Previously, the President of the WB&TS kept changing doctrine taught to Jehovah's Witnesses. Currently, the Governing Body does this.
Correct usage referring to the organization?
by Vanderhoven7 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Jeffro
Vanderhoven7:
Which sentences are technically correct
1 The Watchtower keeps changing its doctrines.
2. The Watch Tower keeps changing its doctrines.
3. The Watchtower Society keeps changing its doctrines.
4. Watchtower keeps changing its doctrines.
5. Watch Tower keeps changing its doctrines.
6. The Society keeps changing its doctrines.
7. The Watchtower organization keeps changing its doctrines.
8. The Watch Tower organization keeps changing its doctrines.
Of the options provided, the most accurate option is not listed. The primary corporation is the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania. The correct shorthand for that is the Watch Tower Society, therefore your preferred text should be "The Watch Tower Society keeps changing its doctrines".
1 is either a) the magazine or b) too informal and the wrong corporation
2 is close but informal
3 is the New York corporation that administers matters specifically for the US (CCoJW is also a subsidiary in the US, with similarly named subsidiaries in some other countries)
4 is too informal and the wrong corporation
5 is close but informal
6 is too general, unless it follows recent mention of either "Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania" or "Watch Tower Society" and without also mentioning the Watchtower Society, some other Society, or society generally.
7 is informal and the wrong corporation, and the inclusion of "organization" comes across as JW jargon
8 is informal and has the same issue re "organization" as for 7
-
Disillusioned JW
"Watchtower" refers to the magazine/periodical of that name and to one of the corporations. The corporation based in Pennsylvania (at least originally) is named "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania". In contrast, the corporation based in New York is named "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.". In at least one copy of the "2006 Printing" edition of the NWT (the first edition of the NWT to exclude single brackets around added words in the scripture text) the Pennsylvania corporation is listed as the copyright holder and the New York corporation is listed as the publisher. I thus believe that Jeffro is correct in saying "The primary corporation is the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania."
-
JeffT
Unless you're a lawyer I don't see that it makes much difference. When speaking or writing in a more informal setting (like this board or a conversation with a non-JW) anything that is clearly understood to mean "the people who write this crap" will do.
-
Jeffro
JeffT:
Unless you're a lawyer I don't see that it makes much difference. When speaking or writing in a more informal setting (like this board or a conversation with a non-JW) anything that is clearly understood to mean "the people who write this crap" will do.
The nature of the original request suggests he wants to write in a more formal setting somewhere else. Getting things correct for formal writing is not restricted only to lawyers.
-
JeffT
The nature of the original request suggests he wants to write in a more formal setting somewhere else. Getting things correct for formal writing is not restricted only to lawyers.
True, which (I think) would make every one of those names correct within certain contexts. Certainly several of them are.
Edited to add the significance to lawyers: You have to make sure you're suing the right entity. Put "Watchtower" where it should be "Watch Tower" and you run the risk of having your suit dismissed and doing the paperwork all over again.
-
Jeffro
JeffT:
Edited to add the significance to lawyers: You have to make sure you're suing the right entity. Put "Watchtower" where it should be "Watch Tower" and you run the risk of having your suit dismissed and doing the paperwork all over again.
Definitely, and it would not surprise me at all if the ambiguity between "Watch Tower" and "Watchtower" were deliberate for that reason. At the very least, they take advantage of that ambiguity in legal cases. For example, Gerrit Lösch's deposition stating that he has never been a member or employee of "Watchtower".