Much can be said on this topic. For now I'd just remark on the WT's impotence to write/debate in an open intelectual forum as Wikipedia as it is beyond WT's sphere of influence, one-way interpretations and biased decreets.
G
WT letter advises JWs not to edit Wikipedia articles on JW subjects
by cabasilas 44 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Jeffro
Funny stuff! I wonder if this will make it easier (for me at least) to edit JW-related Wikipedia articles.
Will it mean less work fixing the lies of some of the JW editors, or more work fixing the lies of some of the non-JW editors? The article will still require constant updating.
-
NanaR
Apparently, the Watchtower Society has recently issued formal advice that individual Witnesses should not edit JW articles on Wikipedia.
cabasilas,
By barring approved JWs from editing the articles, they can tell the R & F that Wikipedia is an "apostate" resource, thereby thinking that said R & F will stop consulting it (and that they can tell people they meet in FS that the "enemies of JWs" put that information up). But of course we know that at least some of the R & F DO access apostate sites already, so their tactic is basically creating another apostate resource.
Also, it seems to me that at least some of these JW editors might have had legitimate questions and asked these questions of the WT hierarchy. A letter like this would serve as a warning that certain kinds of questions are unacceptable.
How sad that anyone would feel motivated to close down frank and open discussion!
But in view of the WT view of the internet, I'm surprised that this did not happen sooner.
NanaR
-
TheScarletPimpernel
I spent a lot of time last year working on the Jehovah's Witnesses pages at Wikipedia, and found that I learnt more about JW doctrine than all the time I spent as a Witness.
I imagine the key thing the WTS is concerned about is that at Wikipedia, JWs are writing about what they believe. This has always been something strongly prohibited, long before the internet was around.
When people truly teach a topic (not just parrot information from a Bible study aid), it requires a much deeper understanding, and at this depth of thought one can can easily run into unanswerable questions and logical impossibilities of the doctrine. From the WTS's point of view, it is safer for JWs to be protected from this by only reading what they are given, and only repeating what they are told.
It's sad that the WTS continues to insist upon curtailing legitimate freedoms of its members, but it seems to simply be the emergent behaviour of cults.
(Good God, the formatting this forum uses is completely nonsensical!)
-
betterdaze
I can just picture it...
"Did you hear the latest? Wikipedia was TAKEN OVER by the Apostates! The Society says not to go there anymore."
"Why would we ever want to, anyway? Everything we need is provided by the Slave."
~Sue -
Jeffro
I can just picture it...
"Did you hear the latest? Wikipedia was TAKEN OVER by the Apostates! The Society says not to go there anymore."
"Why would we ever want to, anyway? Everything we need is provided by the Slave."
~SueSo close to the truth it's scary!
-
Scully
The WTS has been cautioning JWs against 'publicly refuting untruths' regarding JW beliefs for quite some time now. This was even mentioned in the public address titled "Beware the Voice of Strangers" (see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/57761/1.ashx) from the "Godly Devotion" District Convention back in 2003.
From the transcript:
Another area where we need to exercise extreme caution is in what we hear in news reports and documentaries. Now, we’ve touched on documentaries before, where they are promoted by the apostates, and they are becoming more and more prevalent; it’s obvious. But sometimes things are presented as truth in the media, but they’re not truth, or at least they’re not the whole truth, and they’re not presented by apostates, and the apostates have no connection with them. Maybe it’s just an overzealous reporter trying to make a name for himself and added to that he doesn’t like Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so he goes out and he spreads lies about them. How do you feel when you hear reports like that? Doesn’t make you feel good, does it? In fact, doesn’t it get you upset inside? I feel upset inside when that happens, at least temporarily. And we should be upset, we don’t like to hear things like that.
Something we want to keep in mind, friends, is that we don’t want to be personally refuting these untruths unless Jehovah’s Organization assigns us to do that publicly. Now when we talk to people in our ministry and elsewhere and they bring up points about what they have heard or read, sure, then we can present the truth to them. But we don’t want to be doing that publicly, because that very often just leads to worse reports about us.
Apparently, the problem is that JWs themselves are causing "worse reports about us" because they are not as well-informed as "the apostates", or because they are not properly trained in the art of spin-doctoring their beliefs so that they will be better received by the public.
-
jgnat
jwfacts: What it is doing is stopping thinking JWs having intelligent discussion on the internet.
Yes, and I mourn their exit.
-
Mary
and it is not a useful exercise to try to answer every challenge; at people's doors, if they want to debate us, we almost always walk away.
I find this statement particularly ironic, seeing as that is what the Witnesses like to do with people of other religions. Aren't they always debating doctrines with people at the doors? Yet when someone challenges them, they just "walk away"? Ya, that's really "defending the Truth". Typical cult mentality.
Wikipedia will always be a forum for constant challenge wherein "newcomers" can repeatedly edit incorrectly or inaccurately the same misinformation into the articles, requiring someone or a number of people to be everpresent to re-argue reality again and again. This is not a valuable use of my time.
Once again, this is an ironic stand to take for someone whose goal in life is to spread "this good news of the Kingdom" to everyone on earth. Seeing as millions of people read Wikipedia, surely this would be an extremely "valuable use" of his time, ensuring that the Truth is up there for all to read.
Your wording, specifically "I am still dismayed at the advice ... that JW Wikipedians should not edit JW articles," and "hopefully, some JW editors will have the courage to continue", concerns me, because it suggests that you still see our "leadership" as more dictatorial and that we do not really follow in our minds and hearts the Scriptural reasonings offered by them at all.
Gee, ya think?
-
moshe
Welcome Scarlet-P--
you said-
When people truly teach a topic (not just parrot information from a Bible study aid), it requires a much deeper understanding, and at this depth of thought one can can easily run into unanswerable questions and logical impossibilities of the doctrine. From the WTS's point of view, it is safer for JWs to be protected from this by only reading what they are given, and only repeating what they are told.
You are so right! I can just imagine the problems that Wikipedia has caused the WT Society. There are many, many dead end rabbit holes in WT theology now since the 1914 generation has been tweaked/changed so many times. Their pet King of the North vs king of the South dogma got all messed up with the exit of Russia from Communist control 15 years ago. That damage to WT dogma was never repaired and was left to fester like an open wound. They hope the rank and file forget about it in time- and that tactic really has worked for them. The more they tweak their blood rules the more the average JW does not now what to believe, let alone explain it to a non-JW. Like one JW told me yesterday about the blood fractions, she couldn't explain it, just watch our video, she said. Trying to disprove old WT dates/prophecy leads to a delving into the old publications and a consequent "crisis of faith". They have no comprehensive ringbinder of JW theology up in Brooklyn that can be consulted, either. Just a hodge podge of stories that look like they fit together to some degree to the JW's -That is,like you pointed out, as long as they don't try and prove it to themselves or others.