In the 10/15/08 WT, page 16, there is a very small filler article on a 15th century German Cardinal who used the name "Jehovah" (or its equivalent in 15th century German, at least) in a sermon he wrote. Sorry, no scanner.
Anyway, part of that sermon he wrote, in which he references the name "Jehovah", is quoted.
But wait a minute, what's this? There's a little asterisk in the sentence giving the name of the sermon (which has been preserved down to today).
And the little asterisk points to a footnote, which reads:
"* The sermon was in support of the trinity."
How about that? After hundreds if not thousands of examples of lifting quotes completely out of context, from documents supporting the exact opposite of the point the Society is trying to make, after numerous decades of repeating the same deception....now, in 2008, they finally acknowledge that one of their sources promotes a "pagan" idea? Of course, the point of the article is that someone 500+ years ago used the name "Jehovah", but still...
Why the sudden change in policy? JWs are trained NOT to look into original sources, "just let the FDS do the research for you!" Certainly no active JW would take the time to research into the writings of a rather obscure 15th century cleric, would they?
Or would they?
Are they finally acknowledging, if ever so slightly, that they are being caught, over and over again in their out-of-context quotation deceptions? Are they bowing, if ever so grudgingly, to pressure from critics (or - gasp! - JWs) who are calling them on it over and over again? Are they finally, after a decade, recognizing that they can't get away with so much in the internet age, when research that used to take days, weeks, even months, can be done in minutes?
Just though it was interesting. I don't ever recall such an acknowledgement being put into an article.