User:Stevenwmccrary58/dev

Mediator's Proposal 6

Here it is:

"Witnesses believe the only hope (but not an absolute guarantee) for surviving Armageddon comes through adherence 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 adherence to the scriptural interpretations (including membership in Jehovah's Witnesses) of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses." SteveMc 21:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (link)

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 something 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 technically 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)

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 definition 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)

I resign from this discussion see 1 Timothy 6:4,5 George 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your parting insult, whoever it was directed at.Tommstein 23:23, 12 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 argument 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)

mediator's question

TO: Duffer and Cobaltbluetony,

• 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."
  1. Proclaimers book, 1993, p.676-the phrase, "Jehovah's organization," seems to be a direct reference to the Jehovah's Witness organization.
  2. Watchtower magazine 15 January 1999, p.9-the phrase, "his modern-day Christian organization," seems a direct reference as well.
  3. 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."

--SteveMc 19:46, 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)

TO: Central, please review the proposal above. Thanks, SteveMc 21:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)