, you need to look up your tactics here also: Argumentum ad nauseam, and Argumentum ad populum Central 13:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's response to the entire dispute
Greetings,

There are many factors that contribute to this dispute, but the greatest is an unwillingness to make a full-hearted attempt to understand the viewpoint of the other side. This is a key for good conflict resolution and for good critical thinking. In addition, there still remains a great deal of hostile and aggressive writing, in other words, the editors are very defensive about their position. Again, this is not conducive to conflict resolution.

Using Central's points (numbered by mediator), here is my view of the dispute:
 * 1. Re: "But not an absolute guarantee." The text currently in the article is technically correct, but vague. The proposed text is more precise and clearer, stating not only what the JWs believe, but what they do not believe.  I believe it should stay.
 * 3. Yes, I agree that use of "witnesses themselves" is POV. I do note though, that Duffer is offering a proposed solution, not trying to stir up more trouble.
 * 4. I am abandoning the use of the Noah analogy. It creates more problems than it solves.
 * 2, 5, 6, and 7. These four points are at the heart of the matter between the two sides. At the heart of the dispute are these issues:
 * Central etal, believes that the 14,963 quotes regarding survival of Armageddon clearly state that JWs believe survival is only "through his modern-day Christian organization." In addition, Central etal, believes that the dozen (or so, I have not counted them) "minority" (I will call them) articles regarding some who are unreached or morally uncapable, should be treated as entirely "unresolved" (currently the only other words suggested by Central are "inconclusive" or "highly ambiguous").  Central etal seem to believe that the only way to deal with the "minority" view is to create a "branched" explanation that includes a reference to the number of citations of both views.
 * Duffer etal, believes that the "minority" citations should have a much higher standing regarding the possible (though unlikely) survival of those unreached and morally uncapable. Duffer etal, believes that official JW doctrine gives very little "scriptural" hope to these individuals, but prefers to describe the "minority" position using such terms as "consciously reject" or "likely perish.
 * My view (and this is final) is that both sides are justified in their position. JW doctrine does seem to contradict itself (not to imply that is a bad thing, there are just some things in matters of faith that remain unknown).  There is no denying that several publications address the issue of "some" (unreached and morally incapable) whose status is left "unresolved."  To say otherwise would be dishonest.  However, there is also no doubt that the overwhelming majority of citations in JW literature teaches that the Bible clearly states that to ensure salvation means to follow WTS teachings.  It is not my job, nor the role of an encyclopedia, to judge the intent of the WTS and its teachings.  I am left with these facts, none give me ample cause to doubt the veracity of the JW writings or their published beliefs.
 * After several back-and-forth attempts to integrate the two views, I conclude (by agreeing with Tommstein), and following the lead of Duffer's example, to branch the two views.

I must reiterate the need to bring this dispute to an end. There really is no need to provide long responses, USE OF CAPITALIZATION, long quotations, bloviating, among others. As I have stated before, I know your positions; therefore, please continue to improve demeanor on this page by addressing responses to be, and by responding directly to the proposed text. Thanks.

My next proposal follows. Sincerely, SteveMc 06:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree I was on duffer side at one point in my life until I realized that it is not the official doctrine of the witnesses. It is a meme exploited by certain people inside the witnesses to keep people from asking more questions about a shaky prophecy the 1914 generation not dying out before the end of this system of things. In which the Watchtower changed the definition of generation a couple of times in it's history to kick the can down the road. Sorry, if I offended you --Greyfox 15:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's Proposal 6
Here it is:
 * "Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6)  Those "who do not submit to God's rule" (the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses) face certain destruction at Armageddon. (http://www.watchtower.org/library/dg/article_09.htm) Though the majority of citations in Witness publications state that they will be the only survivors of Armageddon, a few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as young children, the mentally ill, and others incapable of moral reasoning, may be unresolved by scripture, therefore their fate remains in "God's hands" to decide in a "righteous and merciful way." (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20; Reasoning book, p.48)

--SteveMc 06:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. I am going to bed.


 * Hi Steve, I like you new edit, but it just needs a few minor tweaks.


 * 1. The first bit "comes through adherence to the scriptural interpretations of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society." This is partly true, but does not clarify that one must become a Jehovah's Witness, not just accept some of their views/interpretations. 'Become a Jehovah's Witness' is more accurate and would automatically also mean accepting their interpretations.
 * Central, How about, "Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations (including membership in Jehovah's Witnesses) of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses." SteveMc 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)  ( link )
 * Hi Steve, I would not over complicate it or involve the scriptures at all, also "believe" is a bit woolly, but 'teach' is provable from their literature. I would put: "Witnesses teach the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon is by becoming a Jehovah's Witness under the organizational direction of their Governing Body." Using "becoming" would also cover those who are being indoctrinated and are not yet baptised but are fully involved in the religion. Central 12:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. ". . .interpretations of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society" I would change to "interpretations of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses" to be more accurate.


 * 3. "Those who do not submit to God's rule" this is POV. It woulld be better as "who do not submit to Jehovah's Witnesses' message", or more accurately "The Governing Body's message/rules" would be more objective.


 * 4. "Though the majority of citations" this is a bit soft, it's definitely the vast majority, not just 51%.


 * 5. "Such as young children" All the publications point to scriptures that say that non-godly parent's children will die, as they did in the past, and godly parents children's will be saved. I would leave out the children comment, unless you wish to say they will die if their parents are not JWs.


 * 6. "to decide in a 'righteous and merciful way.'" Doesn't mean anything, (see response above to Duffer) because whatever the outcome it will always be classified as "righteous and merciful" even if humans think it's awful and judgemental.


 * Besides those small points, it's a massive improvement, well done and thank you for your time. I hope you didn't get a migraine from all this, LOL. Central 14:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it need to say somthing on the line hear the official watchtower view although there are many liberal witnesses who disagree with it. ;following not be included in article( who technicaly are apostates for having it duffer and others yep read up on Ray Franz )--Greyfox 15:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate, hate, hate to do this. However, the phrase "Those 'who do not submit to God's rule' (the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses) face certain destruction at Armageddon" is inconsistent, and possibly misleading.  "God's rule" does not the same as the message preached by Witnesses.  A possible alternative could be, "those 'who do not submit to God's rule' (as highlighted in the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses) face certain destruction at Armageddon".  The reason for this distinction lies in the previously established belief that Witnesses believe God is the ultimate Judge, not members of the congregations or the Governing Body.  Witnesses do stress submitting to God's rule as being the only hope of surviving Armageddon, but the message itself that is preached is not "God's rule." Just a small observation. - CobaltBlueTony 16:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that you can submit to God without submitting to them, fully and unconditionally, even if it costs you your life or they change their minds later. If you are kicked out for breaking one of their rules that they later change (like, say, when they declared that organ transplants were cannibalism and forbidden), you are not reinstated for breaking a rule that even they now agree was improper, you remain kicked out for challenging their admittedly (even by them) 'not from God' rules. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that it is possible to submit to God without submitting to their organization, notwithstanding the good game that they talk about how 'we follow God, not men (even when the rules are from men, and turn out to be wrong).'Tommstein 23:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a point more relating to disfellowshipping and probably shunning, but I will respond here. There's more to that point than Tommstein is projecting. Witnesses admit when they genuinely feel they have made a mistake, within the proper context. Witnesses believe that submitting to our spiritual brothers who are taking the lead is an expression of our devotion to God, inasmuch as this very same faith was instilled in us by means of this organization, and for many of us (if not most or all), some of our most life-changing private prayers were answered in convincing and faith-strengthening ways by this organization or some related component thereof.  So Witnesses collectively see any un-Christian conduct that may be expressed in disagreements due to doubt or anything else reflects a grave disrespect towards a channel of direction we sincerely believe Jehovah God is using, and therefore a disprespect of God Himself.  This changes the way elders are obligated to respond, as now they are obligated to first defend Jehovah's name and honor and subsequently those who are being used by Him in various ways.  If a brother or sister will not step back from an action such as this, he or she may face public reproof up to disfellowshipping. - CobaltBlueTony 18:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And now we have their reasons for believing what I said.Tommstein 03:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From Duffer:
 * I cannot agree to it, it is not accurate. For it to be accurate it would have to read: "Though the majority of citations in Witnesss publications infer that they...", and: "a few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those who may not have heard their message (the 1998 WT does say that specifically), or those incapable of moral reasoning..".  The problem with saying you MUST be a Jehovah's Witness comes when you ask the next logical question: "to what degree of Jehovah's Witness must one be in order to survive?".  You must be baptised to be considered a Witness, and we only baptize those who are fully aware of Witness theology.  Does this mean that we believe Unbaptized Publishers (those who go door to door with us, yet havn't received baptism yet) will perish at Armageddon?  What of their children?  This point really underscores the problems that arrise when people, who have never been a Jehovah's Witness, read things from WTB&TS literature that they do not fully understand.  Our theology is very indepth, very nuanced, and in many instances, not nearly as 'hard line' as some WTS quotes may infer.


 * Contrary to what the others above may have been infering (I can't really honestly tell), if I came here and starting teaching things that were not inline with what the WTB&TS actually teaches, I would be up for removal of congregational privilages and or excommunication as an apostate. At the very least my brothers and sisters here would have approached me and set me straight; this has not happened because they know what I say is the truth of the matter.  Back in October user:uberpenguin was telling them (Tomm and Central) the same thing as I'm saying now.  On top of this I have provided an article written by Witnesses on the Touchestone forum that explicates the biblical interpretations of the WTB&TS. I'm saying he has no verifiable evidence of their words at all. Duffer 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

(moved exchange between Duffer and Grayfox to talk page. SteveMc 15:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC))


 * (I have remove what started this mess please do not revert or it will begin again. It was put there to provoke me or question mine and others creditbilty)--Greyfox 20:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From Cobaltbluetony:
 * To clarify what I think Matt is getting at, is that just because a person may not be recgonized organizationally as a full-fledged member, or because he or she has not had (what in God's view is) sufficient time/opportunity does not mean that God has not looked into his or her heart and deemed that one worthy at Armageddon.


 * Witnesses do believe that people (who are responsible for their actions) with all of their senses who are exposed sufficiently to the message we preach are thereafter properly informed and liable for their own choices. But they realize that there are far more complications, and their stating that there is a grey area is not so suggest some cohesive band of righteous nonbelievers, but that anyone falling outside of the "normal" parameters by God's own estimation would still be dealt with righteously and mercifully as God individually judges each one.  This is the only point we are trying to reinforce here, as opposed to the dogmatic interpretation that Witnesses believe everyone who isn't "in league with the Governing Body" will die. -- CobaltBlueTony 16:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ^ - Exactly. Duffer 17:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * CobaltBlueTony, you are creating a red herring. Ones studying to become Jehovah's Witnesses are most definitely not the same as people who are not interested. So, why are you bringing in this new false definition at this late stage? Or is it just you have lost the rational argument and so are now trying to drag it on ad nauseam about new and unrelated lines? Central 11:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would maintain that my point is "anyone falling outside of the "normal" parameters by God's own estimation would still be dealt with righteously and mercifully as God individually judges each one." People who are simply defined as "not interested" without any sort of "outside the normal parameters" qualifier would be the same as those given the opportunity to respond and who fail to do so.  I do not see how there is any other definiton by Witnesses for them. If you're saying that there's something wrong with the message or messengers, then we're saying that in spite of any flaws on the Witnesses' part, individually or organizationally, God will still act mercifully and judiciously.  If your situation is really that exceptional, God is both loving and wise so as to provide a proper ruling in your case at Armageddon. - CobaltBlueTony 18:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings all, now I know I am doing something right, since neither side agrees ;-)  .  I will revise and resubmit.  Thanks for your considered feedback; the responses are much more concise, to the point, and to me.  Good job!  SteveMc 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well gee, ya coulda called us all Lithuanian immigrant currant harvesters; that would have been disputed on all sides too! Seriously though, I hope this exercise is precisely that: flexing your wikimuscles and giving you a good workout.  Following this, you can mediate anything, and if someone says anything, you can just say, "Hey, I mediated the Jehovah's Witnesses articles; I can arbitrate anything!" Looking forward to the next iteration. - CobaltBlueTony 17:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

(deleted George resigns comments. SteveMc 23:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

Whoa there Steve, you didn't wait for me. I pretty much like this proposal completely, and if this were the final version, I would be the happiest guy here (probably literally, other than you). The only possible issues are relatively minor things, some of the things that Central pointed out, but in the 'big overall view', this is wonderful. If I were running the proposals, I would say that we have at the very least the basis of a resolution with this last proposal, with perhaps only relatively minor additions and subtractions remaining.Tommstein 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I will live with it as is for the sake of peace. but will state this is still a Red Hearing arguement to deflect people away from failed prophecy of the 1914 generation seeing the Armageddon.--Greyfox 23:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we could simplify the bullet--especially the first two sentences. Also, how much different is this latest proposal than what we currently have in the article? If it isn't that much different, perhaps we should consider keeping what's already there and editing from that? Dtbrown 01:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dtbrown, I am happy to simplify it, however the text has evolved to this point with a great deal of input from both sides. Essentially, I did start with the text in the current article.  The first sentence in the quote is moving toward a consensus version of the first sentence in the current article.  The other modifications are moving toward consensus as well.  To try to simplify the proposed text is asking for trouble, but I am not opposed to it.  Any suggests are welcomed.  Thanks, SteveMc 21:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

mediator's question
TO: Duffer and Cobaltbluetony, --SteveMc 19:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * With regard to Duffer's suggestion, "the majority of citations in Witnesss publications infer that they...", there are a few quotations (and possibly others, but let's start with these) that need to be addressed here, as listed below. Generally, it is difficult for me to accept that these statement are mere "inference."
 * Proclaimers book, 1993, p.676-the phrase, "Jehovah's organization," seems to be a direct reference to the Jehovah's Witness organization.
 * Watchtower magazine 15 January 1999, p.9-the phrase, "his modern-day Christian organization," seems a direct reference as well.
 * Watchtower 1989 September 1 p. 19-the phrase "Only Jehovah's Witnesses," is the clearest of all statements in this regard, I cannot see how to take it in any other fashion.
 * To be clear, I am not discounting the citations that state that the fate of some are "unclear." However, these passages seem clear; and at this point, with good conscious, I cannot alter the proposal to indicate a mere "inference."

Reply Watchtower 1989 September 1 p. 19 par. 7: "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil." - and to this, I would add that, for anyone that does not fall under this "Scriptural" category, Witnesses expect that God will nevertheless deal mercifully and justly on their behalf. Witnesses recognize that there are special circumstances in which we cannot identify how God will evaluate a person, but we have full trust and confidence that He will act ... - CobaltBlueTony 21:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Essentially, once you know it, you can't un-know it; you are thereafter accountable before God. But if an individual simply doesn't know it, or can't know it, and God evaluates their heart and deems them worthy, then it's possible for them to survive.  But then it becomes conjecture on exactly how all that would be handled from a human perspective. - CobaltBlueTony 21:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The "scriptural hope" is the only hope. Why are you avoiding the fact that God wrote the Bible according to all your religions' beliefs? So, God is the one offering hope or not via the scriptures. If the Governing Body says there is no scriptural hope, then how can there be any hope at all, seeing as God's hope is the scriptural one and none other! Others have discussed all this before. No hope = zero hope, zero hope = death, condemnation and rejection. It's like saying God only offers the salvation hope through Jesus, and then CobaltBlueTony comes along and says well some Muslims, atheists, and Buddhists might also be saved. Where does it say that in the scriptures? Even the Watch Tower's literature says they have no scriptural hope [no hope from God], not even 0.000000001%, no = no, not yes, maybe or possibly. Projecting your own views will not change the facts of what has been printed. This is supposed to be a factual account of what is taught in the official literature from the Governing Body, not personal views of JWs or anyone else. You can go and set up multiple websites preaching your own philosophy, which contradicts all the Governing Body states, drawing in many JWs to join you like Duffer1 is doing, but that does not make it true or an official teaching from the Governing Body, and so should not appear here, because it holds no weight at all. Central 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Duffer
 * 1. The proclaimers quote: Yes, that is a direct reference to Jehovah's Witnesses, but note, the article specifies people will be given opportunity to take a stand with, or against.  The article gives examples of this.  The following paragraph in the Proclaimers book:
 * "When the proclaimers of that Kingdom are persecuted, the question is thrust even more prominently to the fore: Will those who hear about it do good to the “brothers” of Christ and their associates and thus show love for Christ himself? Or will they join with those who heap abuse on these representatives of God’s Kingdom—or perhaps remain silent while others do so? (Matt. 25:31-46; 10:40; 24:14)"
 * These examples are equated with the above paragraph about taking a stand with the representatives of God. Not only does this not say that one MUST be a Witness to survive, it infers that just taking a stand with us may be enough, this idea is brought out more especially with the citation of Matthew 25:31-46.


 * 2. Jan '99 WT quote: What of those who have not heard? Or, what of those who have heard, and are in the process of becoming a Witness?  This quote is for those who have heard, and now become scripturally responsible to maintain their course.


 * 3. As CBT has pointed out above, it is the only means of salvation biblically specified (scriptural). Those who do not qualify under this specification will be judged righteously, and mercifully.  Duffer 23:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

TO: all, regarding mediator's question to Duffer and Cobaltbluetony: Could you accept, "Though the majority of citations in Witness publications directly infer that they . . ." or strongly imply or directly and strongly imply or directly and strongly infer.? SteveMc 19:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

directly and strongly imply. I'm going with this--Greyfox 20:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

if state should be replaced, than only with directly and strongly imply (but is it really neccessary?).--Mini 08:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, the Watch Tower's articles on those who will die state it clearly and forcefully, they do not merely "imply". So, I would put "state clearly, or "clearly state", or "openly judge", "unmistakably condemn" or any other synonyms like "clearly, plainly, manifestly, unashamedly, boldly, unflinchingly, patently, demonstrably, unmistakably etc." How much of a mistake can anyone make with sentences like this loving example: "Eaten up will be the tongues of those who scoffed and laughed at the warning of Armageddon! Eaten up will be the eyes of those who refused to see the sign of the time of the end! Eaten up will be the flesh of those who would not learn that the living and true God is named Jehovah!" (Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained book 1958 pp.208-209) Central 11:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think that clear, factual statements should be watered down simply because some people demand that they be. And as you (Steve, since this indentation is probably confusing) have pointed out, there are quite clear statements, regardless of some confusing a rebuttal with just talking and making stuff up.Tommstein 03:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

TO: Central, please review the proposal above. Thanks, SteveMc 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's Proposal 7
Here it is:
 * "Regarding survival of Armageddon: The vast majority of citations in Witness publications teach (a) that the only known (as stated in scripture) hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations (including membership in Jehovah's Witnesses) of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6); and (b) that those "who do not submit to God's rule" (as highlighted in the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses) face certain destruction at Armageddon. (http://www.watchtower.org/library/dg/article_09.htm#Surviving_Armageddon). A few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of moral reasoning, may be unresolved by scripture, therefore their fate remains in "God's hands." (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20; Reasoning book, p.48)

--SteveMc 16:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I think I preferred version six with a few alterations. In this new one you say the same thing twice in the first section, and it's still a little wordy. I would put it all and condense it as:

"The only hope (but no guarantee) of surviving Armageddon is by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses under the organizational direction of their Governing Body according to the vast majority of citations in their publications. (Watchtower magazines November 15, 1983, p.24; June 15, 1999, p.6). Those "who do not submit to the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses" face certain destruction at Armageddon. A few nebulous citations suggest the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning/mentally ill, may be unresolved by scripture, so their providence remains in "God's hands." (Watchtower magazine, August 15, 1998, p.20; Reasoning book, p.48) Central 17:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting close. "Nebulous" has a negative connotation. I think we can reduce this to fewer words. I'd suggest:

The only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) of surviving Armageddon is by being a faithful Jehovah's Witness according to the vast majority of citations in their publications (Watchtower magazines 15 November 1983, p. 24; 15 June 1999, p. 6). Those |"who do not submit to God's rule" face certain destruction at Armageddon. A few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of moral reasoning, may be unresolved by scripture, so their fate remains in "God's hands." (15 August 1998 Watchtower, p. 20; Reasoning book, p. 48)

Dtbrown 19:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (note: editor added | to above edit by Dtbrown. SteveMc 20:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

Mediator's Proposal 8
Here it is:
 * "The vast majority of citations in Witness publications teach (a) that the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) of surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations (including membership in Jehovah's Witnesses) of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and  ; and (b) that those "who do not submit to God's rule", as highlighted by Jehovah's Witnesses, face certain destruction at Armageddon.  A few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of moral reasoning, may be unresolved by scripture, so their fate remains in "God's hands.  and "

Vote

 * For
 * CobaltBlueTony 03:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this one, just like proposals 6 and 7.Tommstein 03:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dtbrown 04:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think 1 more proposal is in order. Referencing the amount of citations that say what our doctrine is, is not necessary:
 * The Witness teach (a) that the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) of surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations (including membership in Jehovah's Witnesses) of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses  ( Watchtower 1983 ) and   ( Watchtower 1999 )  ; and (b) that those "who do not submit to God's rule"  ( WTBTSP 2004 ) , as highlighted by Jehovah's Witnesses, face certain destruction at Armageddon.  The fate of some, such as those incapable of moral reasoning, is considered to be unresolved by scripture, so their fate remains in "God's hands."  ( Watchtower 1998b )  and  ( WTBTSP 1985 )
 * There's no need to say "the vast majority" or even "a few citations" since the specific nuances of each point are mutually exclusive; citing the amount of references for each suggests that they are not, and accuracy suffers as a result. To be specific: 1-Surviving Armageddon comes from adherence to JW theology and practice.  2-Those who do not, will not.  3- The fate of those incapable of moral reasoning, those in the process of becoming a baptized Witness, and/or those who may not have heard our message (yet take a stand for righteousness in general) may yet survive.  Duffer 06:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Duffer said: "There's no need to say the vast majority or even a few citations." Matthew, you know well it's not remotely a 50/50 thing in the publications, and that all the vast majority clearly declare destruction on all non-JWs. The tiny few quotes you bring up don't even give an opinion; they just circumvent the hot spots, and cowardly slide off on a tangent and change the subject or divert attention to God, which again is not an answer either way. You trying to make out your opinions from your own unauthorised groupie websites, in-depth debates with notorious apostates (your words not mine), or any other non-official source is not valid here on Wikipedia, and certainly contradicts and opposes the official doctrines that come from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. You know well what the Watch Tower's literature does and does not say, so the comment on quantity is a definite fact that should go in the article to give accuracy and show the weight of publications on the subject. Central 13:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also about the "..may be unresolved by scripture", we hold that it "is considered to be unresolved". At the very least I hope the quotes I have provided already have sufficiently proved that.  Duffer 08:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Duffer, it is still clearly unresolved as many publications state (as you know) that any not with them will be destroyed, and very few publications say "we cannot say". Where is the resolution in that? There is none, as they are contradictions. Central 13:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Every citation you have noted that speaks about those who will be destroyed at Armageddon, speak directly about those who will be destroyed at Armageddon. Every citation that speaks about non-Witnesses who may yet survive Armageddon, speaks directly about those who yet may survive; saying it is in God's hands, "we do not know, and are not the judges", etc..  Though both subjects are directly related to survival of Armageddon, their nuance is mutually exclusive to eachother, thus noting the amount of quotes that speak to either, is misleading.  Duffer 16:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * FROM: Mediator SteveMc
 * TO: Duffer,
 * regarding the citation count: I remain unconvinced that "accuracy suffers" with regard to use of the terms "vast majority" or "few citations." Not only are they are both correct statements, but they also accurately represent the "nuance" of the Governing Body on this matter. I agree that the "nuances of each point" is mutually exclusive, and have so stated (above),however that "nuance" is reflected in the proposed statement.  It seems that you believe that the "minority" statements should have weight higher than the 100:1 (majority:minority; given by counting citations), still without a clear statement from the Governing Body, we are left to interpret current quotes in current citations.  As proposed, the statements are much closer to 50:50, so removing the terms "vast majority" and "few" would be POV.
 * I addressed your second point in Proposal 9.
 * I note your continued inability to address me and not Central. Apparently the tempation is too great to resist. However, your tone is much improved and constructive.  Thanks,
 * --SteveMc 19:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * --SteveMc 19:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Against

Steve, why did you make a suggestion and then ignore it and go back to a previous edit? Your post (20:15, 15 January 2006) made a new suggestion, but now you have gone back to the older one, why? You said nebulous "has a negative connotation", this is not correct. Nebulous simply means "vague, imprecise, unclear, hazy, indefinable, lacking definite form". None of these are necessarily pejorative.

Your latest edit can still be cropped down a bit, as there are to many superfluous words. It would be better as:


 * The vast majority of citations in Witness publications teach the only hope (but no guarantee) of surviving Armageddon comes through organizational membership and adherence to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Watchtower 1983; Watchtower 1999) Those "who do not submit to God's rule" [as stipulated by the Governing Body] (WTBTSP 2004), face certain destruction at Armageddon. A few undefined citations indicate that the fate of those incapable of reasoning/mentally ill, may be unresolved by scripture, so remains in "God's hands." (Watchtower 1998b; WTBTSP 1985)


 * Putting extraneous words like "absolute guarantee" is not necessary, as "no guarantee" says the same thing.
 * Putting "who do not submit to God's rule" is POV, even if it's linked to the Governing Body
 * I would use the word "stipulated" as there are clearly defined rules and regulations from the Governing Body, not merely "highlighted".
 * I would not have "incapable of moral reasoning", as many people in this world appear to have no moral reasoning but they are not handicapped or mentally ill, they are just evil in many cases, and these kinds of people will definitely not get spared according to the literature. I would put it as just "incapable of reasoning/mentally ill".
 * I also thought we were trying to get away from excessive references at the bottom of the page? Central 13:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * FROM: Mediator SteveMc
 * TO: Central, My responses:
 * Please note that I did not say "nebulous", Dtbrown did. (I only corrected a typo in his entry. Sorry for the confusion.)
 * I went "back" (using your word, though really it is only back in structure), because I agreed with your statement, "I think I preferred version six," and I also agreed with your and Dtbrown's suggested revisions. However, it is true that I did not address or include all of your suggestions.
 * I agree that "who do not submit to God's rule" is linked to the Governing Body, however I believe it is a NPOV. The dependent clause that follows gives it proper meaning.
 * How about "teach" instead of "highlight"?
 * These references follow the proper format of the page for providing a full reference. As I stated on the talk page (under cited works), there are five different reference forms on the page.  The accepted ones are either footnoted or Harvard style.  These are Harvard style.  My point regarding references is not to eliminate cited references, only uncited, keeping them to the minimum.
 * I addressed your other points in Proposal 9.
 * I note your continued inability to address me and not Duffer. Apparently the tempation is too great to resist.  However, your tone is much improved and constructive.  Thanks,
 * --SteveMc 19:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * --SteveMc 19:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Steve. Sorry about the confusion, I thought Dtbrown's post was your posts, so put the points referring back to his edit.


 * "How about teach instead of highlight?" I would not use either, because it's more than just a teaching; it's compulsory to follow and agree on, that is why I suggested the word stipulated. Central 20:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's Proposal 9
Here it is:
 * "The vast majority of citations in Witness publications teach (a) that the only hope (but no guarantee) of surviving Armageddon comes through adherance to the scriptural interpretations (including membership in Jehovah's Witnesses) of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses  ( Watchtower 1983 ) and   ( Watchtower 1999 )  ; and (b) that those "who do not submit to God's rule"  ( WTBTSP 2004 ) , as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses, face certain destruction at Armageddon.  A few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning/mentally ill, is considered to be unresolved by scripture, so their fate remains in "God's hands."  ( Watchtower 1998b )  and  ( WTBTSP 1985 )

I'll accept this. Dtbrown 20:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's getting there Steve, thank you for your patience. It's still quite wordy and a bit confusing with interjections in the middle of sentences. I would re-edit as below, to increase readability and comprehension at the same time as reducing superfluous text:


 * The vast majority of citations in Witness publications teach the only hope (but no guarantee) of surviving Armageddon comes through organizational membership and adherence to the scriptural interpretations of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Those "who do not submit to God's rule" as stipulated by the Governing Body face certain destruction at Armageddon. A few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning/mentally ill, is unresolved in scripture, so their providence remains in "God's hands." (Notes go here)


 * Notes: I would not put notes in the middle of a sentence. It might be better to just place them all at the end of the paragraph to stop them interrupting the flow of words, or cluttering up. Central 20:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's Proposal 10
Here it is:
 * "The vast majority of citations in Witness publications teach the only hope (but no guarantee) of surviving Armageddon comes through organizational membership and adherence to the scriptural interpretations of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Those "who do not submit to God's rule" as stipulated by the Governing Body face certain destruction at Armageddon. A few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning/mentally ill, is unresolved in scripture, so their providence remains in "God's hands." (Notes go here)


 * Change "stipulated" to "delineated"? - CobaltBlueTony 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think both you and Central missed what I was getting at. Please understand that I am not trying to belittle the amount of quotes that speak to either nuance of our doctrine.  Bare with me a moment:  Why should we say "vast majority"?  Why not say "all"?  The only scriptural (biblically specified) hope for survival is with us.  They all say that, and I think we can all agree on that point.  Stating: "vast majority" automatically links the nuance to "a few citations", the problem with that is the nuances are mutually exlusive (as you agreed above).  It's like saying: "All of their publications say you're all gonna die, except these few over there who say you might not."  It compares them as if they are contradictory to eachother, when you further understand our theology, they are not; regardless of how few WT resources fully explicate this idea.  One is talking specifically to those who will be destroyed, who have made their stand against righteousness, the other is talking to those who may yet live (incapable of moral reasoning, might not have heard our message, made a stand for righteousness in the right circumstances, mentally ill, in the process of becoming a Witness but not baptised yet, etc..).   Keep "a few citations" and remove "vast majority", either way, as they are now, it is a false comparison (or link).  As a suggestion, have it start like: "Witnesses teach that the only hope..".  Since that line is an accurate presentation of our beliefs regardless of how many quotes are garnered in support of it.


 * I agree with "delineated" as well (even though "stipulated" is still accurate), the above sentence already brings out that our theology is the "scriptural interpretations of the GB", therefore saying: "as stipulated by.." is redundant. Duffer 01:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Duffer, I have not missed it, I can assure you. I realize fully well what is being said by both you and Central.  (By the way, I did not agree that the citations are mutually exclusive, I was trying to quote you, though I may have left my intention unclear.  An earlier statement I made is a clearer representation of my understanding, they "seem to contradict.")SteveMc 05:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish to point out, which point you probably remember full well anyway, that, contrary to assertions one might find above, the 'only Witnesses' quotations (i.e. those supporting 'my' side) are not in fact all of the 'X will be destroyed' form, there are many (most probably) of the 'only X will survive' form, where X = Jehovah's Witnesses, explicitly stating who will live as opposed to who will be destroyed.Tommstein 07:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Central, --SteveMc 05:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * are you OK with "delineated" for "stipulated"?
 * are you OK with the opening sentence, "Witnesses teach that the only hope...."?


 * Hi Steve, I'm very happy with it. But I would not change stipulated to delineated because the teachings and doctrines are more than just 'outlined or set out' as delineated means. The teachings and doctrines of the Governing Body are an imperative, they have to be followed, and believed. The Governing Body equates rejection of their interpretations as rejection of Jehovah's channel, accordingly rejection of Jehovah, and therefore apostasy. Many have been disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for just discussing doctrines or admitting they cannot accept some of them, like 1914, or 144,000 going to heaven being a literal number. Stipulated is more accurate, as all the teachings have to be followed, it's certainly not a case of "I'll take this one, and reject that one", it's very clearly all or nothing, with the real risk of excommunication for anymore who rejects the leadership/teachings of the Governing Body ("sole earthly channel of God") as they repeatedly claim.


 * I'm also happy with "teach" in the opening sentence.


 * Thank you for all your work, just think of it as 'character building' ;o) Central 11:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(A side note: Our semester goes back into session here in the morning, so I will be spending less time in Wikipedia. Sorry.  SteveMc 05:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC))


 * I like this version too, just like I've liked all proposals since about proposal 6. Although I'm not Central, I would like to opine regarding the second question posed to him that, if "The vast majority of citations," which links what follows to "A few citations," is removed, the part about "A few citations" reads too much like an undisputed exception to the first sentence (i.e. this is what is taught, but a few citations say it's not so for these special cases). Leaving mention of "The vast majority of citations" links the first sentence to the last one, and makes it clear that the last sentence is not an acknowledged exception to the first one, but rather a mutually exclusive branch that only appears in "A few citations," in conflict with the teachings mentioned in first sentence. The two possibilities when some random reader comes across the text would be: 1) read the statement carefully enough and somehow realize that the 'exception' isn't an exception at all, even a poorly-worded attempt at stating a known exception, but rather is known to be in conflict with the first sentence, and 2) just assume that the last sentence is intended to provide an acknowledged exception to the first one, which I think would be the easier, more natural, and more popular thing to do. We should not allow this unintended leeway.Tommstein 07:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * TO: Tommstein, I see your point, any suggestion other than just leave it? Thanks, SteveMc 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't really see anything better than what is currently there. Whatever words would be used would still need to have the 'linking and contrasting' effect, and thus say pretty much the same thing as the words that are already in there, but I can't think of anything that would say the same thing any better than "The vast majority of citations."Tommstein 01:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

TO: Cobaltbluetony
 * Please provide justification for suggested change from "stipulated" to "delineated".

Thanks, SteveMc 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Steve, the definition of stipulate suggests an agreement. The GB is not agreeing to anything; rather, delineating, or outlining, what they believe the Biblical requirements for survival are. - CobaltBlueTony 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * CBT, is also has this meaning. SteveMc 22:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I knew the meaning of delineate. That's why I picked it.  But "taught" suggested by Central is perfectly acceptable to me.  (Hope you were sitting for that one.) - CobaltBlueTony 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * CobaltBlueTony, please read my previous post above [11:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)]. I did not suggest "taught/teach" for a replacement for stipulated, the 'teach' was the one appearing in the opening sentence only.


 * You also said: "stipulate suggests an agreement", yes and it also suggests "To make an express demand or provision in an agreement", which is exactly what getting baptised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses involves. You are in a contract with the organization and have agreed to followed their leadership, and come under their rules and regulations. This is often brought out when some leave the religion and wish to go quietly, and are then harassed and intimidated, and if they object, they are sent large bulky legal folders from the Watch Tower's legal department telling them in no uncertain terms about their baptismal contract with the organization. This is also, why the baptism questions were changed back in 1985 to link their baptism to the organization. If you don't want stipulates, then a similar strong binding word should be found like "Demand, Insist, Imperative or Compulsory". As for delineated this word is far too weak, and gives no recognition of the obligatory and compulsory nature of becoming a Jehovah's Witness under the Governing Body. Central 11:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

TO: all editors
 * Greetings, obviously we are very close here to having a proposal. The different views diverge at how much emphasis should be given to the, so called, "grey ones."  Generally, Duffer et al. believing they complement those saved, Central et al. believing they do not.  It is important that we come up with some kind of language that represents both views. Your suggestions would be appreciated here:  how much can you give without giving it away?

Thanks, SteveMc 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid there is no give. To compare the two in a way that suggests they contradict eachother, instead of compliment eachother, is inaccurate and misleading away from what Jehovah's Witnesses officially teach and believe.  Duffer 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve, I've been happy with every version since version 6 (I think it was), but, as long as Duffer1 wishes to continue pretending that the 99% of references that categorically say 'Jehovah's Witnesses and only Jehovah's Witnesses, period and end of story' don't actually mean what they very clearly say, I'm not sure what else can be done to further accommodate his demand to discard said 99% of references that contradict his story.Tommstein 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving beyond Proposal 10-Part I
Well, based on the inability to write a statement that converges the two sides, there are a couple of options:
 * 1) Since Duffer is the only individual (that we know of) holding up proposal 8, we could move forward over his objection. However, it appears that Wikipedia policy would not support this act since "Consensus" is not majority rules, not even super-majority rules. I do not recommend this option, and mention it only to be transparent and completely considered. (Duffer, no harm intended!)  I believe we need to work toward a consensus all can agree to.
 * 2) A more realistic idea (and the one I recommend) is to write a statement something like this: "One interpretation of the 'minority' of citations is that they complement those that will be saved. Another interpretation is that the 'minority' contradicts the 'majority' of citations."  The foregoing statement is not properly "word-smithed", but I am suggesting it as a direction to go next.
 * 3) A third option is to get a JW expert to weigh in on this issue, but I do not know who that would be. Or maybe something from the Governing Board themselves ;-) . SteveMc 02:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

--SteveMc 02:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * May an interested observer suggest another option? You've all come so far, it would be a shame to see this founder now when you are almost there. Perhaps if the last sentence in Mediator's Proposal 10 were changed from "A few citations..." to "There are citations which..." ? This would still make the point that the citations in the first sentence are by far more numerous, while also addressing Duffer's concern that the last sentence too strongly offsets the first (without watering down the difference in number). --Krich (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * YES, an interested third party.  :-)    SteveMc 02:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it. What do you say, Duffer, Central, Tom, CBT, to that idea?  SteveMc 02:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The proposed change would introduce the exact same problem I described above regarding removing "The vast majority of citations," verbatim I think, just at the other end of the paragraph.Tommstein 04:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it could work. (BTW, Krich, I think you meant flounder, also a tasty dish and argument ender. ;-) ) Matt? - CobaltBlueTony 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept that suggestion, though I still do not agree to "far more numerous". It doesn't matter how many quotes say it since it is an accurate reflection of what we teach.  Likewise, it doesn't matter how few citations state that others may, or may not, survive Armageddon as that too is an accurate reflection of what we teach.  The above suggested compromise does not speak to this issue, but it does un-link the false inference that they are contradictory, not complimentary, which is why I agree to it.   Duffer 03:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Steve,
 * 1. It's not about majority opinions rules; it's about factual reality. Duffer1's quotes do not state any conclusion, nor do they override the mass of clear and unambiguous quotes.


 * 2. Interpretations are not supposed to be given. The facts can be interpreted for themselves, we are not supposed to lead the reader in some direction, or interpret them, especially if they are vague and contradictory.


 * 3. Asking the Governing Body is one of the least objective answers you will get. They will just give the usual ambiguous nebulous diversions and avoid a direct answer. Also, there are hundreds of articles with their opinions and teachings already available.


 * Steve, we must remember we are supposed to be portraying the factual objective reality, and that is a "vast majority of quotes" compared to a "few minor quotes". How the public interpret this reality based in clear print, direct from the source, is up to them. We are not supposed to take out the uncomfortable facts, just because some feel it might make their religion not look so good. Facts are facts, and should not be watered down just because there is one person who has decided he doesn't like it put in a clear, accurate and realistic terms. Central 11:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As Jimbo is quoted as saying on the consensus page, "There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy." Luckily, in this case the majority vote in the only vote I remember us taking sided with good sense and basic English literacy.Tommstein 05:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediator's note: the following is from Cobaltbluetony:
 * If we are to be truly NPOV, then, take the words "vast" and "minor" out. Both of these words have implications in line with Central's intent; therefore, take them out and you will have no one's intent: The majority of citations in Witness publications teach the only hope (but no guarantee) of surviving Armageddon comes through organizational membership and adherence to the scriptural interpretations of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Those "who do not submit to God's rule" as stipulated by the Governing Body face certain destruction at Armageddon. A few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning/mentally ill, is unresolved in scripture, so their providence remains in "God's hands."   (I've reconsidered my objections to "stipulated".)
 * CobaltBlueTony said: "Central's intent; therefore, take them out and you will have no one's intent." May I remind you that my intent is for accuracy. I find it interesting that you would prefer to have accuracy removed. Hummm. . . very revealing! Central 12:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is another quote from a while ago which stated that true Christians would be pleasantly surprised by how God works out these ambiguous situations, but I can't find it right now. If someone can find it faster than me, it might illustrate the point we are trying to make.
 * - CobaltBlueTony 21:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "minor" doesn't appear in the latest proposal (unless I just completely missed it). The word "vast" is there to indicate the fact (not someone's guiding opinion) that, as Central has repeatedly said, this isn't exactly a 51% vs. 49% thing.Tommstein 04:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tom, I've re-evaluated, and believe that "almost 99 percent" is a more accurate term, or "verging on 100 percent" would also be fine. (See post to Steve for more details). I also noticed how the word "minor" doesn't even appear in the quote, so not sure why CobaltBlueTony inserted that straw man. Central 12:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Found it:
 * watchtower aug 15 1998
 * par.18 With complete confidence in Jehovah’s righteousness, we need not worry about finding answers to questions like: ‘How will babies and small children be judged? Might it be that a large number of people will not yet have been reached with the good news when Armageddon arrives? What about the mentally ill? What about . . . ?’ Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way. We should never doubt that. In fact, we may be amazed and delighted to observe him resolve them in a way that we never even considered.—Compare Job 42:3; Psalm 78:11-16; 136:4-9; Matthew 15:31; Luke 2:47. - CobaltBlueTony 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "will" and "may." One actually says something, one (the one actually used in the citation, which I think has already been brought up anyway) doesn't state anything specifically, it just sidesteps the question without giving an answer, as Central has been saying.Tommstein 04:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve, I have to counter this presentation of the words "may" and "will". Is the word "may" used for those who actually don't have a chance? As in the Scripture, "Probably you [faithful worshippers seeking righteousness and meekness] may be concealed in the day of Jehovah's anger"?  Is God sidestepping the issue?  Or is 'possibility' being presented?  Again, the attempt to paint these two points as separate and contradictory completely misses the tone of the quote from the '98 WT.  We are saying there are possibilities that are not addressed by "all those other" quotations.  If you are reading it, and you understand it, then obviously you have been presented with the choice.  We rightly expect most people reading our literature to "get it," that they are eventually going to be asked to make a choice, and that they are mature and responsible and capable in that regard.  So in that, we do not emphasize any possibility that could lead them to ignore it, put it off, or pretend they weren't properly informed.  But for those who have never heard, for those who cannot understand, we are saying that the Bible offers possibilities in that He will never act unjustly towards those who really are in special circumstances that we are concerned about (but He will not coddle those who would like to excuse themselves in some form or beg off, or blame someone else for their own choices; God "is not one to be mocked".)


 * The prospect of possibility is presented as a response to questions about God's justice and mercy, or at least what we believe. Note that the WT article is speaking to Jehovah's Witnesses, in the context of a study article (numbered paragraphs are only in study articles) considered at our weekly meetings, not a cover article intended for people we speak with at their doors.  It is being taught, not merely to outsiders as some sort of "dodge" of the issue, but to people presumably already concerned with survival through Armageddon, and wondering about their neighbors or loved ones. Witnesses themselves have asked the question, and the answer is given in terms they understand. We don't expect our critics to believe it, but this is about what we believe and teach. This is what we are taught, and as Bible teachers, this is what we teach our students when the question comes up. - CobaltBlueTony 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh my, I've seen it all now. Steve, I hope you laughed when you read the above response, especially when it starts: "Is God sidestepping the issue?" Talk about straw man! Steve, you have just experienced an JW indoctrination session! LOL. CobaltBlueTony goes on with a mass of subjective POVs, original research, Argumentum ad nauseam, and Argumentum ad populum and many more gems: "We are saying. . . We rightly expect. . . we do not emphasize. . . we are saying that the Bible offers. . . at least what we believe. . . We don't expect our critics to believe. . . what we believe. . . " You can imagine a "Bible" study with them: "No, no, no Steve, the Bible doesn't actually say what is written down in its pages, let me read to you 1,894 Watchtower articles telling you're wrong, and if you don't believe me, we will just study them all over again, and over and over and over." They will carry on until you either: 1. Go insane, 2. Commit suicide, or 3. Go brain-dead and just accept what has been obsessively repeated over and over even though it's false. The Chinese communists used to use this brainwashing propaganda, just repeating over and over ad nauseam, until it was accepted. If you hear the lie enough times you will think it's true in the end, and stop questioning it, or you will be shot for not accepting the message, mind you JW's don't need to shoot you as their God will do that for them if you don't consume, surrender and be assimilated in to the Borg-like doctrines of the Watch Tower. Remember Steve, Resistance is futile! LOL, and a rational thinking mind is their enemy! Central 12:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve, I use the term we, not just with reference to Duffer and myself, or Witness editors, but Jehovah's Witnesses in general, as we are all trained to be teachers of what we learn. All Witnesses are expected to participate in a public ministry in some form.  Witnesses often speak in the plural when discussing the intentions and goals we claim to share with one another in line with our beliefs.  I hope Central's statements above help you see that his interpretations sway his perceptions, and that his assrtations on this point are not sufficient enough so as to defer to his view of what Witnesses actually believe. - CobaltBlueTony 18:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Central, regarding your comments above: I am trying to address Duffer's concerns by introducing ideas to move this discussion off "dead center," otherwise this stalemate could go on forever. I could certainly use more help from each and every one in this dispute. I could build a fort with the entrenchments found on this page. (Pardon the poor attempt at levity.) --SteveMc 06:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree that "Duffer1's quotes do not . . . override the mass of clear and unambiguous quotes." And I already stated that it is not about majority rules.  Duffer disputes the current statement, therefore to unilaterally decide to move against his opinion, even at this point, in my opinion, would not be supported by further (formal) mediation or arbitration.
 * 2) I agree that our interpretations cannot be given, since that would be original research. However, I was thinking (granted I did not state it this way above) to get the opinions of experts in the field of religion here who know and publish about the JWs.  Something outside of JW literature to help us out.  After thought: we need to be careful, however, about the authenticity of an outside opinion.  There are scores of other Christian organizations and individuals who criticize JW doctrine or who attempt to debunk JW's interpretation of the Bible.  I think that these types of sources will not contribute to a solution here. afterthought added by SteveMc 06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I was being facetious, hence the ;-).


 * The veracity of the claim I have presented has been verified by the official source of Witness theology; it cannot be discounted. It must be accurately reflected in the paragraph.  Infering that the two points are contradictory, OR complimentary, to eachother IS original research.  Having "vast majority" or "a few quotes", linked together in the manner that this paragraph has, strongly suggests that they are contradictory, thus, original research.  Duffer 07:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Either original research, or a show of basic English literacy and a functioning brain stem, one or the other. I do not propose to overestimate the capabilities of certain other editors.Tommstein 10:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, please note what Duffer (Matthew McGhee) said: "veracity of the claim I have presented has been verified by the official source of Witness theology". This is a blatantly false statement from Duffer; he knows well 99 percent of quotes are condemnatory and probably far less than 1 percent are ambiguous, and don't even give a possibility of salvation. The only "verification" is from Duffer's apostate/independent websites he creates and posts on, but definitely not the official doctrines from the Governing Body of Jehovah Witnesses.

Steve, please note Duffer's next false statement (and straw man): "Inferring that the two points are contradictory, OR complimentary, to each other IS original research." This statement from Duffer is completely false. 1. No "inferring" is happening (Duffer's straw man), just presented are the printed facts on the number of articles. 2. Stating facts (that are in print) that may contradict other factual printed words is not "original research" or POV. If an organization's statements in print for example, are pro-life, and then they also print documents condoning abortion, this is a contradiction to the other statements, but it is not POV nor original research to point this printed fact out, especially when no commentary or critique is given. It's not "original research" or POV to point out that the JWs said Armageddon would come in 1914, and then show that later statements claimed they never set a date. These are facts in print that they have lied and set dates; it is not "original research" or POV to point these printed facts out, especially when no conclusions, commentary, or critiques are given, but just the clear facts in print.

If anything saying "the vast majority" is not enough, it should say "almost 100 percent" as this would be more accurate. A majority does not even have to be 51 percent; it can be 30 percent, or even 10 percent if all the other groups are less than 30 percent, or 10 percent. Even a "vast majority" could be just 10 percent depending on the number and size of others groups involved. I propose it be changed from "vast majority" to the more accurate "almost 100 percent of quotes", and "few quotes" changed to "less than 1 percent of quotes". But, being the reasonable person I am, I will lower my standards and compromise to keep the peace, and allow "the vast majority" to remain instead of insisting on "almost 100 percent" which would be the most accurate of all. If Duffer opposes this olive branch offer, then I will have to insist that the most accurate term is used, that being "almost 100 percent of quotes" Central 12:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This stuff should have been common sense. Only in discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses and six-year-olds does this have to be explained with a straight face (remember their policies on education, which they just tightened... it's going well, as can be seen from some of our local geniuses).Tommstein 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

-- The sources I have brought forth unequivocally give the possibility of non-Witness survivors. The 1998 WT article makes this clear in no uncertain terms by re-affirming what every Jehovah's Witness knows: "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." However, that comment is further qualified in the next paragraphs by stating: "With complete confidence in Jehovah’s righteousness, we need not worry about finding answers to questions like: ‘How will babies and small children be judged? Might it be that a large number of people will not yet have been reached with the good news when Armageddon arrives? What about the mentally ill? What about . . . ?’ Granted, at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues. He will do so, however, in a righteous and merciful way. We should never doubt that. In fact, we may be amazed and delighted to observe him resolve them in a way that we never even considered.—Compare Job 42:3; Psalm 78:11-16; 136:4-9; Matthew 15:31; Luke 2:47." '(W)e may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues'. Far from contradicting the previous statement: "survival will be impossible", the last paragraph explains, in detail, the possibilities. Comparing them as if they are contradictory (which is what Central intends to do) is not accurate, on top of being (original research). To Jehovah's Witnesses these questions are a given, everyone knows this, and we know there's no need for the WTB&TS to fully explicate all possibilities everytime Armageddon survival is discussed. Also I must point out that Touchestone is not my website (I only post their occasionally), and the article regarding Armageddon survivors was written and posted by an active Witness (not me) on Aug. 25, 2003. Duffer 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The sources we have brought forth unequivocally deny the possibility of non-Witness survivors. Maybe the words used are too big for you or something. You have to give it to the Watchtower though, contracting yourself on the same physical piece of paper and having it go unquestioned by [text removed by mediator] believers is quite an accomplishment. I also wish to point out that many of the quotes that have been presented have been from literature that is commonly left with people who they wake up at 8 in the morning on Saturdays and don't have this 'unique to Duffer1' knowledge that he asserts that he has, thus indicating, as should have been obvious by now, that his story of 'only Witnesses can interpret English any more' is bullshit.Tommstein 10:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This language is utterly and inexcusably offensible. How much longer are we to assume good faith? - CobaltBlueTony 18:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The utter stupidity of seemingly every Jehovah's Witness on Wikipedia, starring those bullshitting on everyone else's time on this page, is utterly and inexcusably offensible. How much longer are we to assume good faith?Tommstein 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving beyond Proposal 10-Part II
Can I start by mentioning how impressed I am by how far you have all come with this paragraph. With input from all editors this issue seems to be on its way towards an amicable solution. Just a few ideas:
 * 1) The first sentence in the paragraph is too long and very confusing. You have to read through it several times before you can really understand the information it is trying to convey.
 * 2) I don’t really understand the need to stress the majority or minority of references. What we seem to be dealing with here are two separate groups. The first who are capable of making an informed decision and the second who are not. The WT publications merely refer more frequently to the situation of the first group than the second.
 * 3) I have read the above objections to including any reference to God’s righteousness in judgment. This section is designed to outline JW beliefs. JW publications state that although they do not know all of the details, judgement will occur in a righteous manner. We have no reason to simply leave this point out.

SUGGESTION: ''Witness publications teach the only hope (but no guarantee) of surviving Armageddon comes through organizational membership and adherence to the scriptural interpretations of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Governing body acknowledges that the scriptures do not specify the outcome for some, such as those incapable o reasoning due to mental illness. In such cases the publications teach that God will deal with such ones in an unknown, but ultimately righteous manner.'' Lucille S 04:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to assume that this proposal was made in jest. The issue with the righteousness stuff was that Witnesses would consider anything from God killing everybody to God killing nobody to be righteous, so it doesn't actually tell the reader anything of use about their beliefs; it's basically just filler.Tommstein 10:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings all,
 * (Tommstein, use of the characterization "dumbass" is not necessary, please modify that sentence! Thanks.)
 * I have begun to get my hands on outside publications on Witnesses beliefs. Specifically, I have the first edition of M. James Penton's work, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have an inter-library loan request for the second edition.  My hope is it will clear some of this.
 * As I am reading this book, it is interesting to note how the JW views have "evolved" over time. I would like to suggest this as a serious editorial consideration for the statement we are working on.  Historically, the Witness have been unclear about when they were first considered "God's modern-day organization."  So, it appears to me, that the Witness organization is clarifying original statements about who are part of the "saved."  The proposed statement may go something like this:
 * "Witness publications teach . . . . Those "who do not submit to God's rule" . . . . Since 1973, a few citations in Witness publications indicate a softening in this distinction: that the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning/mentally ill, is unresolved in scripture, so their providence remains in "God's hands."

--SteveMc 18:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree to this. Duffer 19:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, they change their beliefs more than some of their members change underwear, but this belief is something that has remained consistent, with plenty of post-1973 quotes (if any are pre-1973, for whatever reason that year has now been deemed special, there aren't many). I'm not sure what Penton can say that would take precedence over what they say, Penton not being the determiner of their beliefs.Tommstein 06:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tommstein,
 * the 1973 date was chosen based upon what appears (to me) to be the earliest time that the WTS stated the possibility of the (so called) "grey ones." If there is something else earlier in history, please advise.
 * one of the books that I am reading (Robert Crompton, Counting the Days to Armageddon: The Jehovah's Witnesses and The Second Presence of Christ, Cambridge: James Clarke & Company, 1996, p. 115.) Regarding modern sources:
 * "it has long been the practice of the Society, where revision of doctrine has been found to be necessary, to publish up-to-date treatment superseding the earlier position, but this has often been done without explicit reference to what has been superseded. . . Since it has always been the Society's intention that [doctrinal] variation . . .should not occur, it is, perhaps, fair to assume that where there are significant differences of treatment, a later publication is always intended to supersede an earlier one. Much of the time, no confusion arises.  In the case of Watch Tower ecclesiology especially, however, there may be some variation remaining in what has so far been published which cannot be resolved by assuming that the later treatment supersedes the earlier.  So, whilst one ought not to protray as confused what may be capable of coherent explanation, some caution must be exercised when offering solutions to problems which have not been addressed."


 * based upon this recommendation from Crompton, it seems necessary for someone outside of Wikipedia's editors, to provide some type of interpretation of this seeming contradiction. As Wikipedians, we cannot do this, so getting outside sources is important here.  I agree that Penton is not the determiner of their beliefs, but it is necessary to gather an interpretation, since Penton's works are considered neutral on the JW page, his seems a good one to use.
 * --SteveMc 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It says "whilst one ought not to protray as confused what may be capable of coherent explanation, some caution must be exercised when offering solutions to problems which have not been addressed." Some things are capable of "coherent explanation." I do not see how 'only Witnesses will survive, period' and 'not only Witnesses will survive' is. In fact, I think that my ideas regarding not "offering solutions," but rather just saying that 'this is what they say,' are more in line with the quote than "offering solutions" for how 'only Witnesses will survive, period' and 'not only Witnesses will survive' is in fact harmonious.Tommstein 15:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Tommstein, I note here that the use of "dumbass" has not be removed, why is that? I appeal to your sense of decency to remove it. Sincerely, SteveMc 02:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you discovered the recourse to 'argumentum ad having Tommstein banned' on the Arbitration page shortly after posting that.Tommstein 16:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew that page was there before I posted, and I was not using the post on arbitration page as a recourse. I simply believe the facts are important, somewhat naively, notwithstanding your post above, and wanted the arbitration page to reflect those facts.  If I have something to say, I will say it directly, politely, and assertively.  I do not believe in name calling or in aggresive posturing.  My opinions are mine and I will assert them with respect for the opinions of others.  If I am wrong, I will change, I am not too big for that either.  I sincerely appreciate the positions of all parties on this page; every one has made very significant behavior modification, which should be recognized!  Thanks to you and to all.  Sincerely, SteveMc 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)  P.S. This discussion is off topic, I will move it to the talk page shortly.


 * Say what? No, no, I was talking about Duffer1, Cobaltbluetony, et al., not you. I just meant that you discovered their recourse to 'argumentum ad having Tommstein banned', not that you were doing it yourself. I see now that my above statement was somewhat ambiguous. My thanking you on the Arbitration page for trying to insert some facts into the freak show should have disambiguated what I meant. I think that writing "their recourse" instead of just the generic "the recourse" would have made clearer what I meant; so few letters, so much clarification.Tommstein 14:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, thanks for the clarification. I hoped that was what was meant.  SteveMc 20:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I ask you again to remove "dumbass" from your earlier post. Again, it is not necessary. Removal would demonstrate your believe in civility to resolve problems. Thanks, SteveMc 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just come across this very recent statement in the December 15, 2005 Watchtower, page 29, paragraphs 17 & 19:


 * "A similar shocking end will come to the symbolic harlot who has the name "Babylon the Great." The harlot represents the false religions of Satan's world, which have their origin in the ancient city of Babylon. After false religion's end, Jehovah God will turn his attention to all humans who make up the secular parts of Satan's world. These will also be destroyed, preparing the way for a righteous new world...On whose side will you be during that great day of judgment? Act decisively now, and you  may be privileged to be included among the "great crowd" of human survivors of "the great tribulation".  Then you will be able to look back with joy, and you will praise God for executing judgment on "the great harlot who courrpted the earth with her fornication. United with other true worshippers, you will be in agreement with the thrilling words that heavenly voices sing: "Praise Jah, you people, because Jehovah our God, the Almighty, has begun to rule as king."

I think this very recent quotation argues against the idea that Witness doctrine on this has "evolved."

I propose we break this bullet down to 2 bullets:

All other religions are false and under Satan's control and will shortly be destroyed by the United Nations. All governments are also under Satan's control.

"After false religion's end, Jehovah God will turn his attention to all humans who make up the secular parts of Satan's world. These will also be destroyed, preparing the way for a righteous new world." (15 December 2005 Watchtower, p. 29) A few citations in Witness publications indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning/mentally ill, is unresolved in scripture, so their providence remains in "God's hands."

Dtbrown 18:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting citation, but it doesn't seem to say anything as to the "grey area" ones. The point which seems to still be in question is whether Witnesses believe in the grey area idea or not, and despite the citations mentioned that show the idea exists in our publications, the other editors want to emphasize their opinion of it as insignificant because of the "vast" majority of references which discuss the free will choices of mature and responsible individuals.  Even their assessment of such statements as "sidestepping" is their own opinion, and not a simple statement of fact.


 * Your rewording is just as accurate as ones above; let's see if they have any objection as it stands on its own.


 * For a comparison of "humans who make up the secular parts of Satan's world," see Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand!" (published in 1988), pp. 267-8, paras. 4, 5.
 * - CobaltBlueTony 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps your reading lessons aren't working out. Saying that "all humans who make up the secular parts of Satan's world... will also be destroyed" doesn't leave gray, blue, red, or purple people, per most people's having learned the definition of "all" in kindergarten.Tommstein 14:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This perception ignores the previous quote which indicates that unknown variables will be handled justly by God. Is there any new evidence to submit?  If not, may we please settle on Dtbrown's suggestion and move on?  Please? - CobaltBlueTony 03:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This perception ignores the previous 8,963 quotes which indicate that there are no unknown variables, that only Jehovah's Witnesses are supposed to get through and all others are supposed to die.Tommstein 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A bit of clarification for Steve on what exactly "secular" means. The rest of the paragraph goes on to state: "These will also be destroyed, preparing the way for a righteous new world. - Revelation 17:3-6; 19:19-21; 21:1-4".  Rev. 19:19-21 is cited here to re-affirm that it is the Governments and their armies (and all who may support either) will be destroyed.  We believe that the situation will become so dire that the Governments of this Earth will stand in direct opposition to God, possibly to the extent that they even may rally their armies.  This is what is meant by "secular", and I think Dtbrown's proposed bullets reflect that accurately, however, this does not speak directly about the issue at hand as Cobaltbluetony pointed out.  (I think we can go ahead and incorporate Dt's bullet suggestions into the article unless there's something already there that states similarly, though if we do I think the second one can be changed a bit: "All governments are also under Satan's control, and will likewise be destroyed, but this time by Jesus at Armageddon."  (the destruction of the Harlet by the Govts takes place before Armageddon))  Duffer 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)  (that's odd, my timestamp says the 24th, though it is the 23rd..)


 * The problem is, the English word "secular" has a well-known English definition, and it ain't a synonym for "governments", as you would know if you had ever heard of a dictionary instead of pulling completely arbitrary and nonsensical definitions out of your ass as convenient.Tommstein 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I believe the "grey area" exists which is why I included it in the second sentence of the proposed second bullet. Personally I think the quote from the 2005 Watchtower is strong enough to balance the "few citations" mentioned in the second sentence. I really don't think we can "fine tune" the tension between the two sentences without ending up doing original research. Dtbrown 21:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, based on Duffer & CobaltBlueTony's comments I went ahead and posted the bullets. I realize they do not deal with the fine point of exactly who will survive (except by implication) but thought they might pass a consensus test, allowing each side to interpret the Watchtower statement as they wished. I'm wondering: do we need to split hairs and go further or can we leave it rest here? Dtbrown 05:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I see that just the two bullets listed here below have been put on to the main page, and not the full version:


 * All other religions are false and under Satan's control and will shortly be destroyed by the United Nations (based on Revelation 17:3-6, 16-18); All governments are also under Satan's control and will be destroyed by Christ at Armageddon (based on Revelation 16:16; 17:8-14)


 * "After false religion's end, Jehovah God will turn his attention to all humans who make up the secular parts of Satan's world. These will also be destroyed, preparing the way for a righteous new world." (15 December 2005 Watchtower, p. 29; based on Revelation 19:19-21; 21:1-4) A few citations in Witness' publications indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning/mentally ill, is unresolved in scripture, so their providence remains in "God's hands."

The full version that we have been debating for weeks is missing.


 * The vast majority of citations in Witness publications teach the only hope (but no guarantee) of surviving Armageddon comes through organizational membership and adherence to the scriptural interpretations of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Those "who do not submit to God's rule" as stipulated by the Governing Body face certain destruction at Armageddon. A few citations indicate that the fate of some, such as those incapable of reasoning/mentally ill, is unresolved in scripture, so their providence remains in "God's hands."

The two new bullets bring in new subjects of the "false religion" (which is POV, it should really be non-Jehovah's Witness religions), and the second bullet brings in a red herring word "secular", again as a new topic. If they are needed, as they might be, we should also have the full quote as well, which clarifies and covers all others, otherwise the whole subject is just being made more vague and off topic. Why use a word like secular unless it's inserted by JWs to distract the reader and give some kind of deceitful slant, as if it's some smaller group, rather than the whole human race that are not Jehovah's Witnesses. I have no problem with the bullets on their own, but they definitely should not be seen as some kind of solution to this long and drawn out debate, they must be additions, not dilution or fracturing of the main concise statement. I will also add the latest solution from you under the two bullets, as they all cover different areas. Central 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I have removed the second bullet. I misread the responses here and probably should have waited for more replies before posting it. My apologies. I think it's wrong to think the use of "secular" is "deceitful." If others want to use the idea from that bullet that's fine with me. I wanted to re-insert the "dispute tag" and restore the old version but I didn't know how to do it. Dtbrown 15:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving beyond Proposal 10-Part III
Greetings all, I will continue to work on it, but I have to spend some time mediating on the "tired light" page.--SteveMc 20:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the hiatus, things are very busy right now in my life (in a good way), and I am balancing Wikipedia with work and baseball (yes, it begins this early).
 * My reading of Penton's book is certainly interesting, but, in the end, not to helpful for this dispute. In the Preface of the book he states, "In so far as Witness doctrine is concerned, I have avoided taking definite stands except where it can be demonstrated that these doctrines are right or wrong, historically, empirically, and logically.  It is not the responsibility of an historian, which is primarily what I am, to argue from a particular doctrinal stance."  I conclude that he (a) did not consider this doctrine, (b) consider this particular doctrine unsettled, or (c) considered this doctrine unimportant for his book.  Whatever the reason, I am left with little support from Penton.
 * What I have learned is that, historically, the JW leadership has been all over on this idea. Originally, Russell was very sympathetic toward other (non-JW) religions.  However, over time he grew more parochial.  However, it was Rutherford who closed ranks around "the church" and "the great crowd".  In the 60's the society began to move away from their parochialism, stating a pre-Armageddon resurrection would occur for many (if not most unbelievers, but certainly not the "lawlessness" or apostate classes).  Granted, this does not cover the survial of Armageddon, but it does indicate a slight softening of Society view toward those outside of the JWs.  Sometime in the early 70's these statements, quoted by Wikipedians, about those in the "grey" began to appear.
 * I like the suggestion of Dtbrown to somehow divide this issue further; though I am as yet unsure how to do that. Without the help of an outsider researcher, we are left with the facts as stated by Society publications.  Since the Society does little to bluntly clarify its views, we can do little more than what we are doing.

One more thing, Tommstein, your edits have grown more beligerent toward other editors, especially the admitted JW editors. Not only is this approach very unproductive, it destroys the good faith we assume toward you. I believe that this behavior stems from the arbitration being taken against you, nevertheless you continue to willingly and openly defy Wikipedia rules and protocols, indicating a lack of concern for the mission of Wikipedia. I know you are capable of considerate behavior, since when you address me, your demeanor is calm, considered, and considerate. I am on your side, why continue to ignore my requests on this page? If you care at all about Wikipedia, then I request that my concerns be addressed, that the beligerent comments be removed, and that this behavior be stopped. Again, I appeal to your sense of civility. Thank-you, SteveMc 02:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tommstein has already been indefinately blocked (happened before the Arbitration was even accepted), this decision was upheld by the ArbCom, but just today they have unblocked him so he may comment on his Arbitration only (not sure if any of the Admins have told him that yet or not..).   Duffer 06:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Duffer,
 * I am concerned about the perspective you defend being widely settled within the Society. I believe that your local parish teaches this view, as you state, the same with Cobaltbluetony, but I have to wonder if it is as universal as you claim.  As I read Penton's book, he discusses that some local parishes are "liberal" and some are "conservative."  I can see how some local parishes may not interpret the writings of the Society as your parish does.  At this point, I believe that to go further with our disputed paragraph, Wikipedia requires some outside reference.  Since the Society seems reluctant to offer a bold and blunt statement about these views, do you have anything else to reference that will bolster your position?
 * Please let me clarify the preceeding paragraph: I am not trying to use the parishes to divert attention away from the fact that the Governing Body sets JW doctrine (not the parishes).  What I am saying is that this particular doctrine seems murky enough that it could be interpreted in either way.  So to use your particular experience with it could be nNPOV.  As Penton recommends, I am trying to apply caution to neither rectify a seeming contradiction, nor to create division where one is not intended.

Your input is appreciated. --SteveMc 19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your diligence in trying to find the certainty of the matter. I've heard that some congregations can be more liberal or conservative in terms of disciplinary action (I'm apprehensive to believe that), but as for teachings, no I do not believe it is as murky as our current dispute may appear, regardless of how few publications fully explicate the nuance of our doctrine.  As for outside reference, I don't think a nuetral presentation of our doctrines exists, however I have provided the words of my brothers from around the world (the guys at Touchestone who wrote the article), and they're saying the same thing I am; it is not a contradiction, it is complimentary.  Duffer 07:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator must continue to be away
Greetings all, I cannot contribute regularly to Wikipedia right now. I am gladly willing to let this case go to another mediator. Please request a new mediator, with my regrets. SteveMc 17:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)