Thanks jws for your comments. I appreciate you taking an interest in the survey.
You're not the first to raise this point, and I've devoted a page and a half of my results PDF to answering similar concerns. Here is the pertinent section (excuse the dodgy formatting)...
It has been pointed out by some that the Survey cannot be truly reflective of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, because it is only accessible online and not via the usual organizational channels employed by the Watch Tower Society. Jehovah’s Witnesses are warned through their literature to avoid the Internet, and in particular, any websites dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses that are not authorized by the Watch Tower Society. Therefore, the only active Jehovah’s Witnesses voting on such a survey would be those who have already demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the Society’s instructions. In other words, most if not all voters by their very presence on jwsurvey.org would already have well-formed opinions that conflict with the organization’s leadership, rendering a negative response against the Society almost inevitable.
I agree with this observation, although I don’t believe that it renders the information yielded by the Survey inconsequential, nor do I believe it to be sufficient reason to close the Survey. I offer the following reasons:
- By being hosted online, the Survey is made available to all of Jehovah’s Witnesses, irrespective of whether they agree or disagree with the organization’s teachings. The Survey questions are worded in such a way as to allow those who agree with the teachings of the Society to express their loyalty, without being influenced by the opinions of myself, or others.
Some devout Witnesses have already logged on and participated in the Survey, and these ones are welcome. No loyalists or “apologists” are dissuaded from expressing their opinions, because it is intended that the results should give as fair a reflection as possible of the overall opinions surrounding the religion. My approach has always been “the more the merrier”.
I genuinely believe that the information yielded by the Survey should be welcomed whatever consensus it reveals, because no harm can arise from knowing the real truth on any matter of this magnitude, irrespective of how uncomfortable that disclosure may be.
2. In spite of the encouragement to avoid or limit any use of the Internet, all of Jehovah’s Witnesses are personally responsible before God for their beliefs - especially concerning matters of conscience that are not directly legislated for in the scriptures. It has been noticed that increasing numbers of active Jehovah’s Witnesses are coming to the realization that the partial prohibition of the Internet has more to do with shielding the Society against negative publicity than any genuine desire to protect worshippers from ‘Satanic propaganda’. The opinions of such conscientious visitors are just as valid as those who choose to have their conscience dictated to them by the Governing Body when it comes to the use of the Internet.
3. Just because the Society dissuades people from visiting unauthorized Witness-related websites (and, by extension, jwsurvey.org) this does not necessarily mean that we should automatically abandon any attempted online survey of believers. It would be unfair to deny those who have researched Jehovah’s Witnesses online the opportunity to express their opinions simply because the organization that they no longer agree with has restricted use of the internet among its members in order to shield itself from criticism. To do so would be to succumb to bullying, and this does not sit well with me at all.
4. It is hoped that, as the Survey grows in popularity, more and more devout Witnesses will become curious and seek to participate and express their views. At present, the Survey is only a recent development, and its existence is not widely known among Witness circles. However, the longer it remains online, with sufficient publicity and ‘word of mouth’ stirring up interest, the greater the likelihood that it will come to the attention of increasing numbers of ordinary Witnesses - including those who limit their use of the internet. It is hoped that such ones will eventually take part through curiosity, even if they choose not to broadcast the fact that they have done so. I envisage broadened participation as being an increasingly inevitable outcome the longer the Survey is online, so hopefully any perceived disparities in the voting pool will gradually even themselves out over time.
