Revision as of 08:57, 7 January 2006 editDuffer1 (talk | contribs)1,637 editsm →Mediator's questions 2← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:02, 7 January 2006 edit undoDuffer1 (talk | contribs)1,637 edits →Mediator's questions 2: reply to TommNext edit → | ||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
: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 ] seems to have done though), since the text of the paragraph seems to be pretty accurate. The 'good behavior' here is probably a product of some of these editors trying to just get me blocked and then me composing a gigantonormous list of their own transgressions when they actually found somebody out there to block me for a day.] 23:24, 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 ] seems to have done though), since the text of the paragraph seems to be pretty accurate. The 'good behavior' here is probably a product of some of these editors trying to just get me blocked and then me composing a gigantonormous list of their own transgressions when they actually found somebody out there to block me for a day.] 23:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
:::Your behavior got you banned. You posted a list of reactionary comments by Jehovah's Witnesses who were doing nothing more than responding to yours or ]'s endless verbal abuse and harassment. You even lied about things I said in that "list" you provided. When I confronted you on it in an attempt to defend myself against your deceit you deleted my defense, twice! (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATommstein&diff=33896777&oldid=33896188). I hope your continued violations of the Administrators' guidelines gets you banned permanently. ] 09:02, 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. ] 03:50, 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. ] 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:02, 7 January 2006
Request for cabal mediation
Initial request
- Request made by: Duffer 10:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Status: mediator SteveMc 04:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC) responded, moved a very long discussion, and is awaiting response.
- Where is the issue taking place?
- The Jehovah's Witnesses and related pages.
- Who's involved?
- Duffer (myself), Tommstein, Central, due to the distinct lack of editors for this and related pages, others will likely want to be involved Konrad West, CobaltBlueTony, and Dtbrown.
- What's going on?
- A lengthy edit war is taking place over several aspects of the Jehovah's Witness page; the most significant of which is the matter of who will survive Armageddon according to Jehovah's Witness theology. I know such matters may sound abstract to people unfamiliar with Jehovah's Witness theology and/or biblical prophecy. Please bear with me.
- Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and officially teach, that many Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon to live life on a paradise earth. Those who actively, and conscientiously oppose and/or obstruct the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry will be killed at Armegeddon with no hope for resurrection. This 'with us-or-against us' message is proliferated in nearly all Jehovah's Witness publications. The problem is this message often gives the false impression that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that if you are not with us, then you will die at Armageddon. Such a belief is not accurate Jehovah's Witness theology. When confronted with questions about who will survive and who will not, Witnesses know that the "sheep" will be saved and the "goats" will not be. But what of those who are not a Jehovah's Witness yet still live righteously? Witnesses teach that the bible does not specify, and "we are not the judges" of such ones. It is this grey area of non-witness, yet righteous people, that is at the core of this edit war. The reverts:
- Mine: Those who consciously, and actively, oppose the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry will be eternally killed at Armageddon along with the unrighteous. Those who have no knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses, and live righteously, may possibly be spared.
- Tomm's and Central's: Humans who have had contact with Jehovah's Witnesses or know of them, and yet still do not actively side with Jehovah by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses will be eternally killed at Armageddon without consideration for age (based on Ezekiel 9; Insight On the Scriptures 1988, Vol. 1 p. 849) Depending on which of the Witnesses' publications you are looking at, some who never had contact or knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses may possibly be spared death due to their ignorance.
- My edit accurately reflects current Jehovah's Witness theology. I cited sources for this entry here: talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#The ONLY teaching of who will survive Armageddon. Tomm and Centrals' edit reflects old Jehovah's Witness theology that was revised around 1976. To support their edit they cite Watchtower Bible & Tract Society publications: talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Previous teachings about who will be destroyed at Armageddon. The problem is the quotes they cite are not specifically talking about the "grey area" (as I call it). They are talking about the "sheep" or "goats", not a single one of the quotes is specifically addressing the "grey area", contrary to that, the WBT&TS quotes that I have provided do specifically address the "grey area". WTBTS articles are themed, they follow a specific bible theme for that particular issue. These articles avoid specifics of off-theme subjects (such as the "grey area") so as to not detract from the overall theme of the article, which can cause confusion to non-Witness readers. This is not a new controversy to our page (see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 16#Unbelievers eternally destroyed?) the Jehovah's Witness Uberpenguin was virtually browbeat into silence through highly abusive language and spamming of out of context quotes. No Jehovah's Witness on this Wiki project agrees with Tomm and Central's edit, and the official WTBTS quotes I have provided unequivoclly speak against their edit. They claim we are lying, and/or ignorant of our faith and official teachings. Besides all of that, the source they cite in their edit itself (Insight On the Scriptures 1988, Vol. 1 p. 849) does not even mention the issue. Duffer 11:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I ultimately see this issue and the related pages/issues seeing official Wiki arbitration due to the abusive language of Tommstein, and the pervasive prejudice of both him and Central.
- What would you like to change about that?
- What Tomm and Central continuously RV to is an old Jehovah's Witness teaching (there is an appropriate section for this). I want current, official, Jehovah's Witness theology accurately represented, and past teachings (accurately presented) relegated to the appropriate section (which I would link to but the pages are such a damned mess I can't seem to find it..). A comprehensive list of articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses can be seen at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#List of articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Duffer 11:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- My E-mail is on my user page, however, I would prefer that this stay public if at all possible since there is really such a small amount of active editors of the articles in question.
- Other Issues
- An edit war on New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is taking place as well. The disputed entry (first paragraph of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Characteristics of the Translation section):
- This is grossly POV, libelous, and above all, innacurate; so I remove it. Only conjecture allows the conclusion they posit, not fact. I've even put forth a solution that offers user:Mini, user:Tommstein, and myself an amicable solution, half an hour later it was entirely ignored, and the deletion of the above quote was reverted. They are attempting the libel of an entire Bible translation based on instances of translation where the NWT is still ACCURATE and LITERAL, just the word (or phrase) used is not rendered the same as other instances of the same Greek word (or phrase) in other parts of the translation. NO BIBLE can do this and still be readable. Any of you ever try to read an Inerlinear translation?
- Now that we've gotten through the partially quoted, persecution complex side of that, here's the entire sentence:
- Note the specific claim: "one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering." The only mentioned deviation from that, without my addition, is "context allowing." The Greek word in question is "proskuneo". As the eight links I provided make clear, this is usually translated as "worship" in this translation. As they also make clear, they translate it differently when its object is one specific entity: Jesus. In those cases, they use "obeisance". So we look at the one mentioned deviation, "context allowing." Does the Greek context demand that Jesus be rendered "obeisance" instead of "worship"? No. The only reason for deviation in this one case is because the object is Jesus, whom Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe should be worshiped. Thus, the need for my addition, with the eight references provided when someone thought I was just making this up. Also, whether it is said that Jesus was "worshiped" or "rendered obeisance" has nothing to do with whether a translation is interlinear or not. Of note, someone else has provided a completely different example of this kind of stuff on the article in question's Talk page. This was not the only example, just the only one I brought up.Tommstein 10:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention it, but even earlier versions of this translation translated this word as "worship" at the places where it has now been changed to "obeisance", as the provided references talk about. The Greek certainly still says the same thing that it always has, so even this Bible's translators have unwittingly demonstrated that "worship" is a suitable translation of the Greek before correcting their 'mistake'.Tommstein 10:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could we have the dates of the revision(s)?
(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's_Witnesses/surviving_armegeddon by SteveMc 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Mediator's initial responses
Response 1
Greetings all,
- How much of this discussion should be occuring on the JW talk page instead of on this one? Please move there.
- 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.
- 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.
- In the future, please address all edits to me, not to the other users.
- Please stop insulting each other ("hide behind your ignorance", "zero regard for truth") and stick to the issues. Please assume good faith.
Sincerely, SteveMc 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Response 2
It appears that there are three issues disputed here:
- 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's_Witnesses/surviving_armegeddon. I am inclined to let it evolve to a solution without my input. SteveMc 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
How does this look? Thanks, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- (citations that dispute Duffer's claim)
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 Misplaced Pages 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. The 'good behavior' here is probably a product of some of these editors trying to just get me blocked and then me composing a gigantonormous list of their own transgressions when they actually found somebody out there to block me for a day.Tommstein 23:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your behavior got you banned. You posted a list of reactionary comments by Jehovah's Witnesses who were doing nothing more than responding to yours or user:Central's endless verbal abuse and harassment. You even lied about things I said in that "list" you provided. When I confronted you on it in an attempt to defend myself against your deceit you deleted my defense, twice! (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATommstein&diff=33896777&oldid=33896188). I hope your continued violations of the Administrators' guidelines gets you banned permanently. Duffer 09:02, 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)
- 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)
- I disagree with it: