by sweet pea 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
It's all good and will probably innoculate quite a few of the general public against the JWs at the door.
However, I have to agree with nvr. As a piece of journalism, it misses the mark. The average JW would be put off because of the inaccuracies and the lack of objectivity (rude, rubbish). But it is far, far better to have this article out there keeping the dialogue going than silence. A young mother has died needlessly and left a devastated family that will never be the same.
To focus on insignificant and irrelevant inaccuracies instead of the point under discussion.
As a piece of journalism, it misses the mark. The average JW would be put off because of the inaccuracies and the lack of objectivity (rude, rubbish ).
It does matter.
When I was lurking on JWD, while I was still an active elder, I was impressed with the truthfulness of most of what was on here.
The sensationalized stories that come up from time to time do much to weaken the positive effects of real facts.
Once again, I apologize if my criticism was misunderstood. But even the laziest of journalists should know not to include Michael Jackson in any current list of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Just my opinion.
As a piece of journalism, it misses the mark.
Sorry to beg to differ guys but I think this hits the "mark" totally because "the mark" isn't JWs.
The article is entitled "Who Are the JW's and Why Do They Refuse Blood Transfusions?"
It's aimed at the general public.
The inaccuracies are irrelevant to the general public (if it'd been about the Mormons we wouldn't have known all the minutae)
Where it talks about blood it's spot on - even down to the ham and cheese sandwich and the anomaly over donating blood.
SURE the JW's are gonna use every little thing they can to wriggle and deflect (Naomi Cambell isn't one and we don't ALL do 70 hours) but that's all they CAN do - and desperately at that!
As for the "rude" remark - he's right. He doesn't even just make the statement - he presents an example. The public will agree it's rude. And his example of them "rubbishing" everyone else's believes is accurate.
I believe that THE PUBLIC will be enlightened by this article.
We're still not understanding one another, Pubsinger.
I think it's great that the article was written.
And the loss of life caused by blind faith is tragic.
As for the public, most don't care about JWs. Few like them as an organization. Even fewer would consider joining them. Frankly, most of the new recruits come from people that don't read newspaper articles. LOL!
But in my mind it's not about 'wriggling and deflecting' by JWs that may potentially read it.
A JW already entertaining doubts, there are many, would probably read the article with great interest and would probably be negatively impacted by the inaccuracies.
That's all I'm saying.
I'll shut up now.
I too hope the article has the effect of helping some to steer clear of or get out of the JW cult.
Personally, I would not have found 'rude' or 'rubbish' to be overly critical had I read this while an active JW. I would have likely accepted them as colloquial expressions, though perhaps I am wrong there?
I did note the 70 hour misstatement. I might have been inclined to reduce my opinion of the article based on that. As a tool to arm the public against Jw's dangerous doctrine, I find it acceptable, if perhaps just a bit non-objective in tone.
Jeff
He also had a chance to present facts about their false predicitons and mansion building for returing prophets.... when I was a JW, I didn't know of such things....If i'd of read it in a newspaper it might have casued me to be suspicious and look up the info for myself.
Had I of known about such things I would never have gotten baptised
Thing is, no one knows WHAT ANYONE will think about this article - it will have an affect on many undoubtedly - it's likely to be the one, two punch - lately we've had the Michael Porter scandal, the Child Abuse settlement in the US, reduction in length of the Public Talk, the Secret Watchtower Edition, the change in teaching of the 'generation', Emma Gough's needless death and now journalists seeking to raise awareness of this 'insignificant religion' and its death dealing policies.
Is it me, or is this quite a lot of punches in a row?
I feel we are headed for an interesting few months and likely a lot more newbies on JWD!
Roll on the demise of the Tower.....
Hi Sweet Pea,
I think the article was good and fairly written. I thought considering he was not jw it was well researched - inaccuracies aside.
llbh
Thank you sweet pea and besty
I think it was quite a good article and my view is that every little bit of publicity that brings attention to what goes on inside the borg is a good thing.
Maddie
Let those that seek the truth about Witnesses ask questions as to what in the article is true or not.
purps
