The anonymity of Jehovah's Witness material

by stuckinarut2 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  stuckinarut2

  Is it vital for credibility to have the name of the writer of an article referenced?

  Does this allow for honesty and accountability? Does this assist in ensuring that whatever is presented is as factual as possible, or not biased in some way toward the Religion's ideas?

  I know that some of our fellow forum members have written articles for the Society, so please do not feel that I am questioning your sincerity at the time.
  

  These questions came up in my mind as I once again contemplated how the Society goes to great lengths to keep the writers of articles anonymous. This applies to actual "doctrinal" material (in magazines, books etc) as well as both internal and external branch letters and documents.

  How much easier is it for them to present inaccurate or biased material when there is no ACCOUNTABILITY or TRANSPERENCY?

  This is apparent especially when it comes to letters from the Branch of a legal nature (such as in the case of child abuse issues - eg the Palmer case) No one seems to have signed off on the directions from the branch. No one is taking accountability.

  So would it make a difference if the Society referenced the writers by name? Would it create a culture of honesty and transparency? Would it even matter?

  Thoughts?
  
• 

  doubtfull1799

  I don't know that it would help with credibility, except to say that knowing the writers and and their lack of qualifications would only destroy any credibility. What is more important is the quality of the sources they are using and wether they are using them correctly. It would certainly add credibility of they cited all their sources etc so they could be checked. But we all know where that leads... we find out how much quote mining they do. If their sources were credible and their understanding and application of those sources was good then that would add credibility.

  However it would certainly make a difference to accountability to know who the authors are. As it stands, the anonymity means no one can be pinned down or held accountable for what they write individually. So really the GB is intimately responsible for everything that gets published because they are the final editors. They are accountable, bit of course, as we well know, they refuse to accept that accountability.

  My experience in the writing department brings up another issue though. It is very difficult to actually attribute many articles to a single author. Because of the way things are done it is almost like "writing by committee." An article that I would send in would be amended by the branch office and then amended again and perhaps combined with, or have other things added to, that other authors were writing about on the same subject. For any given article they may have a number of brother working on material from different writing departments around the world, and then they combine and mix the material together....
• 

  doubtfull1799

  So what Im saying is that by the time the article I wrote actually gets published it has been butchered so much (not just edited) that it may be barely recognisable as my article anymore. Paragraphs here and there may be the same and that is all.
• 

  dubstepped

  As long as they keep their references anonymous, it doesn't matter who they give credit for the drivel, lol.
• 

  Doug Mason

  I suppose it's different now, but I had thought in the past they did not want to show that an author was not of the "Anointed Class".

  Things change,

  Doiug
• 

  smiddy3

  If they don`t quote their sources maybe they feel they are then not accountable ?

  However surely they are when they mis-represent someone they do quote and take them out of context giving an entirely different view to what the author intended .?
• 

  jwleaks

  doubtfull1799 - So what Im saying is that by the time the article I wrote actually gets published it has been butchered so much (not just edited) that it may be barely recognisable as my article anymore. Paragraphs here and there may be the same and that is all.

  You're in great company. Watchtower does the exact same thing to the bible writers.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I think people are naturally more careful about what they write when they need to put their name to it.

  The reason Watchtower publications became anonymous upon the death of president Rutherford is purportedly because the new president Knorr didn't write Watchtower material and didn't want this to be known, which it would be if someone else's name appeared on the literature.

  Fred Franz is credited with authoring a large amount of Watchtower literature including the NWT and many of the prophetical commentaries and doctrinal tracts of the postwar period, such as Babylon the Great Has Fallen and The Word Who is He According to John.

  Some have speculated that Franz also wrote the later books attributed to Rutherford. Technical analysis should now/soon be able to settle that question, as well as the authorship of the Studies in the Scriptures. (Maria Russell claimed she wrote them)

  Notable books that were not authored by Fred Franz include the Aid/Insight books, the Commentary on James, Happiness, Life How Did it Get Here? Writers included Ed Dunlap, Raymond Franz, Colin Quackenbush and others.

  Lloyd Barry and John Barr are credited with some of the writing in the 1980s and 1990s.

  Who took over from them is a bit of a mystery. Among current GB members, Jackson, Sanderson and Splane appear to be the most likely candidates for involvement in the revised NWT and other projects. But GB members perhaps have little time for writing.

  Plus Watchtower doesn't actually publish much new material now anyway, do they? Maybe they don't need many writers any more. Even WT study articles are revisions of earlier articles (the latest "avenger of blood" article a case in point).
• 

  Xanthippe

  I can't believe that all these years they've got away with saying 'one scientist says' or 'one historian writes'. Nobody with any education would try and get away with writing an article like that. They have graduates and lawyers working for them. They didn't submit essays and dissertations without footnotes and bibliographies!
• 

  Ruby456

  I am finding that their research is pretty thorough, where the Tetragrammaton is concerned, early Christianity and Jesus anyway. It appears that they did have some very dedicated sincere researchers. Okay they do tend to simplify quite complex things in order to provide themselves with a foundation but then again who doesn,t?