great idea metatron, but I think jourles is right. I would be shocked if publications don't get a once-over by the legal department before hitting the presses. any ex-bethelites with insider info would be welcome. My 2nd hand source indicated that someone in legal signs off on most material these days, but maybe W-A-C or Barbara Anderson or someone with 1st hand knowledge can confirm.
They seem to rely more on the local JW "interpreting" the publications. Oh, see that guy dressed up like a priest? That MUST be Christendom. See the guy with the robes and the beard? That must be a rabbi or a iman. The article never explicitly SAYS who is in the picture nor does the picture contain any identifying symbols (they looks like stock photos or drawings), but the local JW fills-in-the blank.
But the good local dubbies "can read between the lines". The last few years I was in (late 90's) I heard this more and more often from COs on the platform.
"the opposers twist what we print, but let the reader use discernment. we know what mother is REALLY means..." Believe me, for the controversial WT articles, the comments during the WT study are much more "hard-core" than what they dare print. But, unless you are there, you never hear it. They AREN'T pulling that many punches.
You are right, we ARE having an effect at that level.
A Chance to Wreck The Society.....
by metatron 56 Replies latest jw friends
-
silentWatcher
-
sir82
I would be shocked if publications don't get a once-over by the legal department before hitting the presses
I would have thought the same, but...
Check out the "Questions From Readers" from the July 15 Watchtower (there are several threads about it already). They mention "viewing child pornography" without bothering to mention that it is a felony, implying that judicial committees have no moral or legal obligation to tell anyone in law enforcement about it if some member of the congregation admits to it or is discovered.
I can hardly believe that a conscientious lawyer would let that out in 20 million + copies of the WT. So, while I certainly would expect the "Legal" reviews everything that goes into print, I'm not 100% sure that it does.
-
minimus
Sir, their making that statement does not mean anything. They do not need to say anything about the law......What they did or didn't say on this subject doesn't require a lawyer. Legal is involved in EVERYTHING that they need to be and usually they are very good at being lawyers. They seldom, sadly, lose.
-
metatron
There wasn't an absolute need to have a lawyer qualify that Question From Readers, but nonetheless, it is a little surprizing, especially
given the controversy and trouble about this topic. If it wasn't an oversight, I'd say they were being rather arrogant about their ability
to fend off legal trouble with this.
I am very hopeful , given the layoffs and their prejudice against higher education, that they are on the verge of making one or more
profound mistakes. They are dumb - and getting collectively dumber. More decline will make them more desperate - and that's what
brings down empires.
metatron
-
KW13
Firstly - the post is on this site so by now someone at a bethel is likely to of read it (lurker)
Secondly - it will confirm what people in the org believe, that apostates are just idiots wanting trouble
Thirdly - no thanks, i have enough here to prove a witness wrong anytime and i dont want my chances messing up
good luck though
-
Gregor
GREGOR-
"I think commando style etc." How is not wearing underpants going to bring down the WT you big daffy puddin' ?
HB
Well...it's hard to explain, but I think it might help and it can't hurt...unless your riding a bicycle. BDP
-
Jourles
So how did this all turn out now that we know what is contained in the tract?