"New Light" and the Watchtower's quasi legal disclaimer

by jwleaks 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jwleaks

  Found this interesting quasi legal religious statement at the bottom of this 》》》 JW.ORG page advertising "Bible-Based Books and Magazines":

  Some updates made to digital publications may not yet appear in the printed edition.

  Glad to know that jehovah and the governing body have seen fit to inform the entire world that certain doctrinal teachings of "truth" may differ between digital and print edition of the Watchtower magazine and bible-based books.

  Doesn't say much for the credibility of the guardians of doctrine.

  Confusingly, some of the doctrinal teachings, particularly in the online versions of bible-based books and magazines from the Watchtower, have already undergone updates but these updates only appear in the new digital version of the new printed edition.

  Good thing we have a digital-only version of the "Research Guide for Jehovah's Witnesses" which is updated every year to contain all the references to the new teachings and interpretations of the bible. Unfortunately this digital publication is not updated regularly to coincide with new digital updates of bible-based books that contain new doctrines and teachings.

  This of course begs the following questions:

  If the digital publication "Research Guide for Jehovah's Witnesses" refers to a Watchtower publication then is that publication the printed edition or is it the digital edition?

  If the digital updates and editions are not available in my language then am I still under the old mosaic law of the Watchtower in the printed edition?

  
  
• 

  prologos

  very pertinent question, if the elders take nit picking doctrinal apostasy questions seriously. Of course it really does not matter.

  In the 70s there was the case in the foreign language field, when certain refinements to the "marriage bed"/porneia issue were printed, but did not become translated until weeks later. The wt mag was studies in that language, but the english wt at that point already had flipped back to the more tolerant, " yes, it is bad, but only outside marriage " kind of understanding, so, the anxious young couples had to be reassured, no, this it is already old light, (although to you it was new light today) so, turn off the light, shut the door and don't worry about this sunday's wt study.
• 

  scratchme1010

  Maybe I am way too far off the JW mindset, but what exactly is the big deal with that? Every publishing company does that and has been doing so for quite some time. In technology, for example, in the 90s things were changing so far that the most recent information was available in magazines since printed books could not be updated that fast.

  With the proliferation of electronic media the way it is now, information flows a lot faster than in print. I don't see why the WT is any different.

  I fail to see what the big deal is.
  
• 

  smiddy

  I think the big deal is that the GB/F&DS/Writing Dept. claim they are being led by Jehovahs Spirit

  So why is their a need to update /refine ( or heaven forbid contradict ) any information at all ?

  Either Jehovah God or Christ Jesus know what they are talking about or they do not ,its a no brainer.
• 

  oppostate

  Scratchme1010 you asked: What's the big deal.

  Since the WT oligarchs claim they're God's only channel on earth to distribute "truth", they don't get to take their words back.

  As Smiddy says, they're claiming to speak for God and making Him look bad, that's a Big Deal if you're a believer in God. But if you're not, I guess it wouldn't really matter what anyone at WT religious-propaganda and real-estate HQ decides to publish.
• 

  scratchme1010

  Scratchme1010 you asked: What's the big deal.

  Since the WT oligarchs claim they're God's only channel on earth to distribute "truth", they don't get to take their words back.

  As Smiddy says, they're claiming to speak for God and making Him look bad, that's a Big Deal if you're a believer in God. But if you're not, I guess it wouldn't really matter what anyone at WT religious-propaganda and real-estate HQ decides to publish.

  So that's based on the premise that you still believe that what they claim is true? I still don't see the connection. That's just standard practice. Trust me, I am in any way shape or form taking their side or defending them. I fail to see how a simple standard practice is supposed to prove that they are full of --it. I mean, good that it seems to be evidential to some people.

  You can say the same thing for any media they have use in any way they communicate. Why single out this one thing?

  Seems like one of those cases when people don;t wake up over them covering for pedophiles, but something simpler makes them open their eyes. I'm not criticizing, I just don't see the big deal on this one particular, minuscule thing.
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  The changes tend to be spelling or grammatical issues that may have slipped past proofreading. They may also be like formatting issues but not of actual content or the meaning behind something. Also there are pictures that may be different for one culture than for another. For instance there may be pictures that have more Asian individuals in a picture, for an Asian speaking language than in the English American or European picture. So it is a lot of just little things and not actual content.
• 

  under the radar

  I'm not sure whether poster Richard Oliver is a blatant shill for the Watchtower, a shameless apologist for them, or just the king of rationalization.

  All the things he mentioned are actually plausible, but we're not talking about variations between different language versions of a particular magazine issue. I think we all know the real reason online versions and reprints, especially those of older literature, sometimes differ dramatically from the original printed versions. Changes are made from time to time to alter or remove embarrassing or blatantly false statements.

  Just one example: In the January 1, 1989 Watchtower magazine, on page 12, it says, "The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." When the bound volumes of the 1989 Watchtower came out, the text of the January 1 article had been changed so that it now stated the work would be completed "in our day" instead of "in our 20th century." The only possible explanation for this change is that they wanted it to appear that they had never predicted that it would be completed in the 20th century.

  I believe this policy of covering up earlier statements that are now embarrassing is the main reason the Society's online library only goes back a few years, to about 2000 or so. All that old light must be way too much trouble to edit out and rewrite, so the next best thing is to do away with the evidence itself. That's the main reason congregations were ordered to destroy certain older publications and are definitely NOT encouraged to have a collection of historical Watchtower literature in their Kingdom Hall libraries. I have heard of some congregations dispersing or destroying their valuable collections of early literature solely to keep it from "falling into apostate hands." Some of those older books are now so rare they command hundreds of dollars on eBay and such.

  If this sounds familiar, just read 1984 by George Orwell. The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses, by Heather and Gary Botting, draws many more parallels and is an eye opening read. It was originally published in 1984 (coincidence?), but much of what it says is even more true today than it was then. Both books are still available on Amazon and the like, and you can often find copies on eBay as well.