JW's and Internet. Wikipedia?

by Burger Time 18 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Frequent_Fader_Miles
    Frequent_Fader_Miles
    many are so delusional that anything they read that is negative about the organization is obviously slander.....

    Don't forget "demonized" .....

  • JWdaughter
    JWdaughter

    I thought the independent thought thing has been going on for EVER, thought the independent study(DON'T) movement was largely because of things like Greg Stafford et al who studied themselves right out of the org. (that guy in europe olaf?) First, Stafford made a big deal about being a logical supported of the Borg. Then he fell away also. http://www.elihubooks.com/ Looks like he is trying to start his own religion-not sure where he is going with that.

  • Burger Time
    Burger Time

    Thanks for everyone's replies. As far as the no independent research I know all about the shakeup in the early 80's and the hard line approach. It seems though that they have again cracked down hard, harder then when I remember (90's to early 2000). It seems that sites like Wikipedia which offer more info then a real encyclopedia is VERY dangerous for a JW. At least obvious "apostate" sites are easily recognizable. With Wikipedia it just seems like a normal thing and you can't help but look and read. That's all I was saying.

  • freeme
    freeme

    the (technically advanced) jws i know think wikipedia is a nice tool, but there are aware of the fact that everyone is able to edit the articles. so the jw article is obviously filled with apostate lies and they dont even want to take a look at it. i was this way before too. some did take a look and think not as good about wikipedia as they did before now (quote "when they lie about us so much how much truth is in the other articles then?"). and they keep tellin' me about wikipedia that its not smart to trust the articles much since one cant know who writes them (and dont know them personally to know whether he/she is trustworthy) and what is the intention of the author.

    its always amazing how critical many jws handle all sources, but the society. they dont know the authors too, but they base their life on the writings. they trust them so much, that every critical note anywhere MUST be a lie.

    dont get me wrong, im a critical person myself. i dont trust wikipedia 100%. i dont even trust a conventional encyclopedia 100%. its never 100% under any circumstances.

    its just amazing how one can maintain such a big double standard without noticeing it. i did it too! and i always thought im critical. only when it came to the society i felt just guilty and stopped thinking.

  • LayingLow
    LayingLow

    I believe reading the content on wikipedia about witnesses really got the ball rolling for me. I had already had doubts, but when I looked at the timeline of doctrine changes, I felt sick. It's been a ride since then.

  • still_in74
    still_in74

    you are absolutely right.

    I know others, even elders that use wikipedia. They read all kinds of the links on the JW page, even about Ray Franz. I can assure it leads elsewhere.

    I for one am a perfect example, "Hell, its just Wikipedia" so I read it and kept on clicking. The next think you know I stopped going in service, purchased and read C of C, and have been living on the edge of a nervous breakdown ever since....that was less than one year ago!

    BTW - Ive seen the Wiki JW article vandalized 2 times. Once it said "JW's are nuts" in the opening text, another time it had a whole paragraph inserted as to how they are a mind control cult - the second time I was with a brother showing him the site and how accurate it was too! Too funny!

  • LayingLow
    LayingLow

    Now that you mention it, I also was clicking around the links on the JW section of wikipedia when I came across a link to Ray Franz. I already had difficulty with doctrine. Eventually that got me to the point where I followed his wiki article and then read some of the free chapters of his book. Amazing how it all went down. For me to follow that link, however, I already had determined through study that several things were wrong, his book only confirmed it (and gave me further scriptural reenforcement). My friend at one point was showing me the wiki article, I'm sure he doesn't know what a part that played in my leaving.

  • Perry
    Perry

    I think that the word Wikipedia is too close to the word wicked. So if we are to keep oneself without spot from the world, it is clear that true christians would want to steer clear of any gray area that might cause others to stumble.

  • Tired of the Hypocrisy
    Tired of the Hypocrisy

    As far as I know, most of Wiki is fair to middling on info. I never use it in my research projects for my college courses for the simple reason that my profs siscount the references. If I want a good reference to cite my online references usually have a url ending in .edu or .gov

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit