It says:
Our Internet Web site has the address http://www.watchtower.org and contains a selection of tracts, brochures, and Watchtower and Awake! articles in English, Chinese (Simplified), German, Russian, and Spanish, as well as in other languages. The publications on this Web site are already available through the congregations and are in use in the ministry. The purpose of our Web site is, not to release new publications, but to make information available to the public in electronic format. There is no need for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs. Our official site presents accurate information for any who want it. (end quote)
Someone claimed on this question http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am84oIrzoFkCDfEupHOrIjnsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120120080726AAj3HgF that this outlaws Witnesses from witnessing online.
Does it do that, OR does it mean that there is no vacuum to fill as there is an official website?
Additional Details
Edit: XXXXX said: "It keeps hammering in how you should not associate online, even with fellow witnesses." Actually, it does no such thing. Discussing dangers is not the same as outlawing. The article also said: "Jehovah wants you to exercise discernment. Why? Because he knows that it will safeguard you from various dangers." That's the whole point of that article. Thanks for your encouragement!
Hi -----! You said: "This does not say anything about witnessing". Well, having a witnessing website is an act of witnessing. Additionally, you said "we are not to create sites about our beliefs because the site www.watchtower.org does a much better job than we can do." That's what my question is about. Are we outlawed from making websites or blogs of a witnessing nature OR is it just that there is no rush to fill a vacuum as there is an official website? (Whether or not the official website does a better job is outside the scope of this question.)
Let me illustrate: If the US government in 1961 said: "Since we have NASA and its Apollo program, there is no need for any individual or corporation in the US to try to beat the Soviets to the moon," would that be the same as outlawing the construction of a rocket to go to the moon? Or say the government issued a brochure discussing the dangers of cell-phone use. Would this be the same as a ban on all cell-phones? :-)
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
The specific part of the quote in question is as follows:
"The purpose of our Web site (the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses) is, not to release new publications, but to make information available to the public in electronic format. THERE IS NO NEED for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs."
The Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses have made "information available to the public in electronic format." But it would be a stretch to say that the wording "there is no need" is a *direct prohibition* on anyone who would also desire to make "information available to the public in electronic format." The wording "there is no need" means exactly what it says - that additional information posted on-line concerning Jehovah's Witnesses is *NOT NECESSARY* when one can simply refer an interested one toward the relevant article already available at the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses pertaining to the topic at hand. What better place to refer interested ones than to the Official or Authorized Websites of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves?
One thing about the internet is the problem of anonymity. I have seen many websites that claim to be favorable toward Jehovah's Witnesses but were actually set up by apostates looking to fool unsuspecting ones. If one wishes to not fall for this trap, then they should by all means always stick to what they know they can depend on - the *Official* Website of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Because the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society does not have any control over the content of other websites on the internet, it is very understandable that the WBTS does not want to be associated in any way with unauthorized websites, favorable or unfavorable. With this in mind, the managers of several pro-Witness websites have posted the following disclaimer (or wording like it):
"This website is NOT an official website of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website.
"Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research.
"To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org." [Now jw.org]
ME:
"But it would be a stretch to say that the wording "there is no need" is a *direct prohibition*." Thank you! We have a "fire shut up on our bones" as Jeremiah said. So of course some will want to express themselves online!
(Names have been replaced.)
Link
