Indiana Kingdom
Halls of Jehovah's
Witnesses in:
Halls of Jehovah's
Witnesses in:
| Studies show us that the more sexually repressed the religion, the more child sexual abuse occurs among its members. Phillip Garrido, for example, who kidnapped Jaycee Dugard and held her as a sex slave for 18 years, was a Jehovah Witness minister. Police were only alerted when he tried to take the babies that he fathered with Jaycee onto a University campus to preach and distribute Watchtower magazines. Do you want these people on your private property, knocking on your door, talking to your children? |
| Even especially prominent JW Representatives, like Robert Edinger, of Bedford (Mitchell Kingdom Hall), for example, repeatedly intoxicated his son with alcohol at the age of 14 or younger, following years of stripping him and beating him. That son survived, however, earned a PHD in Religion at the University of Southern California, and is now fighting back, especially because my father is taking advantage of the fact that my mom has Alzheimer's and cannot express her wishes clearly. After a lifetime of being an attentive son to my mother, now, when she has Alzheimer's and can no longer defend her wishes, my father capitalizes on this and keeps me away from her, because I am not a JW. I have come to realize now, at the age of 54, that child abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses lasts a lifetime. And this web site represents the expression of a lot of hostility over a lot of stupidity of those in power in this organization with their proud egos, not even taking into consideration the consequences of these failed policies that tear families apart, if not sooner, then later. Many family members of JWs suffer, and we need solidarity in order to face these challenges. |
| Adult Survivors of Jehovah Witness Child Abuse |
| Jehovah Witnesses invade private property with no permission of any kind, by surprise, sometimes when you are not at home. Often, they solicit home bible studies with children. Sometimes, they come to visit when you are away from your home and unable to protect your family. They have all of Bloomington, Bedford, and Mitchell, Indiana mapped out into territories for door-to-door canvassing, hoping to be invited to a return visit. The law does nothing to stop this invasion of your private property, since it is considered to be within their 1st amendment rights to solicit our conversions. The only recourse that you have is to notify them that you do not want to be called on and then they will put you on their Do Not Call list. Inform them that Jehovah Witnesses are not allowed on your property. Only by having notified them will you be able to put legal force behind your no trespassing sign. We urge you to do this as soon as possible. Protect your children! Tell the Jehovah Witness representatives listed on the right, or the number in your local phone book, that under no circumstances do you want them to call at your home! |
| We, those of us who had this fearsome and violent ideology thrust upon us in our infancy, we are the principal victims of this fossilized, anachronistic, destructive, and dangerous philosophy of idolatry of self that the JWs try to force with violence upon silent lambs. The Jehovah's Witnesses organization is built on fear, not truth, fear of the almighty warrior god Jehovah, fear of the end of the world, fear of one's neighbors or classmates, or most of all, displeasing the elders, being spied upon, the threat of being outcast and unable to even socialize with one's own mother. Much worse, however, is that they go door-to-door trying to scare us, bothering us when we are trying to enjoy a family meal or getting ready for work. They want you to be afraid as well, so that you will donate to their cause. |
| If you do not like this page or think that it is inappropriate, please contact the following people. Bloomington: Martin Boling, 2506 S. Milton Drive, 47403 (812) 339-8638 (812) 332-6184 Bedford: Faith Spicer, 3609 River Bluff (812) 275-2987 Tell Faith How You Feel: Mitchell: Steven C. Steuer 245 Riverview Addition Bedford, IN 47421-8286 (812) 849-3739 Please leave message! |
| If you have any information about child sexual abuse among Jehovah Witnesses, it is your legal duty to report it to your local law enforcement agency. Please report it to us as well at: info@jwchildabuse.com |
| We are dedicated to helping protect Jehovah Witness children from sexual abuse and to fight against the cover up of sexual abuse. We are investigating a particularly egregious case that has been reported to us involving three local congregations of Jehovah Witnesses in Bloomington, Bedford, and Mitchell, Indiana. Please help to inform the ministers (elders) of these congregations that they have a legal duty to report child sexual abuse to local law enforcement agencies! |
| We wish to thank all of the Christian churches and other non-profit organizations in Indiana and elsewhere that are helping with our campaign. |
Jehovah's Witnesses have attracted criticism from mainstream Christianity, some members of the medical community, some former members
and some commentators over their beliefs and practices. The religion has been accused of doctrinal inconsistency and reversals, false
predictions, mistranslation of the Bible, harsh treatment of former members and autocratic and coercive leadership. Criticism has
also focused on their rejection of blood transfusions, particularly in life-threatening medical situations, and claims that they have failed to
report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. Many of the claims are denied by Jehovah's Witnesses and some have also been disputed by
courts and religious scholars.
The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are founded on the basis of its teachings about the second coming of Christ, the Millennium and the
Kingdom of God. Watch Tower Society publications have made, and continue to make, predictions about world events they believe were
prophesied in the Bible.[1] Some of those predictions were described as "established truth",[2] and "beyond a doubt".[3] Witnesses are
told to accept such teachings without question[4][5][6] and face expulsion if they oppose them.[7][8]
Failed predictions that were either explicitly stated or strongly implied, particularly linked to dates in 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975, have led to
the alteration or abandonment of some doctrines as part of a process the Watch Tower Society has described as progressive revelation, in
which God gradually leads his followers to a clearer understanding of his will.[9] The Society's publications have at times dismissed previous
statements, asserting that members had "read into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended."[10] or that the beliefs of members
were "based on wrong premises."[11] Other failed predictions are ignored; in the book, The Finished Mystery (1917), events were applied to
the years 1918 to 1925 that earlier had been held to occur prior to 1914. When the new interpretations also failed to transpire, the 1926
edition of the book altered the statements and removed the dates.[12]
Raymond Franz, a critic and former Witness, has cited publications that claimed God has used Jehovah's Witnesses as a collective prophet.
[13] Critics including James A. Beverley have accused the religion of false prophecy for making those predictions, particularly because of
assertions in some cases that the predictions were beyond doubt or had been approved by God, but describes its record of telling the future
as "pathetic".[14][15][16][17] Beverley says the Watch Tower Society has passed judgment on others who have falsely predicted the end of
the world (he cites a 1968 Awake! that says other groups were "guilty of false prophesying" after having "predicted an 'end to the
world', even announcing a specific date").[18][19]
The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet.[20][21] It says its explanations of Bible prophecy are not infallible[22]
[23][24] and that its predictions are not claimed explicitly as "the words of Jehovah."[20] It states that some of its expectations have needed
adjustment because of eagerness for God's kingdom, but that those adjustments are no reason to "call into question the whole body of truth."
[25] Raymond Franz claims that the Watch Tower Society tries to evade its responsibility when citing human fallibility as a defense, adding
that the Society represents itself as God's appointed spokesman, and that throughout its history has made many emphatic predictions. Franz
adds that the organization's eagerness for the Millennium does not give it license to impugn the motives of those who fail to accept its
predictions.[6]
George D. Chryssides has suggested widespread claims that Witnesses "keep changing the dates" are a distortion and misunderstanding of
Watch Tower Society chronology. He argues that, although there have been failures in prophetic speculation, the changing views and dates
of the Jehovah's Witnesses are more largely attributable to changed understandings of biblical chronology than to failed predictions.
Chryssides states, "For the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecy serves more as a way of discerning a divine plan in human history than a means
to predicting the future."[26]
Predictions (by date of publication) include:
1877: Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over the earth in 1914; the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor; the "saints"
would be carried to heaven.[27]
1891: 1914 would be "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men."[28]
1904: "World-wide anarchy" would follow the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.[29]
1916: World War I would terminate in Armageddon and the rapture of the "saints".[30]
1917: In 1918, Christendom would go down as a system to oblivion and be succeeded by revolutionary governments. God would "destroy the
churches wholesale and the church members by the millions." Church members would "perish by the sword of war, revolution and anarchy."
The dead would lie unburied. In 1920 all earthly governments would disappear, with worldwide anarchy prevailing.[31]
1920: Messiah's kingdom would be established in 1925 and bring worldwide peace. God would begin restoring the earth. Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob and other faithful patriarchs would be resurrected to perfect human life and be made princes and rulers, the visible representatives of
the New Order on earth. Those who showed themselves obedient to God would never die.[32]
1922: The anti-typical "jubilee" that would mark God's intervention in earthly affairs would take place "probably the fall" of 1925.[33]
1924: God's restoration of Earth would begin "shortly after" October 1, 1925. Jerusalem would be made the world's capital. Resurrected
"princes" such as Abel, Noah, Moses and John the Baptist would give instructions to their subjects around the world by radio, and airplanes
would transport people to and from Jerusalem from all parts of the globe in just "a few hours".[34]
1938: In 1938, Armageddon was too close for marriage or child bearing.[35]
1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.[36]
1942: Armageddon was "immediately before us."[37]
1966: It would be 6000 years since man's creation in the fall of 1975 and it would be "appropriate" for Christ's thousand-year reign to
begin at that time.[38] Time was "running out, no question about that."[39] The "immediate future" was "certain to be filled with climactic
events ... within a few years at most", the final parts of Bible prophecy relating to the "last days" would undergo fulfillment as Christ's reign
began.
1968: No one could say "with certainty" that the battle of Armageddon would begin in 1975, but time was "running out rapidly" with
"earthshaking events" soon to take place.[40] In March 1968 there was a "short period of time left", with "only about ninety months left before
6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed".[41]
1969: Human existence would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years." Young
Witnesses were told not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.[42]
1974: There was just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end" and Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and
property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service."[43]
1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.[44]
See also: Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses and Unfulfilled religious predictions
Last Days Begin
Christ's Return
Christ as King
Resurrection of 144,000
Judgment of Religion
Great Tribulation
See also: Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine
Although Watch Tower Society literature claims the Society's founder, Charles Taze Russell, was directed by God's Holy Spirit, through which
he received "flashes of light",[45] it has substantially altered doctrines since its inception and abandoned many of Russell's teachings.[46]
Many of the changes have involved biblical chronology that had earlier been claimed as beyond question.[47][48][49][50][51]
Date of beginning of Christ's kingdom rule. Russell taught that Jesus had become king in April 1878.[52][53] In 1922, Joseph Rutherford
altered the date to 1914.[46]
Date of resurrection of anointed Christians. After the failure of predictions that Christ's chosen "saints" would be carried away to heaven in
1878,[54] Russell developed the teaching that those "dying in the Lord" from 1878 forward would have an immediate heavenly resurrection.
[55] The Watch Tower confirmed the doctrine in 1925,[56] but two years later asserted this date was wrong[57] and that the beginning of the
instant resurrection to heaven for faithful Christians was from 1918.[58]
Great Pyramid as a "stone witness" of God. Russell wrote in 1910 that God had the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt built as a testimony to the
truth of the Bible and proof of its chronology identifying the "last days".[59][60] In 1928 Rutherford rejected the doctrine and claimed the
Pyramid had been built under the direction of Satan.[61]
Identity of "faithful and wise servant". Russell initially believed the "faithful and wise servant" of Matthew 24:45 was "every member of
this body of Christ ... the whole body individually and collectively."[62] By 1886 he had altered his view and began explaining it was a person,
not the Christian church.[63] Russell accepted claims by Bible Students that he was that "servant"[64][65][66] and in 1909 described as his
"opponents" those who would apply the term "faithful and wise servant" to "all the members of the church of Christ" rather than to an
individual.[67] By 1927 the Watch Tower Society was teaching that it was "a collective servant."[68]
Beginning of the "last days". From the earliest issues of the Watch Tower, Russell promoted the belief that the "last days" had begun in 1799
and would end in 1914.[69] As late as 1921 Watch Tower publications were still claiming the last days had begun in 1799.[70] In 1930 that
date was abandoned and 1914 was fixed as the beginning of the last days.
Jews' role in God's Kingdom. Russell followed the view of Nelson H. Barbour, who believed that in 1914 Christ's kingdom would take power
over all the earth and the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor.[71] In 1889 Russell wrote that with the completion of the
"Gentile Times" in 1914, Israel's "blindness" would subside and they would convert to Christianity.[72] The book Life (1929) noted that the
return of Jews to Palestine signaled that the end was very close, because Jews would "have the favors first and thereafter all others
who obey the Lord" under God's restoration of his kingdom.[73] In 1932 that belief was abandoned and from that date the Watch Tower
Society taught that Witnesses alone were the Israel of God.[74]
Date of Christ's invisible presence. The Watch Tower Society taught for more than 60 years that this began in 1874, insisting in 1922 that the
date was "indisputable".[75][76] In 1943 the society moved the event to 1914.[46][77][78]
Identity of the "superior authorities". Russell taught that the "superior authorities" of Romans 13:1, to whom Christians had to show subjection
and obedience, were governmental authorities. In 1929 The Watchtower discarded this view, stating that the term referred only to God and
Christ, and saying the change of doctrine was evidence of "advancing light" of truth shining forth to God's chosen people.[79] In 1952, The
Watchtower stated that the words of Romans 13 "could never have applied to the political powers of Caesar’s world as wrongly claimed
by the clergy of Christendom,"[80] and in 1960 The Watchtower described the earlier view as a factor that had caused the Bible Student
movement to be "unclean" in God's eyes during the 1914–1918 period. Two years later, in 1962, The Watchtower reverted to Russell's initial
doctrine.[79]
Identity and function of the Governing Body. Frequent mentions of the term "Governing Body" began in Watch Tower Society literature in the
1970s.[81] The Governing Body was initially identified as the Watch Tower Society's seven-member board of directors.[82] However, at the
time, the board played no role in establishing Watchtower doctrines, and all such decisions since the Society's origins had been made by the
Society's president.[83][84] A 1923 Watch Tower noted that Russell alone directed the policy and course of the Society "without regard
to any other person on earth"[85] and both his successors, Rutherford and Knorr, also acted alone in establishing Watch Tower doctrines.
An organizational change on January 1, 1976 for the first time gave the Governing Body the power to rule on doctrines[86] and become the
ruling council of Jehovah's Witnesses.[87] Despite this, The Watchtower in 1971 claimed that a Governing Body of anointed Christians had
existed since the 19th century to govern the affairs of God's anointed people.[88]
Treatment of disfellowshipped persons. In the 1950s when disfellowshipping became common, Witnesses were to have nothing to do with
expelled members, not conversing with or acknowledging them.[89] Family members of expelled individuals were permitted occasional
"contacts absolutely necessary in matters pertaining to family interests," but could not discuss spiritual matters with them.[90] In 1974 The
Watchtower, acknowledging some unbalanced Witnesses had displayed unkind, inhumane and possibly cruel attitudes to those expelled,[91]
relaxed restrictions on family contact, allowing families to choose for themselves the extent of association,[92] including whether or not to
discuss some spiritual matters.[93] In 1981, a reversal of policy occurred, with Witnesses instructed to avoid all spiritual interaction with
disfellowshipped ones, including with close relatives.[94] Witnesses were instructed not to greet disfellowshipped persons.[94][95]
[96] Parents were permitted to care for the physical needs of a disfellowshipped minor child; ill parents or physically or emotionally ill child
could be accepted back into the home "for a time". Witnesses were instructed not to eat with disfellowshipped relatives and were warned that
emotional influence could soften their resolve.[97] In 1980 the Witnesses' Brooklyn headquarters advised traveling overseers that a person
need not be promoting "apostate views" to warrant disfellowshipping; it advised that "appropriate judicial action" be taken against a person
who "continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what he has been provided" through The Watchtower.[98] The rules on shunning
were extended in 1981 to include those who had resigned from the religion voluntarily.[99][100]
Fall of "Babylon the Great". Russell taught that the fall of the "world empire of false religion" had taken place in 1878 and predicted
"Babylon's" complete destruction in 1914.[101] Rutherford claimed in 1917 that religion's final destruction would take place in
1918, explaining that God would destroy churches "wholesale" and that "Christendom shall go down as a system to oblivion."[102] In 1988
the Watch Tower Society claimed that release from prison in 1919 of senior Watchtower figures marked the fall of Babylon "as far as having
any captive hold on God's people was concerned",[103] with her "final destruction" "into oblivion, never to recover", expected "in the near
future."[104]
[edit] United Nations association
Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the United Nations is one of the 'superior authorities' that exist by God's permission, and that it presently
serves a purpose in maintaining order, but do not support it politically and do not consider it to be the means to achieve peace and security.
Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that the United Nations is the "image of the wild beast" of Revelation 13:1-18, and the second fulfillment of
the "abominable thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15; that it will be the means for the devastation of organized false religion
worldwide;[105][106] and that, like all other political powers, it will be destroyed and replaced by God's heavenly kingdom.[107] Jehovah's
Witnesses have denounced other religious organizations for having offered political support to the UN.[108]
On October 8, 2001 an article was published in the British Guardian newspaper questioning the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's
registration as a non-governmental organization (NGO) with the United Nations Department of Public Information and accusing the Watch
Tower Society of hypocrisy.[109] Within days of the article's publication, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society submitted a formal request
for disassociation, removing all association with the United Nations Department of Public Information,[110] and released a letter stating that
the reason for becoming associated with the United Nations Department of Information (DPI) was to access their facilities, and that they had
not been aware of the change in language contained in the criteria for NGO association.[111] However, when the Watch Tower Society
sought NGO association, "the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the
Charter of the United Nations", acknowledging that the purpose of membership is to "promote knowledge of the principles and activities of the
United Nations."[112] The official UN/DPI website states that "association of NGOs with DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the
United Nations system."[113]
[edit] Fall of Jerusalem
Jehovah's Witnesses assert that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BCE and completely uninhabited for exactly seventy
years. This date is critical to their selection of October 1914 for the arrival of Christ in kingly power—2520 years after 607 BC.[114] Non-
Witness scholars do not support 607 BCE for the event; most scholars date the fall of Jerusalem within a year of 587 BCE, twenty years later.
[115] Jehovah's Witnesses believe that periods of seventy years mentioned in the books of Jeremiah and Daniel refer to the Jewish exile.
In The Gentile Times Reconsidered: Chronology & Christ's Return, Carl O. Jonsson, a former Witness, presents eighteen lines of evidence to
support the traditional view of neo-Babylonian chronology. He accuses the Watch Tower Society of deliberately misquoting sources in an
effort to bolster their position.[116]
Rolf Furuli, a Jehovah's Witness and a lecturer in Semitic languages, presents a study of 607 BCE in support of the Witnesses'
conclusions in Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume 1: Persian
Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews.[117] Lester L. Grabbe, professor of theology at the University of Hull, said of
Furuli's study: "Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. ... F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the
test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history."[118]
[edit] Social criticisms
[edit] Authoritarianism and denial of free speech
The religion's leadership has been described as autocratic and totalitarian, with criticism focusing on the Watch Tower Society's demands for
the obedience and loyalty of Witnesses,[4][119] its intolerance of dissent or open discussion of doctrines and practices[120] and the practice
of expelling and shunning members who cannot conscientiously agree with all the religion's teachings.[121][122][123]
Raymond Franz has accused the religion's Governing Body of resenting, deprecating and seeking to silence differences of viewpoint within
the organization[124] and demanding organizational conformity that overrides personal conscience.[125] He claimed the Watch
Tower Society confirmed its position when, in a 1954 court case in Scotland, Watch Tower Society legal counsel Hayden C. Covington said of
Jehovah's Witnesses: "We must have unity ... unity at all costs".[126] Sociologist James A. Beckford noted that the Watch Tower movement
demands uniformity of beliefs from its members;[127] George D. Chryssides has also reported that Witness publications teach
that individuals' consciences are unreliable and need to be subordinated to scripture and to the Watch Tower organization.[128]
Sociologist Andrew Holden said that Witnesses are taught their theology in a highly mechanistic fashion, learning almost by rote.[129]
Raymond Franz and others have described Jehovah's Witnesses' religious meetings as "catechistical" question-and-answer sessions
in which questions and answers are both provided by the organization, placing pressure on members to reiterate its opinions.[130][131]
Former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting claimed Witnesses "are told what they should feel and think"[132] and members who do voice
viewpoints different from those expressed in publications and at meetings are said to be viewed with suspicion.[133] Raymond Franz has
claimed most Witnesses would be fearful to voice criticism of the organization for fear of being accused of disloyalty.[125] Authors
have drawn attention to frequent Watch Tower warnings against the "dangers" and "infection" of "independent thinking", including
questioning any of its published statements or teachings,[134][135][136][137] and instructions that members refrain from engaging in
independent Bible research.[138][139][140] The Watch Tower Society also directs that members must not read criticism of the organization
by "apostates"[141][142] or material published by other religions.[143][144] Heather and Gary Botting declared: "Jehovah's Witnesses will
brook no criticism from within, as many concerned members who have attempted to voice alternative opinions regarding the basic doctrine or
application of social pressure have discovered to their chagrin."[145] Beckford observed that the Society denies the legitimacy of all criticisms
of itself and that the habit of questioning official doctrine is "strenuously combated at all organizational levels".[146] Witnesses are said to be
under constant surveillance within the congregation[147] and are subject to a disciplinary system that encourages informers.[148][149]
Heather and Gary Botting argue that the power of the Watch Tower Society to control members is gained through the acceptance of the
Society "quite literally as the voice of Jehovah – God's 'mouthpiece'."[132] Franz claims the concept of loyalty to God's organization has no
scriptural support and serves only to reinforce the religion's authority structure, with its strong emphasis on human authority.[150] He has
claimed The Watchtower has repeatedly blurred discussions of both Jesus Christ's loyalty to God and the apostles' loyalty to Christ to
promote the view that Witnesses should be loyal to the Watch Tower organization.[151] Religion professor James A. Beverley describes the
belief that organizational loyalty is equal to divine loyalty[152] as the "central myth" of Jehovah's Witnesses employed to ensure complete
obedience.[153] Sociologist Andrew Holden has observed that Witnesses see no distinction between loyalty to Jehovah and to the movement
itself;[154] Heather and Gary Botting have claimed that challenging the views of those higher in the hierarchy is regarded as tantamount to
challenging God himself.[155]
The Society has described its intolerance of dissident and divergent doctrinal views within its ranks as "strict", but claims its stance is based
on the scriptural precedent of 2 Timothy 2:17,18 in which the Apostle Paul condemns heretics Hymenaeus and Philetus who denied the
resurrection of Jesus. It said: "Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly
promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation ... Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot
rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic."[156] Sociologist Rodney Stark says that Jehovah's Witness leaders are "not always very
democratic" and members are expected to conform to "rather strict standards," but says enforcement tends to be informal, sustained by close
bonds of friendship and that Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as "part of the power structure rather than subject to it".[157] In a case
involving Jehovah's Witnesses' activities in Russia, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the religion's requirements "are not
fundamentally different from similar limitations that other religions impose on their followers' private lives" and that charges of "mind control" in
that case were "based on conjecture and uncorroborated by fact."[158]
[edit] Description as a "cult"
Authors Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes[159] and Alan W. Gomes,[160] claim Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious cult. Hoekema bases his
judgment on a range of what he describes as general characteristics of a cult, including the tendency to elevate peripheral teachings (such
as door-to-door witnessing) to great prominence, extra-scriptural source of authority (Hoekema highlights Watch Tower teachings that the
Bible may be understood only as it is interpreted by the Governing Body), a view of the group as the exclusive community of the
saved (Watch Tower publications teach that Witnesses alone are God's people and only they will survive Armageddon) and the group's
central role in eschatology (Hoekema says Witness publications claim the group was called into existence by God to fill in a gap in the truth
neglected by existing churches, marking the climax of sacred history).[161]
Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult[162] and say that although individuals need proper guidance from God, they should do their own
thinking.[163][164] Witnesses state that they are saved by the ransom sacrifice of God's Son and undeserved kindness, that there is no one
that can earn salvation.[165] American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton,[166] cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II,[167] and Knocking
producer Joel P. Engardio also reject the claims that Witnesses are a cult.[168][169] Heiner Bielefeldt, the United Nations Special Rapporteur
on freedom of religion, stated that Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups are "sometimes stigmatized as “cults” and frequently meet with
societal prejudices which may escalate into fully fledged conspiracy theories," leading to discrimination which, "states are obliged to combat."
[170]
[edit] Coercion
Since 1920 the Watch Tower Society has required all congregation members participating in the preaching work to turn in written reports of
the amount of their activity,[171] explaining that the reports help the Society to plan its activities and identify areas of greater need[172] and
help congregation elders to identify those who may need assistance.[173] In 1943 the Society imposed personal quotas, requiring all active
Witnesses to spend at least 60 hours of door-to-door preaching per month, claiming these were "directions from the Lord".[174] Although
these quotas were subsequently removed, Raymond Franz claims "invisible" quotas remained, obliging Witnesses to meet certain levels of
preaching work to remain in good standing in the congregation[133] or to qualify for eldership.[125] Franz describes repeated urging for
adherents to "put kingdom interests first" and devote increasing amounts of time to door-to-door preaching efforts as coercive pressure. He
says many Witnesses constantly feel guilty that they are not doing more in "field activity".[125]
Former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting, claiming an emphasis on a personal track record would mean that salvation is effectively being
"bought" with "good works", observed: "No matter how long a Witness remains an active distributor of literature, the moment he ceases to be
active he is regarded by his peers as good as dead in terms of achieving the ultimate goal of life everlasting in an earthly paradise ... Few
realize upon entering the movement that the purchase price is open-ended and that the bill can never be paid in full until death or the advent
of Armageddon."[132]
The Watchtower, however, noted that although public preaching is necessary, such works do not "save" a Christian and it urged
Witnesses to examine their motive for engaging in preaching activity.[175]
Russian religious scholar Sergei Ivanenko, in a dissenting opinion to a report by a panel of experts to Moscow's Golovinsky Intermunicipal
Court in 1999, stated, "It would be a serious mistake to represent the Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion whose
leadership forces its rank and file believers to engage in one form of activity or another, or place upon them strict restrictions or directives."
Ivanenko, who based his view on a study of Watch Tower Society literature, concluded: "Jehovah's Witnesses strive to live in accord
with Bible principles on the basis of an individual, voluntary choice ... This also applies in full measure to preaching." [176] James A.
Beckford, a professor at the University of Warwick, England, who published a study of English Jehovah's Witnesses in 1975,[177] also told
the court: "It is important for each of them to exercise free moral agency in choosing to study the Bible and to live in accordance with their
interpretation of its message."[178] On June 10, 2010 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stated in regards to a charge of coercion
of family members, that "Quite often, the opposite is true: it is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and
to respect the [Jehovah's Witnesses] religious relative's freedom to manifest and practise his or her religion that is the source of conflict."[179]
Medical and legal commentators have also noted cases claiming that Witness medical patients were coerced to obey the religion's ban on
blood transfusions.[180][181][182] In a case involving a review of a Russian district court decision, however, the ECHR found nothing in the
judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. It noted: "On the contrary, it appears that many
Jehovah’s Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions in advance, free from time constraints of an emergency
situation." The court said: "The freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment, or to select an alternative form of treatment, is vital to
the principles of self-determination and personal autonomy. A competent adult patient is free to decide ... not to have a blood transfusion.
However, for this freedom to be meaningful, patients must have the right to make choices that accord with their own views and values,
regardless of how irrational, unwise or imprudent such choices may appear to others."[183]
[edit] Shunning
Main articles: Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline and Shunning
Witnesses practice disfellowshipping of members who unrepentantly engage in "gross sin",[184] (most commonly for breaches of the
Witnesses' code of personal morality),[185][186] and "remorseless apostasy".[187] The process of disfellowshipping is said to be carried to
uphold God’s standards, preserve the congregation’s spiritual cleanness, and possibly prompt a change of attitude in the wrongdoer.[184]
The practice requires that the expelled person be shunned by all members of the religion, including family members who do not live in the
same home, unless they qualify for re-admission. A person who dies while disfellowshipped cannot be given a funeral at a Kingdom Hall.[188]
[189] Members often face difficulties and trauma once expelled because of their previously limited contact with the outside world.[190][191]
The Watchtower's description of those who leave as being "mentally diseased" has drawn criticism from some current and former
members; in Britain some have argued that the description may constitute a breach of laws regarding religious hatred.[192][193]
The Watch Tower Society has attracted criticism for disfellowshipping members who decide they cannot conscientiously agree with all the
religion's teachings and practices. Sociologist Andrew Holden says that because the religion provides no valid reason for leaving, those who
do choose to leave are regarded as traitors.[194] According to Raymond Franz, those who decide they cannot accept Watch
Tower teachings and practices often live in a climate of fear, feeling they must constantly be on guard about what they say, do and read. He
says those who do express any disagreement, even in a private conversation with friends, risk investigation and trial by a judicial committee
as apostates or heretics[195] and classed as "wicked".[196]
Franz argues that the threat of expulsion for expressing disagreement with the Watch Tower Society's teachings is designed to create a
sterile atmosphere in which the organization's teachings and policies can circulate without the risk of confronting serious questioning or
adverse evidence.[197] The result, according to Holden, is that individuals may spend most of their lives suppressing doubts for fear of losing
their relationships with friends and relatives.[198] Penton describes the system of judicial committees and the threat of expulsion as the
ultimate control mechanism among the Witnesses;[199] Holden claims that shunning not only rids the community of defilement, but deters
others from dissident behavior.[190] Sociologist Ronald Lawson has also noted that the religion allows little room for independence of
thought, and no toleration of doctrinal diversity; he says those who deviate from official teachings are readily expelled and shunned.[200]
Watch Tower Society publications defend the practice of expelling and shunning those who "promote false teaching", claiming such
individuals must be quarantined to prevent the spread of their "spiritual infection".[201] They have cited a dictionary definition of apostasy
("renunciation of a religious faith, abandonment of a previous loyalty") to rule that an individual who begins affiliating with another religion has
disassociated from the Witnesses, warranting their shunning to protect the spiritual cleanness of the Witness congregation on the basis of
the reference in 1 John 2:19 that those who leave Christianity are "not of our sort".[202] An individual's acceptance of a blood transfusion is
similarly deemed as evidence of disassociation.[203] They say Witnesses also obey the "strong counsel" at 1 Corinthians 5:11 that Christians
should "quit mixing in company" with people who unrepentantly reject certain scriptural standards.[204]
The Witnesses' judicial process has also been criticized. Hearings take place in secret,[199] with judicial committees filling the roles of judge,
jury and prosecutor.[189] According to Franz, witnesses may present evidence but are not permitted to remain for the discussion[205] Critics
Heather and Gary Botting have claimed that Witnesses accused of an offence warranting expulsion are presumed guilty until found innocent.
They say the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence and if they make no attempt to do so—by failing to appear at a hearing set by
the judicial committee—they are assumed to be guilty and unrepentant.[206]
When a decision is made regarding disfellowshipping or disassociation, an announcement is made that the person is "no longer one of
Jehovah's Witnesses," at which point shunning is immediate. Members are not told whether the person has disassociated or has been
disfellowshipped. Neither testimony nor evidence in support of the judicial decision are provided. Congregation members are told to accept
the rulings without question and Witnesses who refuse to abide by a judicial committee decision will themselves suffer expulsion.[199]
Members are forbidden to talk with the expelled member, removing any opportunity for the person to discuss or explain their actions.[205]
[207] Penton claims judicial committee members and the Watch Tower Society frequently ignore established procedures when dealing with
troublesome individuals, conspiring to have them expelled in violation of Society rules.[208] Critics claim that Witness policies encourage an
informer system to report to elders Witnesses suspected of having committed an act that could warrant expulsion, including deviating from
organizational policies and teachings.[209][210]
Criticism has also been directed at the 1981 change of policy[211] that directed that persons who disassociate from (formally leave) the
religion were to be treated as though they were disfellowshipped.[212][213] Holden says that as a result, those who do leave the religion are
seldom allowed a dignified exit.[190] Heather and Gary Botting claim inactive Witnesses are often pressured to either become active or to
disassociate themselves by declaring they no longer accept key Watch Tower Society doctrines.[206]
[edit] Blood
Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
Jehovah's Witnesses reject transfusions of whole allogenic blood and its primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and
plasma), and transfusions of stored autologous blood or its primary components. As a doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses do not
reject transfusion of whole autologous blood so long as it is not stored prior to surgery (e.g. peri-operative extraction and transfusion of
autologous blood). This religious position is due to their belief that blood is sacred and represents life in God's eyes. Jehovah's Witnesses
understand scriptures such as Leviticus 17:10-14 (which speaks of not eating blood) to include taking blood into the body via a transfusion.
[214] Controversy has stemmed, however, from what critics state are inconsistencies in Witness policies on blood, claims that Witness
patients are coerced into refusing blood and that Watch Tower literature distorts facts about transfusions and fails to provide information that
would allow Witnesses to make an informed decision on the issue.[123]
[edit] Fractions and components
In the case of minor fractions derived from blood, each individual is directed to follow their own conscience on whether these are acceptable.
[215][216] This is because it is difficult to define at what point blood is no longer blood. As a substance is broken down into smaller and
smaller parts it may or may not be considered the original substance. Therefore some of Jehovah's Witnesses personally choose to accept
the use of blood fractions and some do not. However, if a fraction "makes up a significant portion of that component" or "carries out the key
function of a primary component" it may be objectionable to them.[217]
Such a stance of dividing blood into major components and minor fractions rather than either accepting all blood or requiring all blood
components to be poured out onto the ground has led to criticism from organizations such as the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform
on Blood.[218] Witnesses respond that blood as the fluid per se is not the real issue. They say the real issue is respect and obedience
regarding blood, which they perceive as being God's personal property.[219][220] Members are allowed to eat meat that still contains small
traces of blood remaining. Once blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God and then a person can eat the meat.
Jehovah's Witnesses view of meat and blood is therefore different from the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove even minor
traces of blood.[221]
According to lawyer Kerry Louderback-Wood, a former Jehovah's Witness,[222] the Watch Tower Society misrepresents the scope of allowed
fractions. If taken together, they "total the entire volume of blood they came from".[223] An example of this can be seen in blood plasma,
which consists of 90-96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four
fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately. Critics have likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but
allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.[224]
[edit] Storing and donation
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that storing blood violates direction from the Bible to 'pour blood out onto the ground'. They do not
donate blood except for uses they've individually pre-approved.[225] However, they are told that acceptance of blood fractions from donated
blood is a matter of conscience. A 2006 issue of Jehovah's Witnesses' newsletter Our Kingdom Ministry stated, "Although [Jehovah's
Witnesses] do not donate or store their own blood for transfusion purposes, some procedures or tests involving an individual’s blood are not
so clearly in conflict with Bible principles. Therefore, each individual should make a conscientious decision" [emphasis added].[226] Critics
have challenged these policies because acceptable blood fractions can only be derived from stored blood provided by donors.[227]
[edit] Legal considerations
Regardless of the medical considerations, Jehovah Witnesses advocate that physicians should uphold the right of a patient to choose what
treatments they do or do not accept (though a Witness is subject to religious sanctions if they exercise their right to choose a blood
transfusion).[228] Accordingly, US courts tend not to hold physicians responsible for adverse health effects that a patient incurred out of his
or her own requests.[229] However, the point of view that physicians must, in all circumstances, abide by the religious wishes of the
patients is not acknowledged by all jurisdictions, such as was determined in a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses in France.
The situation has been controversial, particularly in the case of children. In the United States, many physicians will agree to explore and
exhaust all non-blood alternatives in the treatment of children at the request of their legal guardians. Some state laws require physicians to
administer blood-based treatment to minors if it is their professional opinion that it is necessary to prevent immediate death or severe
permanent damage.[citation needed]
Kerry Louderback-Wood has claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses' legal corporations are potentially liable to significant claims for compensation
if the religion misrepresents the medical risks of blood transfusions. Wood claims that constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not
remove the legal responsibility that every person or organization has regarding misrepresenting secular fact.[230]
Main articles: Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse and Silentlambs
Critics such as Silentlambs have accused Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse
difficult for members.[232][233] Some victims of sexual abuse have asserted that when reporting abuse they were ordered to maintain silence
by their local elders to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization.[234][235]
The religion's official policy on child protection, which discusses the procedures for reporting child sexual abuse, states that elders obey all
legal requirements for reporting sex offenders, including reporting uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations where required by law.
Elders are to discipline pedophiles in the congregation. Victims are permitted to notify the authorities if they wish to do so.[236]
While a Witness may lose congregation privileges following a single credible accusation of abuse,[237] Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be
scripturally obliged to require corroboration ("two witnesses") before applying their severest forms of congregational discipline.[238] If there is
not an actual second witness to an incident of abuse, a congregation judicial committee will accept medical or police reports, or a witness to a
separate but similar incident as such a second witness against a member accused of sexual abuse.The Watch Tower Society has been
criticized for its refusal to reveal the names and academic credentials of the translators of its New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
(NWT).[240] The Society has claimed members of the NWT's translation committee wished to remain anonymous in order to exalt only the
name of God,[241] The Watchtower stating that the educational qualifications of the translators were unimportant and that "the translation
itself testifies to their qualifications".[242] Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body, has claimed that of the four men he says
constituted the committee, only one—its principal translator, his uncle Frederick Franz—had sufficient knowledge of biblical languages to
have attempted the project.[243] Frederick Franz had studied Greek for two years and was self-taught in Hebrew.[244]
Much criticism of the NWT involves the rendering of certain texts considered to be biased towards specific Witness practices and doctrines.
[240][245][246][247][248][249] These include the use of "torture stake" instead of "cross" throughout the New Testament;[240] the rendering
of John 1:1, with the insertion of the indefinite article ("a") in its rendering to give "the Word was a god";[240][250] Romans 10:10, which uses
the term "public declaration", which may reinforce the imperative to engage in public preaching;[240] John 17:3, which uses the term
"taking in knowledge" rather than "know" to suggest that salvation is dependent on ongoing study,[240] and the placement of the comma in
Luke 23:43, which affects the timing of the fulfillment of Jesus' promise to the thief at Calvary.[251]
Also criticized is the NWT's insertion of the name Jehovah 237 times in the New Testament without extant New Testament Greek manuscript
evidence that the name existed there.[252][253][254] Watch Tower publications have claimed that the name was "restored" on a sound basis,
stating that when New Testament writers quote earlier Old Testament scriptures containing the Tetragrammaton (יהוה), "the translator has the
right to render Kyrios ("LORD") as Jehovah."[255] The NWT mentions twenty-seven other translations which have similarly rendered
Kyrios as a form of the name Jehovah, stating that there is only one verse where the NWT does so without agreement from other translations.
[256]
The Society has claimed its translation "courageously restores God’s name, Jehovah, to its proper place in the Biblical text, is free from the
bias of religious traditionalism, and ... gives the literal meaning of God’s Word as accurately as possible."[257] Jason BeDuhn, associate
professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona, compared major translations for accuracy. He wrote
that the NWT's introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic
principle of accuracy".[258] BeDuhn also stated that whilst there are "a handful of examples of bias in the [New World Translation (NW)]", that
"most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New
Testament writers." He concluded that "the NW and [another translation] are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But they are
remarkably good translations ... often better than [the other six translations analyzed]."[259]
and some commentators over their beliefs and practices. The religion has been accused of doctrinal inconsistency and reversals, false
predictions, mistranslation of the Bible, harsh treatment of former members and autocratic and coercive leadership. Criticism has
also focused on their rejection of blood transfusions, particularly in life-threatening medical situations, and claims that they have failed to
report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. Many of the claims are denied by Jehovah's Witnesses and some have also been disputed by
courts and religious scholars.
The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are founded on the basis of its teachings about the second coming of Christ, the Millennium and the
Kingdom of God. Watch Tower Society publications have made, and continue to make, predictions about world events they believe were
prophesied in the Bible.[1] Some of those predictions were described as "established truth",[2] and "beyond a doubt".[3] Witnesses are
told to accept such teachings without question[4][5][6] and face expulsion if they oppose them.[7][8]
Failed predictions that were either explicitly stated or strongly implied, particularly linked to dates in 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975, have led to
the alteration or abandonment of some doctrines as part of a process the Watch Tower Society has described as progressive revelation, in
which God gradually leads his followers to a clearer understanding of his will.[9] The Society's publications have at times dismissed previous
statements, asserting that members had "read into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended."[10] or that the beliefs of members
were "based on wrong premises."[11] Other failed predictions are ignored; in the book, The Finished Mystery (1917), events were applied to
the years 1918 to 1925 that earlier had been held to occur prior to 1914. When the new interpretations also failed to transpire, the 1926
edition of the book altered the statements and removed the dates.[12]
Raymond Franz, a critic and former Witness, has cited publications that claimed God has used Jehovah's Witnesses as a collective prophet.
[13] Critics including James A. Beverley have accused the religion of false prophecy for making those predictions, particularly because of
assertions in some cases that the predictions were beyond doubt or had been approved by God, but describes its record of telling the future
as "pathetic".[14][15][16][17] Beverley says the Watch Tower Society has passed judgment on others who have falsely predicted the end of
the world (he cites a 1968 Awake! that says other groups were "guilty of false prophesying" after having "predicted an 'end to the
world', even announcing a specific date").[18][19]
The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet.[20][21] It says its explanations of Bible prophecy are not infallible[22]
[23][24] and that its predictions are not claimed explicitly as "the words of Jehovah."[20] It states that some of its expectations have needed
adjustment because of eagerness for God's kingdom, but that those adjustments are no reason to "call into question the whole body of truth."
[25] Raymond Franz claims that the Watch Tower Society tries to evade its responsibility when citing human fallibility as a defense, adding
that the Society represents itself as God's appointed spokesman, and that throughout its history has made many emphatic predictions. Franz
adds that the organization's eagerness for the Millennium does not give it license to impugn the motives of those who fail to accept its
predictions.[6]
George D. Chryssides has suggested widespread claims that Witnesses "keep changing the dates" are a distortion and misunderstanding of
Watch Tower Society chronology. He argues that, although there have been failures in prophetic speculation, the changing views and dates
of the Jehovah's Witnesses are more largely attributable to changed understandings of biblical chronology than to failed predictions.
Chryssides states, "For the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecy serves more as a way of discerning a divine plan in human history than a means
to predicting the future."[26]
Predictions (by date of publication) include:
1877: Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over the earth in 1914; the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor; the "saints"
would be carried to heaven.[27]
1891: 1914 would be "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men."[28]
1904: "World-wide anarchy" would follow the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.[29]
1916: World War I would terminate in Armageddon and the rapture of the "saints".[30]
1917: In 1918, Christendom would go down as a system to oblivion and be succeeded by revolutionary governments. God would "destroy the
churches wholesale and the church members by the millions." Church members would "perish by the sword of war, revolution and anarchy."
The dead would lie unburied. In 1920 all earthly governments would disappear, with worldwide anarchy prevailing.[31]
1920: Messiah's kingdom would be established in 1925 and bring worldwide peace. God would begin restoring the earth. Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob and other faithful patriarchs would be resurrected to perfect human life and be made princes and rulers, the visible representatives of
the New Order on earth. Those who showed themselves obedient to God would never die.[32]
1922: The anti-typical "jubilee" that would mark God's intervention in earthly affairs would take place "probably the fall" of 1925.[33]
1924: God's restoration of Earth would begin "shortly after" October 1, 1925. Jerusalem would be made the world's capital. Resurrected
"princes" such as Abel, Noah, Moses and John the Baptist would give instructions to their subjects around the world by radio, and airplanes
would transport people to and from Jerusalem from all parts of the globe in just "a few hours".[34]
1938: In 1938, Armageddon was too close for marriage or child bearing.[35]
1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.[36]
1942: Armageddon was "immediately before us."[37]
1966: It would be 6000 years since man's creation in the fall of 1975 and it would be "appropriate" for Christ's thousand-year reign to
begin at that time.[38] Time was "running out, no question about that."[39] The "immediate future" was "certain to be filled with climactic
events ... within a few years at most", the final parts of Bible prophecy relating to the "last days" would undergo fulfillment as Christ's reign
began.
1968: No one could say "with certainty" that the battle of Armageddon would begin in 1975, but time was "running out rapidly" with
"earthshaking events" soon to take place.[40] In March 1968 there was a "short period of time left", with "only about ninety months left before
6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed".[41]
1969: Human existence would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years." Young
Witnesses were told not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.[42]
1974: There was just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end" and Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and
property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service."[43]
1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.[44]
See also: Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses and Unfulfilled religious predictions
Last Days Begin
Christ's Return
Christ as King
Resurrection of 144,000
Judgment of Religion
Great Tribulation
See also: Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine
Although Watch Tower Society literature claims the Society's founder, Charles Taze Russell, was directed by God's Holy Spirit, through which
he received "flashes of light",[45] it has substantially altered doctrines since its inception and abandoned many of Russell's teachings.[46]
Many of the changes have involved biblical chronology that had earlier been claimed as beyond question.[47][48][49][50][51]
Date of beginning of Christ's kingdom rule. Russell taught that Jesus had become king in April 1878.[52][53] In 1922, Joseph Rutherford
altered the date to 1914.[46]
Date of resurrection of anointed Christians. After the failure of predictions that Christ's chosen "saints" would be carried away to heaven in
1878,[54] Russell developed the teaching that those "dying in the Lord" from 1878 forward would have an immediate heavenly resurrection.
[55] The Watch Tower confirmed the doctrine in 1925,[56] but two years later asserted this date was wrong[57] and that the beginning of the
instant resurrection to heaven for faithful Christians was from 1918.[58]
Great Pyramid as a "stone witness" of God. Russell wrote in 1910 that God had the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt built as a testimony to the
truth of the Bible and proof of its chronology identifying the "last days".[59][60] In 1928 Rutherford rejected the doctrine and claimed the
Pyramid had been built under the direction of Satan.[61]
Identity of "faithful and wise servant". Russell initially believed the "faithful and wise servant" of Matthew 24:45 was "every member of
this body of Christ ... the whole body individually and collectively."[62] By 1886 he had altered his view and began explaining it was a person,
not the Christian church.[63] Russell accepted claims by Bible Students that he was that "servant"[64][65][66] and in 1909 described as his
"opponents" those who would apply the term "faithful and wise servant" to "all the members of the church of Christ" rather than to an
individual.[67] By 1927 the Watch Tower Society was teaching that it was "a collective servant."[68]
Beginning of the "last days". From the earliest issues of the Watch Tower, Russell promoted the belief that the "last days" had begun in 1799
and would end in 1914.[69] As late as 1921 Watch Tower publications were still claiming the last days had begun in 1799.[70] In 1930 that
date was abandoned and 1914 was fixed as the beginning of the last days.
Jews' role in God's Kingdom. Russell followed the view of Nelson H. Barbour, who believed that in 1914 Christ's kingdom would take power
over all the earth and the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor.[71] In 1889 Russell wrote that with the completion of the
"Gentile Times" in 1914, Israel's "blindness" would subside and they would convert to Christianity.[72] The book Life (1929) noted that the
return of Jews to Palestine signaled that the end was very close, because Jews would "have the favors first and thereafter all others
who obey the Lord" under God's restoration of his kingdom.[73] In 1932 that belief was abandoned and from that date the Watch Tower
Society taught that Witnesses alone were the Israel of God.[74]
Date of Christ's invisible presence. The Watch Tower Society taught for more than 60 years that this began in 1874, insisting in 1922 that the
date was "indisputable".[75][76] In 1943 the society moved the event to 1914.[46][77][78]
Identity of the "superior authorities". Russell taught that the "superior authorities" of Romans 13:1, to whom Christians had to show subjection
and obedience, were governmental authorities. In 1929 The Watchtower discarded this view, stating that the term referred only to God and
Christ, and saying the change of doctrine was evidence of "advancing light" of truth shining forth to God's chosen people.[79] In 1952, The
Watchtower stated that the words of Romans 13 "could never have applied to the political powers of Caesar’s world as wrongly claimed
by the clergy of Christendom,"[80] and in 1960 The Watchtower described the earlier view as a factor that had caused the Bible Student
movement to be "unclean" in God's eyes during the 1914–1918 period. Two years later, in 1962, The Watchtower reverted to Russell's initial
doctrine.[79]
Identity and function of the Governing Body. Frequent mentions of the term "Governing Body" began in Watch Tower Society literature in the
1970s.[81] The Governing Body was initially identified as the Watch Tower Society's seven-member board of directors.[82] However, at the
time, the board played no role in establishing Watchtower doctrines, and all such decisions since the Society's origins had been made by the
Society's president.[83][84] A 1923 Watch Tower noted that Russell alone directed the policy and course of the Society "without regard
to any other person on earth"[85] and both his successors, Rutherford and Knorr, also acted alone in establishing Watch Tower doctrines.
An organizational change on January 1, 1976 for the first time gave the Governing Body the power to rule on doctrines[86] and become the
ruling council of Jehovah's Witnesses.[87] Despite this, The Watchtower in 1971 claimed that a Governing Body of anointed Christians had
existed since the 19th century to govern the affairs of God's anointed people.[88]
Treatment of disfellowshipped persons. In the 1950s when disfellowshipping became common, Witnesses were to have nothing to do with
expelled members, not conversing with or acknowledging them.[89] Family members of expelled individuals were permitted occasional
"contacts absolutely necessary in matters pertaining to family interests," but could not discuss spiritual matters with them.[90] In 1974 The
Watchtower, acknowledging some unbalanced Witnesses had displayed unkind, inhumane and possibly cruel attitudes to those expelled,[91]
relaxed restrictions on family contact, allowing families to choose for themselves the extent of association,[92] including whether or not to
discuss some spiritual matters.[93] In 1981, a reversal of policy occurred, with Witnesses instructed to avoid all spiritual interaction with
disfellowshipped ones, including with close relatives.[94] Witnesses were instructed not to greet disfellowshipped persons.[94][95]
[96] Parents were permitted to care for the physical needs of a disfellowshipped minor child; ill parents or physically or emotionally ill child
could be accepted back into the home "for a time". Witnesses were instructed not to eat with disfellowshipped relatives and were warned that
emotional influence could soften their resolve.[97] In 1980 the Witnesses' Brooklyn headquarters advised traveling overseers that a person
need not be promoting "apostate views" to warrant disfellowshipping; it advised that "appropriate judicial action" be taken against a person
who "continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what he has been provided" through The Watchtower.[98] The rules on shunning
were extended in 1981 to include those who had resigned from the religion voluntarily.[99][100]
Fall of "Babylon the Great". Russell taught that the fall of the "world empire of false religion" had taken place in 1878 and predicted
"Babylon's" complete destruction in 1914.[101] Rutherford claimed in 1917 that religion's final destruction would take place in
1918, explaining that God would destroy churches "wholesale" and that "Christendom shall go down as a system to oblivion."[102] In 1988
the Watch Tower Society claimed that release from prison in 1919 of senior Watchtower figures marked the fall of Babylon "as far as having
any captive hold on God's people was concerned",[103] with her "final destruction" "into oblivion, never to recover", expected "in the near
future."[104]
[edit] United Nations association
Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the United Nations is one of the 'superior authorities' that exist by God's permission, and that it presently
serves a purpose in maintaining order, but do not support it politically and do not consider it to be the means to achieve peace and security.
Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that the United Nations is the "image of the wild beast" of Revelation 13:1-18, and the second fulfillment of
the "abominable thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15; that it will be the means for the devastation of organized false religion
worldwide;[105][106] and that, like all other political powers, it will be destroyed and replaced by God's heavenly kingdom.[107] Jehovah's
Witnesses have denounced other religious organizations for having offered political support to the UN.[108]
On October 8, 2001 an article was published in the British Guardian newspaper questioning the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's
registration as a non-governmental organization (NGO) with the United Nations Department of Public Information and accusing the Watch
Tower Society of hypocrisy.[109] Within days of the article's publication, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society submitted a formal request
for disassociation, removing all association with the United Nations Department of Public Information,[110] and released a letter stating that
the reason for becoming associated with the United Nations Department of Information (DPI) was to access their facilities, and that they had
not been aware of the change in language contained in the criteria for NGO association.[111] However, when the Watch Tower Society
sought NGO association, "the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the
Charter of the United Nations", acknowledging that the purpose of membership is to "promote knowledge of the principles and activities of the
United Nations."[112] The official UN/DPI website states that "association of NGOs with DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the
United Nations system."[113]
[edit] Fall of Jerusalem
Jehovah's Witnesses assert that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BCE and completely uninhabited for exactly seventy
years. This date is critical to their selection of October 1914 for the arrival of Christ in kingly power—2520 years after 607 BC.[114] Non-
Witness scholars do not support 607 BCE for the event; most scholars date the fall of Jerusalem within a year of 587 BCE, twenty years later.
[115] Jehovah's Witnesses believe that periods of seventy years mentioned in the books of Jeremiah and Daniel refer to the Jewish exile.
In The Gentile Times Reconsidered: Chronology & Christ's Return, Carl O. Jonsson, a former Witness, presents eighteen lines of evidence to
support the traditional view of neo-Babylonian chronology. He accuses the Watch Tower Society of deliberately misquoting sources in an
effort to bolster their position.[116]
Rolf Furuli, a Jehovah's Witness and a lecturer in Semitic languages, presents a study of 607 BCE in support of the Witnesses'
conclusions in Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume 1: Persian
Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews.[117] Lester L. Grabbe, professor of theology at the University of Hull, said of
Furuli's study: "Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. ... F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the
test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history."[118]
[edit] Social criticisms
[edit] Authoritarianism and denial of free speech
The religion's leadership has been described as autocratic and totalitarian, with criticism focusing on the Watch Tower Society's demands for
the obedience and loyalty of Witnesses,[4][119] its intolerance of dissent or open discussion of doctrines and practices[120] and the practice
of expelling and shunning members who cannot conscientiously agree with all the religion's teachings.[121][122][123]
Raymond Franz has accused the religion's Governing Body of resenting, deprecating and seeking to silence differences of viewpoint within
the organization[124] and demanding organizational conformity that overrides personal conscience.[125] He claimed the Watch
Tower Society confirmed its position when, in a 1954 court case in Scotland, Watch Tower Society legal counsel Hayden C. Covington said of
Jehovah's Witnesses: "We must have unity ... unity at all costs".[126] Sociologist James A. Beckford noted that the Watch Tower movement
demands uniformity of beliefs from its members;[127] George D. Chryssides has also reported that Witness publications teach
that individuals' consciences are unreliable and need to be subordinated to scripture and to the Watch Tower organization.[128]
Sociologist Andrew Holden said that Witnesses are taught their theology in a highly mechanistic fashion, learning almost by rote.[129]
Raymond Franz and others have described Jehovah's Witnesses' religious meetings as "catechistical" question-and-answer sessions
in which questions and answers are both provided by the organization, placing pressure on members to reiterate its opinions.[130][131]
Former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting claimed Witnesses "are told what they should feel and think"[132] and members who do voice
viewpoints different from those expressed in publications and at meetings are said to be viewed with suspicion.[133] Raymond Franz has
claimed most Witnesses would be fearful to voice criticism of the organization for fear of being accused of disloyalty.[125] Authors
have drawn attention to frequent Watch Tower warnings against the "dangers" and "infection" of "independent thinking", including
questioning any of its published statements or teachings,[134][135][136][137] and instructions that members refrain from engaging in
independent Bible research.[138][139][140] The Watch Tower Society also directs that members must not read criticism of the organization
by "apostates"[141][142] or material published by other religions.[143][144] Heather and Gary Botting declared: "Jehovah's Witnesses will
brook no criticism from within, as many concerned members who have attempted to voice alternative opinions regarding the basic doctrine or
application of social pressure have discovered to their chagrin."[145] Beckford observed that the Society denies the legitimacy of all criticisms
of itself and that the habit of questioning official doctrine is "strenuously combated at all organizational levels".[146] Witnesses are said to be
under constant surveillance within the congregation[147] and are subject to a disciplinary system that encourages informers.[148][149]
Heather and Gary Botting argue that the power of the Watch Tower Society to control members is gained through the acceptance of the
Society "quite literally as the voice of Jehovah – God's 'mouthpiece'."[132] Franz claims the concept of loyalty to God's organization has no
scriptural support and serves only to reinforce the religion's authority structure, with its strong emphasis on human authority.[150] He has
claimed The Watchtower has repeatedly blurred discussions of both Jesus Christ's loyalty to God and the apostles' loyalty to Christ to
promote the view that Witnesses should be loyal to the Watch Tower organization.[151] Religion professor James A. Beverley describes the
belief that organizational loyalty is equal to divine loyalty[152] as the "central myth" of Jehovah's Witnesses employed to ensure complete
obedience.[153] Sociologist Andrew Holden has observed that Witnesses see no distinction between loyalty to Jehovah and to the movement
itself;[154] Heather and Gary Botting have claimed that challenging the views of those higher in the hierarchy is regarded as tantamount to
challenging God himself.[155]
The Society has described its intolerance of dissident and divergent doctrinal views within its ranks as "strict", but claims its stance is based
on the scriptural precedent of 2 Timothy 2:17,18 in which the Apostle Paul condemns heretics Hymenaeus and Philetus who denied the
resurrection of Jesus. It said: "Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly
promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation ... Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot
rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic."[156] Sociologist Rodney Stark says that Jehovah's Witness leaders are "not always very
democratic" and members are expected to conform to "rather strict standards," but says enforcement tends to be informal, sustained by close
bonds of friendship and that Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as "part of the power structure rather than subject to it".[157] In a case
involving Jehovah's Witnesses' activities in Russia, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the religion's requirements "are not
fundamentally different from similar limitations that other religions impose on their followers' private lives" and that charges of "mind control" in
that case were "based on conjecture and uncorroborated by fact."[158]
[edit] Description as a "cult"
Authors Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes[159] and Alan W. Gomes,[160] claim Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious cult. Hoekema bases his
judgment on a range of what he describes as general characteristics of a cult, including the tendency to elevate peripheral teachings (such
as door-to-door witnessing) to great prominence, extra-scriptural source of authority (Hoekema highlights Watch Tower teachings that the
Bible may be understood only as it is interpreted by the Governing Body), a view of the group as the exclusive community of the
saved (Watch Tower publications teach that Witnesses alone are God's people and only they will survive Armageddon) and the group's
central role in eschatology (Hoekema says Witness publications claim the group was called into existence by God to fill in a gap in the truth
neglected by existing churches, marking the climax of sacred history).[161]
Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult[162] and say that although individuals need proper guidance from God, they should do their own
thinking.[163][164] Witnesses state that they are saved by the ransom sacrifice of God's Son and undeserved kindness, that there is no one
that can earn salvation.[165] American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton,[166] cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II,[167] and Knocking
producer Joel P. Engardio also reject the claims that Witnesses are a cult.[168][169] Heiner Bielefeldt, the United Nations Special Rapporteur
on freedom of religion, stated that Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups are "sometimes stigmatized as “cults” and frequently meet with
societal prejudices which may escalate into fully fledged conspiracy theories," leading to discrimination which, "states are obliged to combat."
[170]
[edit] Coercion
Since 1920 the Watch Tower Society has required all congregation members participating in the preaching work to turn in written reports of
the amount of their activity,[171] explaining that the reports help the Society to plan its activities and identify areas of greater need[172] and
help congregation elders to identify those who may need assistance.[173] In 1943 the Society imposed personal quotas, requiring all active
Witnesses to spend at least 60 hours of door-to-door preaching per month, claiming these were "directions from the Lord".[174] Although
these quotas were subsequently removed, Raymond Franz claims "invisible" quotas remained, obliging Witnesses to meet certain levels of
preaching work to remain in good standing in the congregation[133] or to qualify for eldership.[125] Franz describes repeated urging for
adherents to "put kingdom interests first" and devote increasing amounts of time to door-to-door preaching efforts as coercive pressure. He
says many Witnesses constantly feel guilty that they are not doing more in "field activity".[125]
Former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting, claiming an emphasis on a personal track record would mean that salvation is effectively being
"bought" with "good works", observed: "No matter how long a Witness remains an active distributor of literature, the moment he ceases to be
active he is regarded by his peers as good as dead in terms of achieving the ultimate goal of life everlasting in an earthly paradise ... Few
realize upon entering the movement that the purchase price is open-ended and that the bill can never be paid in full until death or the advent
of Armageddon."[132]
The Watchtower, however, noted that although public preaching is necessary, such works do not "save" a Christian and it urged
Witnesses to examine their motive for engaging in preaching activity.[175]
Russian religious scholar Sergei Ivanenko, in a dissenting opinion to a report by a panel of experts to Moscow's Golovinsky Intermunicipal
Court in 1999, stated, "It would be a serious mistake to represent the Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion whose
leadership forces its rank and file believers to engage in one form of activity or another, or place upon them strict restrictions or directives."
Ivanenko, who based his view on a study of Watch Tower Society literature, concluded: "Jehovah's Witnesses strive to live in accord
with Bible principles on the basis of an individual, voluntary choice ... This also applies in full measure to preaching." [176] James A.
Beckford, a professor at the University of Warwick, England, who published a study of English Jehovah's Witnesses in 1975,[177] also told
the court: "It is important for each of them to exercise free moral agency in choosing to study the Bible and to live in accordance with their
interpretation of its message."[178] On June 10, 2010 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stated in regards to a charge of coercion
of family members, that "Quite often, the opposite is true: it is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and
to respect the [Jehovah's Witnesses] religious relative's freedom to manifest and practise his or her religion that is the source of conflict."[179]
Medical and legal commentators have also noted cases claiming that Witness medical patients were coerced to obey the religion's ban on
blood transfusions.[180][181][182] In a case involving a review of a Russian district court decision, however, the ECHR found nothing in the
judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. It noted: "On the contrary, it appears that many
Jehovah’s Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions in advance, free from time constraints of an emergency
situation." The court said: "The freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment, or to select an alternative form of treatment, is vital to
the principles of self-determination and personal autonomy. A competent adult patient is free to decide ... not to have a blood transfusion.
However, for this freedom to be meaningful, patients must have the right to make choices that accord with their own views and values,
regardless of how irrational, unwise or imprudent such choices may appear to others."[183]
[edit] Shunning
Main articles: Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline and Shunning
Witnesses practice disfellowshipping of members who unrepentantly engage in "gross sin",[184] (most commonly for breaches of the
Witnesses' code of personal morality),[185][186] and "remorseless apostasy".[187] The process of disfellowshipping is said to be carried to
uphold God’s standards, preserve the congregation’s spiritual cleanness, and possibly prompt a change of attitude in the wrongdoer.[184]
The practice requires that the expelled person be shunned by all members of the religion, including family members who do not live in the
same home, unless they qualify for re-admission. A person who dies while disfellowshipped cannot be given a funeral at a Kingdom Hall.[188]
[189] Members often face difficulties and trauma once expelled because of their previously limited contact with the outside world.[190][191]
The Watchtower's description of those who leave as being "mentally diseased" has drawn criticism from some current and former
members; in Britain some have argued that the description may constitute a breach of laws regarding religious hatred.[192][193]
The Watch Tower Society has attracted criticism for disfellowshipping members who decide they cannot conscientiously agree with all the
religion's teachings and practices. Sociologist Andrew Holden says that because the religion provides no valid reason for leaving, those who
do choose to leave are regarded as traitors.[194] According to Raymond Franz, those who decide they cannot accept Watch
Tower teachings and practices often live in a climate of fear, feeling they must constantly be on guard about what they say, do and read. He
says those who do express any disagreement, even in a private conversation with friends, risk investigation and trial by a judicial committee
as apostates or heretics[195] and classed as "wicked".[196]
Franz argues that the threat of expulsion for expressing disagreement with the Watch Tower Society's teachings is designed to create a
sterile atmosphere in which the organization's teachings and policies can circulate without the risk of confronting serious questioning or
adverse evidence.[197] The result, according to Holden, is that individuals may spend most of their lives suppressing doubts for fear of losing
their relationships with friends and relatives.[198] Penton describes the system of judicial committees and the threat of expulsion as the
ultimate control mechanism among the Witnesses;[199] Holden claims that shunning not only rids the community of defilement, but deters
others from dissident behavior.[190] Sociologist Ronald Lawson has also noted that the religion allows little room for independence of
thought, and no toleration of doctrinal diversity; he says those who deviate from official teachings are readily expelled and shunned.[200]
Watch Tower Society publications defend the practice of expelling and shunning those who "promote false teaching", claiming such
individuals must be quarantined to prevent the spread of their "spiritual infection".[201] They have cited a dictionary definition of apostasy
("renunciation of a religious faith, abandonment of a previous loyalty") to rule that an individual who begins affiliating with another religion has
disassociated from the Witnesses, warranting their shunning to protect the spiritual cleanness of the Witness congregation on the basis of
the reference in 1 John 2:19 that those who leave Christianity are "not of our sort".[202] An individual's acceptance of a blood transfusion is
similarly deemed as evidence of disassociation.[203] They say Witnesses also obey the "strong counsel" at 1 Corinthians 5:11 that Christians
should "quit mixing in company" with people who unrepentantly reject certain scriptural standards.[204]
The Witnesses' judicial process has also been criticized. Hearings take place in secret,[199] with judicial committees filling the roles of judge,
jury and prosecutor.[189] According to Franz, witnesses may present evidence but are not permitted to remain for the discussion[205] Critics
Heather and Gary Botting have claimed that Witnesses accused of an offence warranting expulsion are presumed guilty until found innocent.
They say the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence and if they make no attempt to do so—by failing to appear at a hearing set by
the judicial committee—they are assumed to be guilty and unrepentant.[206]
When a decision is made regarding disfellowshipping or disassociation, an announcement is made that the person is "no longer one of
Jehovah's Witnesses," at which point shunning is immediate. Members are not told whether the person has disassociated or has been
disfellowshipped. Neither testimony nor evidence in support of the judicial decision are provided. Congregation members are told to accept
the rulings without question and Witnesses who refuse to abide by a judicial committee decision will themselves suffer expulsion.[199]
Members are forbidden to talk with the expelled member, removing any opportunity for the person to discuss or explain their actions.[205]
[207] Penton claims judicial committee members and the Watch Tower Society frequently ignore established procedures when dealing with
troublesome individuals, conspiring to have them expelled in violation of Society rules.[208] Critics claim that Witness policies encourage an
informer system to report to elders Witnesses suspected of having committed an act that could warrant expulsion, including deviating from
organizational policies and teachings.[209][210]
Criticism has also been directed at the 1981 change of policy[211] that directed that persons who disassociate from (formally leave) the
religion were to be treated as though they were disfellowshipped.[212][213] Holden says that as a result, those who do leave the religion are
seldom allowed a dignified exit.[190] Heather and Gary Botting claim inactive Witnesses are often pressured to either become active or to
disassociate themselves by declaring they no longer accept key Watch Tower Society doctrines.[206]
[edit] Blood
Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
Jehovah's Witnesses reject transfusions of whole allogenic blood and its primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and
plasma), and transfusions of stored autologous blood or its primary components. As a doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses do not
reject transfusion of whole autologous blood so long as it is not stored prior to surgery (e.g. peri-operative extraction and transfusion of
autologous blood). This religious position is due to their belief that blood is sacred and represents life in God's eyes. Jehovah's Witnesses
understand scriptures such as Leviticus 17:10-14 (which speaks of not eating blood) to include taking blood into the body via a transfusion.
[214] Controversy has stemmed, however, from what critics state are inconsistencies in Witness policies on blood, claims that Witness
patients are coerced into refusing blood and that Watch Tower literature distorts facts about transfusions and fails to provide information that
would allow Witnesses to make an informed decision on the issue.[123]
[edit] Fractions and components
In the case of minor fractions derived from blood, each individual is directed to follow their own conscience on whether these are acceptable.
[215][216] This is because it is difficult to define at what point blood is no longer blood. As a substance is broken down into smaller and
smaller parts it may or may not be considered the original substance. Therefore some of Jehovah's Witnesses personally choose to accept
the use of blood fractions and some do not. However, if a fraction "makes up a significant portion of that component" or "carries out the key
function of a primary component" it may be objectionable to them.[217]
Such a stance of dividing blood into major components and minor fractions rather than either accepting all blood or requiring all blood
components to be poured out onto the ground has led to criticism from organizations such as the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform
on Blood.[218] Witnesses respond that blood as the fluid per se is not the real issue. They say the real issue is respect and obedience
regarding blood, which they perceive as being God's personal property.[219][220] Members are allowed to eat meat that still contains small
traces of blood remaining. Once blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God and then a person can eat the meat.
Jehovah's Witnesses view of meat and blood is therefore different from the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove even minor
traces of blood.[221]
According to lawyer Kerry Louderback-Wood, a former Jehovah's Witness,[222] the Watch Tower Society misrepresents the scope of allowed
fractions. If taken together, they "total the entire volume of blood they came from".[223] An example of this can be seen in blood plasma,
which consists of 90-96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four
fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately. Critics have likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but
allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.[224]
[edit] Storing and donation
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that storing blood violates direction from the Bible to 'pour blood out onto the ground'. They do not
donate blood except for uses they've individually pre-approved.[225] However, they are told that acceptance of blood fractions from donated
blood is a matter of conscience. A 2006 issue of Jehovah's Witnesses' newsletter Our Kingdom Ministry stated, "Although [Jehovah's
Witnesses] do not donate or store their own blood for transfusion purposes, some procedures or tests involving an individual’s blood are not
so clearly in conflict with Bible principles. Therefore, each individual should make a conscientious decision" [emphasis added].[226] Critics
have challenged these policies because acceptable blood fractions can only be derived from stored blood provided by donors.[227]
[edit] Legal considerations
Regardless of the medical considerations, Jehovah Witnesses advocate that physicians should uphold the right of a patient to choose what
treatments they do or do not accept (though a Witness is subject to religious sanctions if they exercise their right to choose a blood
transfusion).[228] Accordingly, US courts tend not to hold physicians responsible for adverse health effects that a patient incurred out of his
or her own requests.[229] However, the point of view that physicians must, in all circumstances, abide by the religious wishes of the
patients is not acknowledged by all jurisdictions, such as was determined in a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses in France.
The situation has been controversial, particularly in the case of children. In the United States, many physicians will agree to explore and
exhaust all non-blood alternatives in the treatment of children at the request of their legal guardians. Some state laws require physicians to
administer blood-based treatment to minors if it is their professional opinion that it is necessary to prevent immediate death or severe
permanent damage.[citation needed]
Kerry Louderback-Wood has claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses' legal corporations are potentially liable to significant claims for compensation
if the religion misrepresents the medical risks of blood transfusions. Wood claims that constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not
remove the legal responsibility that every person or organization has regarding misrepresenting secular fact.[230]
Main articles: Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse and Silentlambs
Critics such as Silentlambs have accused Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse
difficult for members.[232][233] Some victims of sexual abuse have asserted that when reporting abuse they were ordered to maintain silence
by their local elders to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization.[234][235]
The religion's official policy on child protection, which discusses the procedures for reporting child sexual abuse, states that elders obey all
legal requirements for reporting sex offenders, including reporting uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations where required by law.
Elders are to discipline pedophiles in the congregation. Victims are permitted to notify the authorities if they wish to do so.[236]
While a Witness may lose congregation privileges following a single credible accusation of abuse,[237] Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be
scripturally obliged to require corroboration ("two witnesses") before applying their severest forms of congregational discipline.[238] If there is
not an actual second witness to an incident of abuse, a congregation judicial committee will accept medical or police reports, or a witness to a
separate but similar incident as such a second witness against a member accused of sexual abuse.The Watch Tower Society has been
criticized for its refusal to reveal the names and academic credentials of the translators of its New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
(NWT).[240] The Society has claimed members of the NWT's translation committee wished to remain anonymous in order to exalt only the
name of God,[241] The Watchtower stating that the educational qualifications of the translators were unimportant and that "the translation
itself testifies to their qualifications".[242] Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body, has claimed that of the four men he says
constituted the committee, only one—its principal translator, his uncle Frederick Franz—had sufficient knowledge of biblical languages to
have attempted the project.[243] Frederick Franz had studied Greek for two years and was self-taught in Hebrew.[244]
Much criticism of the NWT involves the rendering of certain texts considered to be biased towards specific Witness practices and doctrines.
[240][245][246][247][248][249] These include the use of "torture stake" instead of "cross" throughout the New Testament;[240] the rendering
of John 1:1, with the insertion of the indefinite article ("a") in its rendering to give "the Word was a god";[240][250] Romans 10:10, which uses
the term "public declaration", which may reinforce the imperative to engage in public preaching;[240] John 17:3, which uses the term
"taking in knowledge" rather than "know" to suggest that salvation is dependent on ongoing study,[240] and the placement of the comma in
Luke 23:43, which affects the timing of the fulfillment of Jesus' promise to the thief at Calvary.[251]
Also criticized is the NWT's insertion of the name Jehovah 237 times in the New Testament without extant New Testament Greek manuscript
evidence that the name existed there.[252][253][254] Watch Tower publications have claimed that the name was "restored" on a sound basis,
stating that when New Testament writers quote earlier Old Testament scriptures containing the Tetragrammaton (יהוה), "the translator has the
right to render Kyrios ("LORD") as Jehovah."[255] The NWT mentions twenty-seven other translations which have similarly rendered
Kyrios as a form of the name Jehovah, stating that there is only one verse where the NWT does so without agreement from other translations.
[256]
The Society has claimed its translation "courageously restores God’s name, Jehovah, to its proper place in the Biblical text, is free from the
bias of religious traditionalism, and ... gives the literal meaning of God’s Word as accurately as possible."[257] Jason BeDuhn, associate
professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona, compared major translations for accuracy. He wrote
that the NWT's introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic
principle of accuracy".[258] BeDuhn also stated that whilst there are "a handful of examples of bias in the [New World Translation (NW)]", that
"most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New
Testament writers." He concluded that "the NW and [another translation] are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But they are
remarkably good translations ... often better than [the other six translations analyzed]."[259]
| Dear Brother or Sister, If you have any comments or suggestions concerning this web site, please send them to Chuck Davis at Superior Small Engines, 8835 State Road 60 W, Mitchell, Indiana 47446-7547. Or please feel free to call Charles at 812-849-9944 if you think this site is inaccurate. Or if you would like to defend the Witnesses from these allegations, write to: Chuck@superiorsmallengines.com (Please witness to Chuck by email, let him know the truth about Jehovah's organization!) |