WT letter advises JWs not to edit Wikipedia articles on JW subjects

by cabasilas 44 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Band on the Run

  One item jumped out at me. Has anyone noticed that the JW editors are not normal Witnesses. They spend vast amounts of time. Their educational level is clearly above elementary school. I enjoyed the debate because there was debate. They held their own. Normal Witnesses can not. The JW editors must reflect .00001 of all Witnesses.

  The article was great b/c it was accurate, given the tensions between the two camps. I tire of reading apostate lit. b/c it is preaching to the choir. Wikipedia made you truly think and rebut. I wonder who the noncomitted editors are.

  I would love to meet all the editors in real life.

  The WT may ban the Internet. I'm surprised they don't sell devices that only can access JW.org. Wikpedia will remain the first choice of most people.

  Wikipedia is a more important forum than 100 forums such as this one. When an apostate editor won one, I knew that the WT doctrine or practice was defeated despite the best JW spin. Most JW are so ignorant that there is no sport in arguing with them.

  Does anyone know if they were all Bethelites for certain. Some joker used to hang out the Reference Desk. No matter what the question in Humanities, he gave an answer and referred people to the only accurate translation, the NWT. The normal reference desk people posted a standard disclaimer that he was an active Witness. Next, they listed a succint summary of the value of the NWT. The disclaimers were powerful. The Witness either gave up or was banned.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  From the 2006 OP:

  Apparently, the Watchtower Society has recently issued formal advice that individual Witnesses should not edit JW articles on Wikipedia.

  I struggle to believe that. There is nothing in the U.S. BOE indexes referring to any formal counsel about editing Wikipedia (or similar) articles about JWs.

  I wonder if it is related to these later shenanigans from a JW apologist/Wikipedia editor - http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/245387/1/WTF-Tried-Jehovahs-Witnesses-to-delete-Raymond-from-Wikipeda-a-couple-minutes-ago
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I think the reason they would give private counsel to individual involved would be because they don't want Jehovah Witnesses in general looking up things about the Corporation in wiki and so they don't want to advertise to the rank and file that information about the Corporation and it's problems and teaching is on wiki a nonappostate information source that could wake up many JWs to the TATT.

  Can you imagine the difficulties that would arise if the WT came out and warned people not to edit articles about the Watchtower Corporation on Wikipedia. Right away many would be out of curiousity drawn to wiki to check things out and then the organization would have to print refuting arguments to many of the topics they wish to just hide and hope they go away.

  Can you imagine the number of potential editors from the r&f if they went public with their dislike for those doing that.

  They would be sending the R&F into the lion's den so to speak:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_congregational_discipline

  individuals in the congregation if the unbaptized person is considered to pose "an unusual threat". [ 100 ]

  Critical view [ edit ]

  The only way to officially leave Jehovah's Witnesses is to disassociate or be disfellowshipped, and both entail the same set of prohibitions and penalties, with no provision for continued normal association. Sociologist Andrew Holden has claimed that fear of family break-up or loss causes people who might otherwise freely leave the religion to remain members. [ 101 ] Jehovah's Witnesses state that disfellowshipping is a scripturally documented method to protect the congregation from the influence of those who practice serious wrongdoing. [ 102 ] Critics contend that the judicial process itself, due to its private and nearly autonomous nature, directly contradicts the precedent found in the Bible and the organization's own teachings and can be used in an arbitrary manner if there is consensus among just a few to abuse their authority. [ 103 ]

  According to Raymond Franz, a letter dated September 1, 1980, from the Watch Tower Society to all circuit and district overseers advised that a member who "merely disagrees in thought with any of the Watch Tower Society's teachings is committing apostasy and is liable for disfellowshipping." [ 104 ] The letter states that one does not have to "promote" different doctrines to be an apostate, adding that elders need to "discern between one who is a trouble-making apostate and a Christian who becomes weak in the faith and has doubts." [ 104 ] Watch Tower Society publications indicate that some type of action is required for a member to be disfellowshipped, rather than a 'disagreement in thought'. [ 105 ]
• 

  Oubliette

  AnnOMaly: There is nothing in the U.S. BOE indexes referring to any formal counsel about editing Wikipedia (or similar) articles about JWs.

  I recall it being a more vague directive in the Kingdom Ministry. Wikipedia wasn't specifically named, but I certainly understood that was the message as well as similar sites.
• 

  Band on the Run

  My JW aunt just happened to glance at the cover of a National Geographic in my mom's apartment. The headline was inconsistent with WT statements. We said nothing. I just observed. She literally shook. Her husband was present so he ordered her to put the mag down. He said not to think. It was some witness to faith.

  I actually felt sorry for her. The National Geo article was on some tangent issue. People truly believe the Witness malarkey.