excellent information and thread - thanks
Hello Andersoninfo - who writes the current WT ,mags?
by 1914BS 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
wha happened?
This is interesting but not surprising. I'm not at all surprised that those not claiming to be of the annointed are writing articals. Most of what seems to go on in NY is different than what the avg JW thinks.
-
cameo-d
I think the writing has been directed by a very sophisticated group of social psychologists for a long time.
I am curious to know if WT has any connection to a publishing house out of Bellefonte, Pennsylvania.
It is called Strong Tower Publications and this scripture is part of it's logo. It just sounds like WT manipulation.
Strong Tower Publications
The name of Jehovah is a strong tower; The righteous runneth into it, and is safe.
Proverbs 18:10
Maybe someone could trace down the property location and the DBA's to see if WT is connected.
The logo image is also a prominent watchtower foremost, but shows it is connected to a larger fortress structure.
(subliminally---very telling!)
-
1914BS
http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=97e993667bc0463c527c9e26a749534a
So was it LLoyd Barry that removed the word's "20 th century" ?
-
AndersonsInfo
1914BS: Here's some back ground information about the words, "20th century":
Eugene Smalley wrote the article under discussion and when the copy went through editing, the words, "20th century" were not caught then but after the article was published.
The Bethel family receives the magazines in their rooms before anybody else. That magazine was in the hands of Bethelites only a few days when the problematic words caused a bit of a panic in the Writing Dept. (I don’t know who caught the blunder but I never got the impression it was Lloyd Barry.) After the 1975 debacle, the rule in the Dept. was not to date-set in any way. However, Gene Smalley did his own thing. He was in hot water over this but he retained his "privileges."
In 1989, the Writing Committee was made up of Barry, Barr, and Klein. They were part of the editing process, but too many times Barry and Barr were away on "Zone" visits to other countries and only Klein was there to edit. Because of his age and health, he was far from having the mental agility to do editing. So, if Barry and Barr weren't there to do the work, when they returned, they suffered from jet lag; Or day to day, they just had too much on their minds to stay focused enough to read and edit copy. That's the reasons, I was told, the words "20th century" were not red-lined by anybody on the Writing Committee.
Inasmuch as the article seemingly had the approval of the Writing Committee whose hands the article or book went through first for review, it was unlikely that anybody else would question such a statement. All of the seventeen people in editing positions do not do the same thing with copy. Generally, it was up to only a few like the Writing Committee to question, evaluate, or analyze theological arguments. Others were expected to check source copies to see if statements were factual. First of all the premise is that an experienced senior writer had done his homework. Also, editors would assume that someone like Smalley had approval for a statement like the one we're discussing.
After the "20th century" blunder, I was told the Writing Committee acknowledged they were too old and maybe too worn out, especially from travel, to be able to edit properly. So when the assistants to the Governing Body arrangement came into existence, the Writing Committee no longer reviewed each magazine; the job went to their specially appointed younger assistants.
-
daniel-p
After the "20th century" blunder, I was told the Writing Committee acknowledged they were too old and maybe too worn out, especially from travel, to be able to edit properly. So when the assistants to the Governing Body arrangement came into existence, the Writing Committee no longer reviewed each magazine; the job went to their specially appointed younger assistants.
So no GB members review the entire magazines before they are published?
-
AndersonsInfo
daniel-p: I have no idea how it is now. I only can speak about the way it was when I was in the organization. I left in 1998 before all the new GB members were put in place. Perhaps Splane takes a more active role in this matter.
-
tornapart
Btt..Found this really interesting! Thanks for the info as always Barbara. :)
-
Londo111
Barbara,
Did the problem of 607 come up in your hearing? Obviously, since the early 80's until last year, there was no substantive material on the issue, and it seems the strategy was to just be quiet about it.
-
james_woods
My experiences at Bethel agree with Ray Franz as he explained in his book Crisis of Conscience that it was the “other sheep” that did the bulk of the writing. Of course when he was in the Writing Department there were men who professed to be of the “anointed” that wrote. He was one of them and Karl Klein, Lloyd Barry and Ray Franz wrote while Franz was there. I don’t know if Dunlap or Reinhart Lingstat who collaborated on the Aid book were of the anointed.
Barbara, Ed Dunlap told me before he left Bethel that he refused to partake of the emblems himself until the Society got their heads around the idea that the two-class system was unscriptural. He felt it would be hypocritical to partake under false pretenses, so to speak. This was a hot button issue with Ed - he had long thought that the whole "annointed only partaking" ritual was BS scripturally and was really the root of all that was wrong with WT doctrine. It was more important to him even than the various false prophecies and stupid chronology.
So, no - in Witness viewpoint he was never annointed. He wrote a number of WT articles and also single-handedly wrote the book about James.
He also told me that even the editorial review process was very seldom actually done by the governing body people. That may have changed for a time after he and Ray Franz got kicked out out of "apostacy paranoia" but I bet it has reverted back to the way it was pre-1980 by now.