Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stevenwmccrary58 (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 9 January 2006 (→Questions on Armageddon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1 - Misc. - Discussion with Central

Vote for JW structure

Please vote for or against the adoption of the proposed structure for WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses on the talk page and sign your name with ~~~~. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Editing Jehovah's Witnesses articles

Because of the volatile and tenacious nature of certain editors whose stated or subliminal goal is to detract from Jehovah's Witnesses at any and every opportunity, I am making it my goal to recommend to new and existing editors interested in JW articles to review the Misplaced Pages's policies:

• WP:NOR - no original research
• WP:V - verifiability
• WP:NPOV - Misplaced Pages: neutral point of view (this one is critical to JW pages edits especially)
• WP:CIV - Civility

We do have to keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not the proper forum for any form of proselytizing. This is an academic endeavor, and to make it worthwhile for Jehovah's Witnesses to contribute positively, abiding by the rules of the forum and sticking to the facts will help us not only keep these articles and the discussions behind them free from ineffective and off-topic banter, but present a respectable product that addresses all sides, but keeps them in perspective.

It is best to ignore insults and off-topic discussions, addressing only the pertinent points so as to reach a consensus regarding the content of these pages. If you must address them, it's best to simply cite the Misplaced Pages standards and redirect your focus to content and format. I hope my suggestions help. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello CBT. I got my internet back up and running. You have posted some good suggestions, things I know I need to work on. Thank you :) Duffer 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Debating theological points

Matt, it's very easy to get sucked into debating what we believe, but remember that it's not the point of the article to justify or prove anything. This is an academic exercise to attempt to impartially delineate our faith, and issues that are raised by it, to a reasonable extent. If you engage other editors in scriptural debates, it's like arguing with a household in the door-to-door ministry or heck, even trying to shout down an apostate outside a convention. We just don't do that sort of thing. And you know exactly why, so I don't even need to expand that point at all.

What we need to do, to be faithful, productive, and consistent, is to make sure what we believe is properly represented and that counterpoints are indentified as exactly that: opposing views. If someone says the Society/GB is duplicitous in fighting legal battles for the rights of the organization but denies them to us as members, we have to refute that. But if they want to say that 1914 is not supported by scholars, that point is a counterpoint, not pertinent in representing our beliefs. It needs to be separated out in whatever manner those things should be represented on Misplaced Pages.

Central and Tommstein WANT to debate what you believe and disrupt your faith. You wouldn't do this in person, or on some other format online; don't give them the satisafaction here. By limiting the extent to which we interact with them, we maintain our safeguards, and let them continue to sit outside and 'weep and gnash their teeth.' - Φιλία, CobaltBlueTony 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have amazing mind-reading abilities for a member of a fringe religion that preaches isolation from the rest of the world to the extent possible short of going Amish. You should contract those amazing powers out for pay.Tommstein 09:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Check your email, please? - CobaltBlueTony 20:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed guideline for WP:JW

I saw that you dispute the validity of the new guideline, so I moved it to a proposed section, and created a talk page for it here. Please continue the discussion there. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Will do Duffer 08:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Page

Hi Duffer, I wondered if I could encourage you to support the rewrite I proposed so that a new subject could be addressed. What I submitted covers the points you are requesting to be covered in a matter of fact fashion. Which is exactly what we are aiming for, no? The other reason is that the opposing camp seems to be ok with it. This way we can bring the current 'argument' to an end. George 20:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I already have (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F27_12_2005_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=33214731&oldid=33202495) I like it, but would like to see the implicit made more explicit by adding something like: "however, they do not discount the possibility". What do you think? Duffer 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Duffer, On the Mediation Cabal page, you posted the following, Central's post "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". Please clarify this, I am not sure that I understand it. Thanks, SteveMc 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation 2

Hi, your request has been accepted. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, that was fast, I havn't even had a chance to post about it on the NWT page hehe. Duffer 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi please comment on my question on that Talk page: "I suppose that you don't intend to suppress or obscure information but simply disagree with vague, suggestive statements." This was now commented on in the negative by Tommstein, and this apparent misunderstanding may be the cause of your dispute. Harald88 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Responded, sorry I missed it, or I would have responded sooner. Duffer 21:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions on Armageddon

1. Duffer, on the mediation over Armageddon, you placed this statement:

   "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."

   So, being a Witness does not ensure survival through Armageddon, so how does survival occur? randomly? being chosen by God (if so, what is the basis of God's choosing)?

2. How many Witness hold the position that tommstein is stating? In other words, how many believe that being a Witness is the only way to survive Armageddon? How strongly does the WTS teach this belief?

Thanks, SteveMc 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC), added second question SteveMc 15:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer to question 1, Duffer wrote:

It ensures the best hope, but it does not guarantee. Duffer 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Being a Witness provides the best possible hope, rejecting our theology provides no hope, but how can you reject what you have not known? Tomm's unique ideas about Jehovah's Witness theology are his alone and they are most assuredly NOT shared by any active Jehovah's Witness. The Touchestone article I provided a link to was written by several active Jehovah's Witnesses who have previously encountered this misconception about our doctrine (none of those Witnesses have anything to do with Misplaced Pages). You must understand that Tommstein is not interested in accuracy, evan a cursory examination of his edits as well as the comments that administrators have left on his talk page clearly show this. Duffer 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, do Witnesses have any idea why not being a faithful (I mean honestly faithful!) Witness does not ensure survival at Armageddon? I ask this because I am trying to determine what "best hope" really means. SteveMc 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)