Why are the publications anonymously written? (page 2)

Jonty Parkin

"Whats funny is that in all the years of my being a Witness The Commentary of the Letter James was one of the few books I enjoyed studying at the Tuesday night bookstudy. It was written simplistic yet brought out many points that the Society never mentioned or tried to stomp into our minds."

You are SOOO right there! In fact, I remember thinking at the time that this must represent a massive leap forward into real, unfettered verse-by-verse commentaries. That was the ONE AND ONLY convention release that I ever remember, that could actually pass for substantial study material! I looked forward to more of the same, but as we all know, none ever came!

I suppose the "James" commentary was too much of an invitation for the rank and file to start thinking for themselves - and that's the last thing that the WTBTS want of its members!

Jonty

run dont walk

actually the question should be "why are they written period."

A Paduan

There's only the others, the "jehovahs witnesses" - those "zealous brothers".

Even the info questions aren't worded, "Who are we?" But rather, "Who are they?"

No one is accountable. No one there makes a stand and says, "This is me, and I am accountable" - even the ex-jws speak of stuff as being the orgs' doing - they just did what they were told - by who?, them - you know, the elders, the upper people.

Everyone shirks their response-ability - disappearing if a light is turned on.

"..but the woman you gave me"

Mary

Well, we COULD put their pictures on all the publications, but then their secret would be out:

Moe: Whaddya mean we gotta change 1914.....I told you not to use that date in the first place.......Slap!!

Curly: Ah come on Moe, wu'll word it differn't an nobody'll no the difference! Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!!! Slap!!

seeitallclearlynow

LOL Mary, very good!

Flash

Well, we COULD put their pictures on all the publications, but then their secret would be out:

LOL Well, I guess that clears that up!!!

Nathan Natas

When you look back at the older publications of the WTS - those penned in the days of Russell and Rutherford - you find the names of the authors acredited pretty straightfowardly. Well... almost... is it really likely that Rutherford wrote all those books, booklets and talks by himself? Maybe he did.

What we do know is that the big change - I mean the "NewLight?" - came about soon after Rutherford's death, when the two-headed wild beast known as Knorr-Franz took over the WTS. Word is that Nate was happy to run the day-to-day administrative business and do all the masturbation talks at the dinner table, and Freddie was happy to pretend to be the most recently incarnated divine oracle while he played Theocratic? Number games.

But Nate (my hero) had learned a few things about organizational politics from ol' two-fisted Joe, and he knew tha he could not permit the glory of Freddie - the Society's main and most prolific writer, to overshadow his own glorious self, and so the doctrine of Theocratic? "I'm Not Responsible" Anonymity was born.

...and THAT, as the man says, is "the rest of the story."

Lady Lee

Why are the publications anonymously written?

so that when they boot one of the authors out they can still claim the writings as their own as they did with Ray Franz

Sassy

for many reasons...........to keep people humble and under their power...

to keep them from claiming if they leave later that they were writers (with proof) so as to not give them credability).

I remember my ex was asked to take pictures for the WTS for calendar shots.. and other publications as they saw fit.. the letter was explicit that we were to tell know one we had been asked to do photographs for them.. ever

RR

Nat, that and the fact that Knorr couildn't write a book if his life depended on it.He was no theologians, but a shrewed business man.

RR

Why are the publications anonymously written?

Share this