Insider reviews of WT publications allowed? (page 2)

Maverick

This MS is full of bovine fecal matter! Maverick

With regard to congregation voting it should be pointed out that this is almost always with regard financial matters (ie. 'shall we pay the COs expenses?') and never anything of any doctrinal or judicial import. It is always with regard to that particular congregation alone and never has anything to do with anything for the worldwide organization.

B

greven

I've NEVER heard of this. Wouldn't it be much more fun to let professional reviewers review it? See how positive THAT would be...LOL.

Greven

JT

If this MS told you that his "review" was for the purposes of the WT Society to get internal "input on their new material" I would say he is borderline outright lying. First of all, if the Society actually publishes material any "review" is done behind closed doors by the top brass before it ever gets to be printed. Ministerial Servants are next to nothing in terms of any real importance outside of their individual congregations and they NEVER would be asked to perform an analysis of information written by the "Faithful and Discreet Slave." Your MS buddy was probably using "worldlyspeak" with you, that is, making his Service Meeting part out to be far more than what it was.
Bradley

excellent point MS are NEVER ALLOWED TO DO THIS - CASE IN P0INT

at one time the society allowed the MS to go to ms school on friday and elders went on sat and sun- leaving the MS to run the hall - do the public talk and conduct the wt- well the SHIT HIT THE FAN

i recall a bro in Service telling a group of us it was the worst decision the Service dept ever made by leaving MS in charge- so the days of elder/ms school were switched so that on sunday elders would be in charge

so you are correct this MS is no more than an attendant who watches the parking lot during the meeting - he ain't doing any review

it may have just been the WRITTEN REVIEW he was talking about

BornFree

logansrun,

That makes more sense I guess. Sorry if I sounded a little arrogant there in my reply to your last post.

Everyone else:

Perhaps this guy was lying to me...I don't know. But from what I recall of our conversation, he said he was doing a review of the material, and I didn't get the impression that it was just for spelling errors. It would make sense that he was lying, as I know the organization would not stoop down out of their arrogance to take suggestions from a lowly ms. I'm convinced then...

Oh yeah, another thing was after he offered me SO many Watchtower books to read, I offered him a book by C.S. Lewis. As many of you know C.S. Lewis is one of the most popular Conservative Christian appologists. When I said C.S. Lewis, he made up some lame excuse like, "oh I read so many books by the society already I don't think I could ever fit another book into my reading." So I told him I could give him the book for free so he could have it and get to it whenever he could, and he repeated the same answer. **LAUGH** How's that for being scared out of your mind to read something that might actually bring to light the falsehood of what you believe. Sad situation.

Anyway, thanks for the input.

BornFree

logansrun

Bornfree,

I didn't take your comments to be arrogant at all!

Your friend sounds a lot like me when I was an MS/Regular Pioneer: make the Society out to be something it is not, in other words, normal. Refuse to read other religious literature because you're "too busy" -- yeah right, sure!

B

truthseeker1

I think this guy was totally misleading. I think what he called the review was him introducing and probably giving examples of how to place the new literature. It is by far not a critique of the material. All complements are welcome, of course so It might have the appearance of a review, but never is a criticism allowed. He probably just help up the literature, said what he liked about it. Showed how to place it, probably gave a demo or 2 using some brainwashed family in the cong, then asked the dubs what they liked about it. I've seen this done many times.

gumby

"Questions from readers" was supposedly .....from the readers. " Letters to the editor" in the AWAKE was another. That is the only "outside" information I can think of the society asked for.

Gumby

BornFree

Wow this is a great discussion. Being that I haven't had a lot of direct contact with JWs while they are on their recruiting trail, I didn't realize how much BS an MS can feed to those who are listening. When I was talking to him I did recognize some of the BS, but when he was telling me about his reviewing of the new matierial, he seemed as if he was being perfectly honest. Weird. That's another thing that really confuses me, well actually just sickens me: their "theocratic war strategy". They will lie to outsiders and feel that lying is justified because they are either defending the WT name, or trying to bait the listener. Wow that's really sad.

Well, the two terms BS and MS go together well...

BS: Bull $H*T

MS: More of the Same

So perhaps they should be stated as such: MS -> BS

Normally I don't like making fun of religions, but seriously!! THIS ONE BEGS FOR IT!!

Insider reviews of WT publications allowed?

Share this