what happens to wts writers who write mistakes in printed pubs

by mP 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  The writing department has such an extensive layer of editors and reviewers that come after the initial writers that sometimes the writers barely recognize what they started. What goes out in print gets very sanitized... but can obviously still be wrong and very damaging later. That's why they're very careful about what they write.

  It's the talks that can get wild and speculative. That's why they now have the rules about not circulating recorded talks. They want that crazy, controlling crap fed to the masses, but they don't want it recorded where it can be fact-checked or pointed out as crazy lies later. No evidence left behind.
• 

  mP

  billy

  i appreciate there must be many editors and a careful multi stahe review process, but the shear volumne of mistakes show this isnt working well. if a few heads rolled then at the least the writingbteams would be at tyhe leastbmore conservative in their statements. with regards to the talks, why doesnt tye wts justbrelease vids instead of letting locals domtalks ?
• 

  Aussie Oz

  well look what happened to old freddy...they made him president!

  Oz
• 

  transhuman68

  The whole f@#$%^g religion is a mistake. The doctrine is 100% BS. How could anyone make a mistake writing for an organization that is fundamentally flawed? It's not possible....
• 

  00DAD

  Mistakes? What mistakes? Don't you know Holy Spirit proof reads all the mags!

  There are not mistakes. Only "Old Light", "Present Truth" and "New Light".

  I thought this was all clear. Perhaps you need a Bible Study.
• 

  panhandlegirl

  Just like 1975. It just keeps getting brighter and closer to the corner.

  Anezthy, that's witty. Why don't you submit that line to the GB for the next theme of the summer conventions?
• 

  Lore

  What kind of mistakes are you talking about?

  I haven't seen a typo or grammatical error in a Watchtower publication in. . . pretty much forever.

  That only leaves factual errors or theological errors.

  Their comments on science and history are so minimal I'm not really aware of any 'mistakes' in that regard. Lies, yes, like the 607 articles.

  Or quoting mathemeticians as authorities on biology, or biologists as experts on astronomy. But those aren't mistakes, those are intentional deceptions.

  And if any of the 'experts' they quote are proven wrong, then they can simply say: "We weren't wrong, the scientist was. No suprise there. We were simply informing you of the nonsense those amoral eggheads were spewing."

  And any theological errors are just ignored as 'old light', which disqualifies them from being errors since they were true at the time. The updates is not a correction, it's just more true.
• 

  00DAD

  Lore, interesting perspective. I appreciated the way you distinguish between mistakes, errors, lies and deceptions, and intentional theological game playing.
• 

  Disillusioned Lost-Lamb

  Nothing happens because either

  A-God isn't backing them; otherwise he, who can't make a mistake, would stop the mistakes

  B-God doesn't give a flying F**K

  C-God doesn't exist

  One of these is true, none of them are good for the wash-towel though.
• 

  mP

  when i originally said mistakes i wasnt being judgemental. any statement or idea presented that is difficult to explain today or can be found out later is bad or a mistake because it may cost bums on seats. these mistakes become a joke and many websites will show this. nobnody exploring jw on the net will be impressed by these things. writing material is not only about keeping the gullable captured its about damage control. it would seam imho that lately there are too mamy embarrassments thst hurt. somebody is sleeping on the job letting the same fools continue to tread dangerous material in such a pooor manner.