How do they decide when to get rid of certain information in their publications?

by Tameria2001 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • ZindagiNaMilegiDobaara


    Ecclesiastes 1:9 New International Version (NIV)

    9 What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun.


  • dozy

    Ray Franz said in his books that if the GB change their minds then generally they just stop talking about something & the Rank & File forget about it.

  • stillin

    It always seemed to me that 99% of what gets printed is so insipid anyhow, there never really seemed to be anything substantial to make a bother about. I said to one of the elders once about some silly little different "new light," he was all abuzz about, that I don't feel the ground shaking. He just gave me a funny look.

  • slimboyfat

    I’ve always assumed that the rule is: any statement on any issue stands unless it is contradicted by a more recent statement. I can’t point to anywhere that outlines this policy, but it just seems to be the way JWs approach teachings in the literature.

    It’s true that the older a statement gets then it begins to raise a question whether it is still teaching, even when it has not been subsequently contradicted. An often cited example is the teaching about 7000-year creative days in Genesis, which was often stated in literature especially leading up to 1975. If I remember correctly the last statement to this effect was the 1980s, or earlier. So is it still current JW, or not? I don’t think it is clear. Unless someone has more information on this topic?

  • blondie

    How do they decide when to get rid of certain information in their publications?

    by Tameria2001 19 hours ago 13 Replies latest 5 hours ago watchtower bible

    • Tameria2001
      Tameria200119 hours ago

      I was recently watching a video on Youtube and on the John Cedars channel, he was talking about how the Watchtower has discontinued quite a few of their books from back when I was still active. So it got me to thinking about how do they decide that certain teaching doesn't fit them anymore. So I was wondering does anyone have any ideas on how they come to that decision because if any of their members bring up something, that person can be disfellowshipped?

      Link Dislike Like
    • pale.emperor
      pale.emperor19 hours ago

      I’ve wondered this myself. At what point does everyone know that such and such a book is old light? Is the Revelation book still cannon or is it old light now?

      Link Dislike Like
    • new boy
      new boy18 hours ago

      It's simple they pray on the matter.

      "Dear god we have a problem! You gave us some bad information about the pedophiles in the organization also about the years 1975, 1918, 1925 and 1914. We have dozens of book with false information with 'old/new light.' Remember the time back in 1971 when you told us you couldn't divorce your mates if they were gay or having sex with farm animals."

      "So what do we do now?"

      God of course says. "Burn the Books!"

      Link Dislike Like+2 / -0
    • no-zombie
      no-zombie18 hours ago

      While I'm of course not privy to the the Governing Body's thinking, I do believe that most of the publications co-authored by Ray Franz were purged after he was disfellowshiped. The Aid book and the Commentary on the book of James comes to mind. But more recently there was a post that showed a change to the cover of one of the Society's youth books, that replaced only one of the kids illustrated. Which leads me to the theory that the Organization likes to "unperson" people they conciser to be an embarrassment.

      Of course they have often been forced to revise or delete books, when such publications has made clear prophetic statements that have proved to be false or are just plain crazy. The various editions of the Truth book and the Revelation book are my examples here.

      Yet what I find more upsetting, is not the fact that the Governing Body deletes or revises publications but its by their not acknowledging their errors in a truthful manner. Instead of clearly stating their past misunderstandings (through the use or postscripts, references or addendums as found in academic publications), they instead use the expressions like "some Christians understood" to deflect personal examination of their failures.

      This revisionistic attitude towards history, only goes to highlight their concern with image rather than truth. A position that similarly displayed in the Governing Body's handling of child abuse in the congregations.

      Link Dislike Like+5 / -0
    • Finkelstein
      Finkelstein18 hours ago

      The WTS/Jworg. is obviously a corrupt, devious and lying religoius publishing house and its operates upon that premise.

      The viable documented truth of that statement has come clearer and clearer now as there is lot of solid information to verify that statement as such .

      America style freewheeling charlatanism is usually structured and built upon corruption.

      Why ? because it makes power and tax free money for the endeavoring individuals.

      Link Dislike Like+2 / -0
    • waton
      waton17 hours ago

      sometimes wt writers know within weeks that they have goofed, the "guidance of the spirit" notwithstanding. The correction would appear in the translated version of foreign language magazines, with hilarious results in multi-language congregations, (different positions not allowed in different bedrooms). At the latest the correction was seen in the bound volumes. so: keep your study copies.

      Link Dislike Like+2 / -0
    • nonjwspouse
      nonjwspouse17 hours ago

      I remember after reading here, and jwfacts on all the misquotes and misleading information in the Trinity booklet that the WTBTS soon after deleted that one. I'm glad I have a couple, with correct full quotes for each ellipsis printed from the quoted books, just in case my husband gets on his JW kick again.

      Link Dislike Like+2 / -0
    • blondie
      blondie17 hours ago

      When the WTS significantly changes a doctrine or explanation of a prophecy and put that in a new book that replaces that, they drop the old one. The time they didn't was the Revelation book where they supplied corrections on a separate page to change the old book yourself.

      Other times if it is not considered comprehensive, such as no longer mentioning the 7,000 year creative day, they just stop mentioning it and print an updated version. I was at my book study one evening where some people had the old book and others the new book which replaced the 7,000 years with thousands of years. It still appears in the WT and is not mentioned after 1987 (1989).


      Wonderful developments took place on earth during the six creative “days” of Genesis chapter 1, each day covering thousands of years


      Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 yearslong. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long.

  • Finkelstein

    The WTS has instructed congregations to remove and destroy many pieces of literature over the decades.

    The reason being they are full of corrupt lying doctrines and teachings that removes the viability of the organization being guided by god.

    The WTS works on doctrines to enhances the proliferation of the literature it publishes, even though it may not be Scripturaly supported, so when one teaching looks too wrong or invalid, it gets destroyed so no one reads it.

    ...... " This Generation " is a good example.

  • days of future passed
    days of future passed

    Wouldn't you think, that if there were many inquiries at the headquarter over a matter, that the WT keeps a log of it. They must review whats going on and either change it or shoot it down in the "Questions from the Readers" When it becomes worrisome (teaching) because events change (or don't - 1975, Millions now living will never die) they must project a timeline to get rid of it. New books, new understanding.........

Share this