Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses have experienced controversy in their relationships with mainstream Christianity, governments and former members. The religion has been accused of doctrinal inconsistency and reversals, false predictions, hypocrisy, mistranslation of the Bible, poor treatment of former members, mind control^[1] and failure to report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities.

Biblical criticisms

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 Bible.^[2] The Society has claimed members of the translation committee wished to remain anonymous in order to exalt only the name of God,^[3] and The Watchtower said the educational qualifications of the translators were unimportant and that "the translation itself testifies to their qualifications".^[4] 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, Frederick Franz – had sufficient knowledge of biblical languages to have attempted the project.^[5] Frederick Franz had studied Greek for two years and was self-taught in Hebrew.^[6]

Much criticism of the New World Translation involves the rendering of certain texts considered to be biased towards specific Witness practices and doctrines.^{[2][7][8][9][10][11]} These include the use of "torture stake" instead of "cross" throughout the New Testament;^[2] the rendering of John 1:1, with the insertion of the indefinite article ("a") in its rendering to give "the Word was a god";^[2][12] Romans 10:10, which uses the term "public declaration", which may reinforce the imperative to engage in public preaching;^[2] John 17:3, which uses the term "taking in knowledge" rather than "know" to suggest that salvation is dependent on ongoing study,^[2] 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.^[13]

Also criticized is its insertion of the name Jehovah 237 times in the New Testament without evidence that the name existed in the original Greek manuscripts.^[14][15][16] Watch Tower publications have claimed that the name was "restored" on a sound basis, stating that New Testament writers used the Greek Kyrios ("Lord") when quoting earlier Old Testament scriptures containing the Tetragrammaton.^[17]

The Society has claimed its translation is free from the bias of religious traditionalism, and that it gives the literal meaning of God’s Word as accurately as possible.^[18] Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona, examined and compared eight major translations for accuracy and concluded that the New World Translation was "remarkably good" translation, "better by far" and "consistently better" than some of the others considered. He commended "the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers."^[19]

Doctrinal criticisms

Claims of false prophecy

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. Its publications have therefore made, and continue to make, predictions about world events they believe were prophesied in the Bible.^[20] The failure of some of the events predicted in Watch Tower publications since 1881 has 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.^[21] Its publications have made the explicit claim that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses and the International Bible Students (the organisation's earlier name) as a prophet.^[22][23][24] Some former Jehovah's Witnesses have accused the religion of being a false prophet for making those predictions, particularly because of assertions in some cases that the predictions were beyond doubt or had been approved by God.^[25][26][27]

Watch Tower publications have stated that Christians trust God and therefore "they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization".^[28] Such statements have led to criticism that members of the religion are expected to place "unwavering trust" in Watch Tower predictions^[29] and face expulsion if they do not accept its teachings, even though many of its predictions have subsequently been set aside.^[30][31] Critics have also accused the Watch Tower organization of hypocrisy in its use of predictions. One Witness publication referred to others as "guilty of false prophesying" after having "predicted an 'end to the world', even announcing a specific date'",^[32] but polemicist Edmond Gruss has highlighted Watch Tower predictions he claimed did the same thing.^[33]

The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet.^[34] It says its explanations of Bible prophecy are not infallible^[35][36][37] and that its predictions were not claimed explicitly as "the words of Jehovah".^[38] It admits some of its expectations have needed adjustment because of its eagerness for God's Kingdom, but that those adjustments are no reason to "call into question the whole body of truth".^[39] Raymond Franz, however, 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 throughout its history has made many emphatic predictions. When some predictions were subsequently admitted to be mistakes, he says, "the responsibility for the results can surely not be shrugged off with simply saying, 'Well, nobody's perfect'." Franz also says the organization's eagerness for the Millennium does not give it license to impugn the motives of those who fail to accept its predictions.^[29]

Unfulfilled predictions

From the earliest writings of Watch Tower Society founder, Charles Taze Russell, in the mid-1870s, Watch Tower publications have asserted the reliability of their predictions, with emphatic language such as "established truth"^[40] and "indisputable".^[41] Predictions made in 1892 that Armageddon would take place in October 1914 asserted the date was "definitely marked in Scripture",^[42] and Watch Tower editor Charles Taze Russell declared: "We see no reason for changing the figures – nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours."^[43] Predictions about the arrival of Christ's thousand-year reign in 1925 were said to be "correct beyond a doubt",^[44] "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct",^[45] "indisputable"^[41] and bearing "the stamp of approval of Almighty God".^[45] Watch Tower publications have occasionally admitted to have "suggested dates that turned out to be incorrect" as a result of their "eagerness for Jesus’ second coming", adding that they had never claimed that the predictions were "the words of Jehovah."^[46] The publications have at times simply dismissed their previous statements, instead asserting that members had "read into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended",^[47] and that the beliefs of members were "based on wrong premises".^[48] Other failed predictions are ignored completely. One book, The Finished Mystery (1917), applied events to the years 1918-1925 that had earlier been scheduled for the years before 1914. When some of those events again failed to transpire, a later edition of the book (1926) altered the statements and removed the dates.^[49]

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 favour; the "saints" would be carried to heaven.^[50]
• 1891: 1914 would be "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men."^[51]
• 1904: "World-wide anarchy" would follow the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.^[52]
• 1916: World War I would terminate in Armageddon and the rapture of the "saints".^[53]
• 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.^[54]
• 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.^[55]
• 1922: The antitypical "jubilee" that would mark God's intervention in earthly affairs in 1925 would take place in "probably the fall" of that year.^[56] The chronology was described as "correct beyond a doubt",^[57] "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct",^[45] bearing "the stamp of approval of Almighty God"^[45] and "too sublime to be the result of chance or of human invention".^[45]
• 1924: God's restoration of the 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 aeroplanes would transport people to and from Jerusalem from all parts of the globe in just "a few hours".^[58]
• 1938: In 1938, Armaggedon was too close for marriage or child bearing.^[59]
• 1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.^[60]
• 1942: Armageddon was "immediately before us."^[61]
• 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.^[62] Time was "running out, no question about that."^[63] 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 "earth-shaking events" soon to take place.^[64] 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".^[65]
• 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 encouraged not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.^[66]
• 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". ^[67]
• 1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.^[68]

Changes of 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",^[69] it has substantially altered doctrines since its inception and abandoned many of Russell's teachings.^[70] Many of the changes have involved biblical chronology that had earlier been claimed as beyond question.

• Date of beginning of Christ's kingdom rule. Russell taught that Jesus had assumed kingly power in April 1878.^[71][72] In 1922, Joseph Rutherford altered the date to 1914.^[70]
• Date of resurrection of anointed Christians. After the failure of predictions that Christ's chosen "saints" would be carried away to heaven in 1878,^[73] Russell developed the teaching that those "dying in the Lord" from 1878 forward would have an immediate heavenly resurrection.^[74] The Watch Tower confirmed the doctrine in 1925,^[75] but two years later asserted this date was wrong^[76] and that the beginning of the instant resurrection to heaven for faithful Christians was from 1918.^[77]
• 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".^[78][79] In 1928 Rutherford rejected the doctrine and claimed the Pyramid had been built under the direction of Satan.^[80]
• 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".^[81] By 1886 he had altered his view and began explaining it was a person, not the Christian church.^[82] Russell accepted claims by Bible Students that he was that "servant"^[83][84][85] 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.^[86] By 1927 the Watch Tower Society had abandoned Russell's view and was teaching it was "a collective servant".^[87]
• 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.^[88] As late as 1921 Watch Tower publications were still claiming the last days had begun in 1799.^[89] 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 favour.^[90] 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.^[91] The book Life (1929) noted that the return of Jews to Palestine signalled 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.^[92] In 1932 that belief was abandoned and from that date the Watch Tower Society taught that Witnesses alone were the Israel of God.^[93]
• 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 "clearly indicated" and had been given the stamp of authority by God "beyond any possibility of erasure"^[94] and warning that doubting the date would lead to a "repudiation of God and our Lord Jesus Christ and the blood with which we were bought".^[95] In 1943 the society moved the event to 1914.^[70][96][97]
• 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 categorically 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.^[98] A 1952 The Watchtower study 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"^[99] and a 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 1914-18 period. Two years later, in 1962, The Watchtower reverted to Russell's initial doctrine.^[98]
• Identity and function of the Governing Body. Frequent mentions of the term "Governing Body" began in Watch Tower Society literature in the 1970s.^[100] The Governing Body was initially identified obliquely as the Watch Tower Society's seven-member Board of Directors,^[101] although the Board at that time played no role in establishing Watchtower doctrines or making editorial and publishing decisions. Those decisions were made entirely by the Society president, who exercised unrestricted freedom.^[102][103] Such had existed from the Watch Tower Society's origins: a 1923 Watch Tower noted that Russell alone directed the policy and course of the Society "without regard to any other person on earth"^[104] 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^[105] and become the supreme ruling council of Jehovah's Witnesses.^[106] 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.^[107]
• Treatment of disfellowshipped persons. In the 1950s when disfellowshipping became common, Witnesses were to have nothing to do with expelled members, not conversing or showing them recognition.^[108] Family members of the expelled person were permitted occasional "contacts absolutely necessary in matters pertaining to family interests", but could not discuss spiritual matters with them.^[109] In 1974 The Watchtower, acknowledging some unbalanced Witnesses had displayed unkind, inhumane and possibly cruel attitudes to those expelled,^[110] relaxed restrictions on family contact, allowing families to choose for themselves the extent of association,^[111], including whether or not to discuss some spiritual matters.^[112] In 1980 the Witnesses' Brooklyn headquarters had advised travelling overseers a person need not be promoting "apostate views" to warrant disfellowshipping; they were told "appropriate judicial action" should be taken against a person who "continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what he has been provided" through The Watchtower.^[113] In 1981, a reversal of policy occurred, with Witnesses instructed to avoid all spiritual interaction with disfellowshipped ones, including even a close relative^[114] Witnesses were instructed to avoid greeting disfellowshipped persons ^[115]"If a Relative Is Disfellowshiped", The Watchtower, September 15, 1981, page 28.</ref>^[116] Parents were permitted to care for the physical needs of a disfellowshipped minor child. An ill parent or physically or emotionally ill child could be accepted back into the home "for a time". Witnesses were instructed not to eat with a disfellowshipped relative and were warned that emotional influence could soften their resolve.^[117] The rules on shunning were extended in 1981 to include those who had resigned from the religion voluntarily.^[118][119]
• 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.^[120] After that date passed, Rutherford, in 1917, claimed religion's final destruction would take place in 1918, explaining God would destroy churches "wholesale" and that "Christendom shall go down as a system to oblivion".^[121] In 1988 the Watch Tower Society claimed Babylon had actually fallen in 1919 "as far as having any captive hold on God's people was concerned" (the fall indicated by the release from prison in 1919 of senior Watchtower figures),^[122] with her "final destruction" "into oblivion, never to recover", expected once again "in the near future".^[123]

United Nations' Department of Public Information association

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 they refuse to give it political support or consider it as the means to achieve peace and security. Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that the UN 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 and the political means that will be used for the devastation of organized false religion worldwide,^[124][125] and that, like all other political powers, it will be destroyed and replaced by God's heavenly Kingdom.^[126] Jehovah's Witnesses have denounced other religious organizations for having offered political support to the UN.^[127]

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.^[128] 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,^[129] 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.^[130] The purpose of membership is to "promote knowledge of the principles and activities of the United Nations". At the time NGO association was sought, "the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations".^[131]

Social criticisms

Blood

Jehovah's Witnesses reject transfusions of whole allogeneic 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. perioperative 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.^[132] Controversy has stemmed, however, from what critics state are inconsistencies in Witness policies on blood.^{[citation needed]}

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.^[133][134] 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.^[135]

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.^[136] 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.^[137][138] 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.^[139]

According to author Kerry Louderback-Wood, the Watch Tower Society misrepresents the scope of allowed fractions. If taken together, they "total the entire volume of blood they came from".^[140] 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.^[141]

The human body contains between 2–3 kg of leukocytes (white blood cells), but only about 3% of these are in the blood. White blood cells are considered a major component of blood and therefore forbidden. Breast milk contains hundreds of thousands of white blood cells per millilitre,^[142] however this is not forbidden.

Storing and donation

Jehovah's Witnesses strictly reject the storage of blood as being against the direction from the Bible to pour blood out onto the ground. It is due to this understanding that the use of stored autologous blood, that is the storage of one's own blood before surgery, is prohibited.

They are told the acceptance of blood fractions from donated blood is a matter of conscience. Watch Tower literature claims the donation of blood is unbiblical, since this would be seen as condoning blood transfusions. The only way for fractions of blood to become available for use is through the storing and processing of such blood donations. This has led to criticism of perceived contradictory and inconsistent policies.^[143]

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).^[144] Accordingly, US courts tend not to hold physicians responsible for adverse health effects that a patient incurred out of his or her own requests.^[145] 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 (for one example, see 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. However, 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.

An essay entitled, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation", found in the Autumn issue of Baylor University's Journal of Church and State, published December 13, 2005, discusses the potential vulnerability of Jehovah's Witnesses' legal corporations to significant claims for compensation because of the religion's possible misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions. According to the essay, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not remove the legal responsibility that every person or organization has regarding misrepresenting secular fact.

Animal blood

The Watchtower has stated that "Various medical products have been obtained from biological sources, either animal or human ... Such commercialization of ... blood is hardly tempting for true Christians, who guide their thinking by God's perfect law. Our Creator views blood as sacred, representing God-given life ... blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of."^[146]

Self-determination

Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses, including Randall Watters, Timothy Campbell, David Grosshoeme, Kaynor Weishaupt and Jan Groenveld), object to Witness policy and behavior where, in their view, the integrity of family relationships and the capacity of members to exercise freedom of mind is impacted. The religion has been accused of having a dogmatic and authoritarian form of leadership,^[147] reinforced with a disciplinary system that encourages informers^[148][149] and includes the sanctions of the disfellowshipping and possible lifetime shunning of members.^[148]

Authoritarian control

The Watch Tower Society claims that only Jehovah's Witnesses practice true Christianity^[150] and that the religion's Governing Body, functioning as part of a theocracy,^[151] is the sole "channel" of communication between God and humanity.^{[152][153][154][155][156][157]} Watch Tower publications emphasize the need for members to be fully obedient to the organization to demonstrate their loyalty to God,^[158][159] describe the organization as being "like a mother to you, to nourish, feed, discipline and protect you",^[160] and promote the benefits of staying part of an organization that strengthens and protects members from Satan's temptations.^[161][162] Frequent calls for obedience and loyalty, and its judicial system that can expel and order the shunning of members, have led to criticism that the religion's leadership is autocratic,^[163] dictatorial,^[164] authoritarian^[165] and similar in outlook to the governments of totalitarian states.^[166] Critics quoted by Edmond Gruss claim the "veneration" and "adulation" accorded the Watch Tower organization by Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as the tendency for members to let Watch Tower leaders "do the absolute thinking for them in important fundamental metters of their lives" are sufficient to define the religion as a cult.^[167] Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult^[168] and say that although individuals need proper guidance from God, they should do their own thinking.^[169][170]

Critics who say the organization dominates its members claim this power is gained by "acceptance of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society quite literally as the voice of Jehovah – God's 'mouthpiece'."^[171] Raymond 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.^[172] 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.^[173] Religious professor James A. Beverley describes the belief that organizational loyalty is equal to divine loyalty^[174] as the "central myth" of Jehovah's Witnesses employed to ensure complete obedience.^[175] Sociologist Andrew Holden has observed that Witnesses see no distinction between loyalty to Jehovah and to the movement itself;^[176] Heather and Gary Botting have claimed that challenging the views of those higher in the hierarchy is regarded as tantamount to challenging God himself.^[177][147]

Heather and Gary Botting, Andrew Holden and Raymond Franz claim Witnesses are encouraged to feel dependent on "the organization", are discouraged from engaging in independent Bible study.^[171][178] The Watch Tower Society's firm direction that members must not read criticism of the organization^[179][180] or material published by other religions,^[181][182] and that members are incapable of understanding the scriptures without the Society's involvement^[183] is claimed to create a form of mental isolation that has been cited as an element of mind control.^[184] It is claimed the organization's aim is to create a sterile atmosphere in which its views and interpretations can circulate without having to confront any challenge.^[184]

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,^[185] explaining that the reports help the Society to plan its activities and identify areas of greater need^[186] and help congregation elders to identify those who may need assistance.^[187] 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".^[188] Although these quotas were subsequently removed, Raymond Franz claims "invisible" quotas remain, obliging Witnesses to meet certain levels of preaching work to remain in good standing in the congregation^[189] or to qualify for eldership.^[190] 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".^[190]

Former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting, noting that the emphasis on a personal track record means 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."^[171]

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.^[191]

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." ^[192] James Beckford, a professor at the University of Warwick, England, who published a study of English Jehovah's Witnesses in 1975,^[193] 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."^[194]

Medical and legal commentators have also noted cases of Witness medical patients being coerced to obey the religion's ban on blood transfusions.^[195][196]

Conformity

The religion's Governing Body has been accused of resenting, deprecating and seeking to silence differences of viewpoint within the organization ^[147] and demanding organizational conformity that overrides personal conscience.^[190] In the 1954 "Walsh case" trial in Scotland, Watch Tower Society legal counsel Hayden C. Covington said of Jehovah's Witnesses: "We must have unity ... unity at all costs".^[197] A key organizational textbook declared Witnesses "must be seen to be gathered together in unity of thought and action regardless of their physical location on earth",^[198] while Watchtower literature strongly emphasises the importance of avoiding or fighting against the "dangers" and "infection" of "independent thinking", such as "questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization".^[199][200]

Critics have claimed the Watch Tower Society places strong pressure on all members to conform to the teachings and personal behaviour it sanctions.^[184] Watchtower publications are studied at meetings with "catechistical" question-and-answer sessions in which both questions and answers are provided by the organization, placing pressure on Witnesses to repeat the thinking of the headquarters organization.^[184] Another study noted: "The conforming multitudes are told what they should feel and think."^[171] Witnesses who do voice viewpoints different from those expressed in publications and at meetings are said to be viewed with suspicion.^[189] Former Governing Body member Raymond Franz has claimed most Witnesses would be fearful to voice criticism of the organization for fear of being accused of disloyalty.^[190]

The Society has stated: "The true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic", ^[201], but one study of the Society's teaching methods concluded: "Any suggestion that the society encourages genuine open debate, or even discussion, not contained by the strictures of a given answer to a given question must be rejected. 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."^[171]

Treatment of members who disassociate

If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses does not comply with the organisation's interpretations, they can be excommunicated, termed disfellowshipping. This involves being shunned by all members of the religion, including any family members that do not live under the same roof. Due to the social nature of the religion, being shunned can isolate a member in a very powerful way and can be devastating if everyone in a member's social circle participates in the shunning. Jehovah's Witnesses say that disfellowshipping is a scripturally-documented method to protect the congregation from the influence of those who practice serious wrongdoing. [3] The Encyclopedia of Religion notes: "Any community claims the right to protect itself against nonconforming members who may threaten the common welfare. In a religious setting this right has often been reinforced by the belief that the sanction [of excommunication] affects one's standing before God."^[202]

Prior to 1981, if a member disassociated from the religion but was not disfellowshipped, the practice of shunning was not required and normal contact could be maintained. A policy change in 1981 required that all who were considered to have disassociated by their actions were to be treated in the same way as a member who had been disfellowshipped for wrongdoing. The new policy meant that congregation members are not informed whether a person was being shunned due to "disfellowshipping" or "disassociation", or on what grounds. Many of these changes were precipitated by events surrounding Raymond Franz, a former governing body member.

Prior to the early 90's, members who were publishers, but not yet baptized (usually children or relatively new members) who committed wrongdoing would similarly be shunned, in this case being termed "disassociated". This practice was revised in the early 90's when it was deemed that those who had not taken the step of committing themselves to obedience by being baptized (Jehovah's Witnesses condemn infant baptism) could not be sanctioned in the same way as those who had been baptized.

Critics state that fear of being shunned and family break-up causes people who might otherwise freely leave the religion to stay.^[203][204] The only way to officially leave the religion is to write a letter requesting to be disassociated or to be disfellowshipped, but both entail the same set of prohibitions and penalties. Critics contend the judicial process involved, due to its private and nearly autonomous nature, contradict the precedent found in the Bible and the organizations' own teachings^[205] and can be used in an arbitrary manner if there is consensus among just a few to so use their authority.^[206]

Reporting of sexual abuse

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 and that they are to discipline pedophiles. Victims are permitted to notify the authorities if they wish to do so.^[207] However critics such as Silentlambs have accused Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse difficult for members. For a report of abuse to be considered "proven" (to the degree that would merit congregational judicial discipline), there needs to be two witnesses or a confession by the accused (only in cases where there is no physical evidence of the abuse).^[208][209]

Some victims of sexual abuse have asserted that when reporting abuse they were ordered to maintain silence to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization.^[210][211]

References

Books Critical of Jehovah's Witnesses

• Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses by M. James Penton. Penton, who is a former Jehovah's Witness and a professor emeritus of history at University of Lethbridge, examines the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, and their doctrines. Read selections from: Apocalypse Delayed: the Story of Jehovah's Witnesses University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-7973-3 (Canada, 1998) (Google book search)
• Apostles of Denial by Edmond C. Gruss. ISBN 0875523056 / ISBN 978-0875523057.
• Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, a former Jehovah's Witness who was a member of the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Society for nine years. This book gives a detailed account of the authority structure, practices, doctrines and decision-making practices Franz experienced while serving on the Governing Body. Sample chapters online: 1, 9, 10, 11, 12. Publisher: Commentary Press. 420 pages. Hardback ISBN 0-914675-24-9. Paperback ISBN 0-914675-23-0. 4th edition (June 2002)
• The Gentile Times Reconsidered: Chronology & Christ's Return by Carl O. Jonsson. Jonsson considers the origin of the belief that the Gentile Times began in 607 B.C. and examines several lines of evidence and the methodology for deriving it. ISBN 0-914675-06-0 Publisher: Commentary Press (July, 1998, Fourth edition 2004)
• The Gospel According to Jehovah's Witnesses Online book critiquing doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses written by a Roman Catholic layman.
• The Inside Story of Jehovah's Witnesses by W.C. Stevenson. Online book written by former Circuit Overseer.
• I Was Raised a Jehovah's Witness by Joe Hewitt. Hewitt gives a frank and compelling account of his life as a Jehovah's Witness and his subsequent persecution and excommunication after he decided to leave the Jehovah's Witness movement. Read selections from: I Was Raised a Jehovah's Witness (Google book search) Published 1997, Kregel Publications, ISBN 0825428769
• Jehovah Himself Has Become King by Robert King. The author considers himself one of Jehovah's Witnesses but was excommunicated after publishing his review and criticisms of current Watchtower interpretations related to Bible prophecy, and documentation regarding the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's involvement with the United Nations. He is presently preparing an updated, second edition. ISBN 1420854984 / ISBN 978-1420854985 / Publisher: AuthorHouse (September 14, 2005, First Edition) (Available from Amazon.com)
• Jehovah's Witnesses Defended by Greg Stafford. The author considers himself one of Jehovah's Witnesses but has renounced affiliation with the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. This book reviews and thoroughly explores the most common, and/or prevalent, criticisms made about Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. http://elihubooks.com/books/
• Jesus and the Trinity - Online book responding to Witness teaching on the Trinity
• The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses by Heather and Gary Botting. Both authors were raised Jehovah's Witnesses and are trained scholars. In fact, the book is based on a doctoral dissertation by Heather Botting. Read selections from: The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses (Google book search) University of Toronto Press, ISBN 978-0802065452
• 30 Years a Watchtower Slave: The Confessions of a Converted Jehovah's Witness by William J. Schnell. ISBN 978-0801063848
• The Truth Book: Escaping a Childhood of Abuse Among Jehovah's Witnesses by Joy Castro, adopted as a baby and raised by a devout Jehovah's Witness family. Read selections from: The Truth Book: Escaping a Childhood of Abuse Among Jehovah's Witnesses (Google book search) Published 2005 Arcade Publishing, ISBN 1559707879
• The Watchtower in Light of Scripture - Online book by former Jehovah's Witness Circuit Overseer
• Witnesses of Jehovah by Leonard & Marjorie Chretien. ISBN 0890815879 / ISBN 978-0890815878.
• Wolves Among Sheep by James Kostelniuk. Harpercollins Trade Sales Dept, ISBN 978-0006391074

External links

Supportive

• Official Jehovah's Witnesses website
• Jehovah's Witnesses response to child abuse allegations (video)
• Jehovah's Witnesses Official Policy on Child Protection
• A defense of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
• NoBlood.org - A forum to investigate, discuss and report the latest techniques in blood conservation and alternatives to blood transfusion.
• Truth in Translation! - A deep, positive, examination of the New World Translation.
• United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - Stories of how Jehovah's Witnesses did not compromise their beliefs.
• Your Body Choice! - A book that presents how Jehovah's Witnesses have affected freedom of medical treatment.

Critical

• Apartheid In The Watchtower by Peter Andrews
• Apologetics index - Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses from a mainstream Christian viewpoint.
• Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood - A site that promotes reform of the Watch Tower Society's blood doctrine.
• Exposé on the Jehovah's Witnesses - From Blue Letter Bible. An examination of the Watch Tower Society. Contains relatively brief explanations of each point.
• Free Minds, Inc - the largest Watchtower dissident site
• Historical Idealism and Jehovah's Witnesses - Documents the historical development of Jehovah's Witness chronology and the claimed "idealized" history of it by the Watch Tower Society
• Jehovah Witness and the Deity of Christ Article discussing NWT's presentation of Christ.
• Jehovah's Witness cult (Google video) - A candid look at the Watch Tower Society and Jehovah's Witnesses.
• Jehovah's Witness Recovery - A website promoting positive healing and recovery from the Watch Tower Organization by providing resources and a community forum for ex-JW peer discussion.
• JW Files--Research on Jehovah's Witnesses - A site "dedicated to research on Jehovah Witnesses".
• jwfacts.com - Information about Jehovah's Witnesses
• JWRecovery Magazine - An ex-JW community contributed magazine / journal which provides information and support assistance to former Jehovah's Witnesses.
• LambsRoar - Abuse Survivors FOR Abuse Survivors
• Make Sure of All Things - A site that is critical of some JW teachings, but is moderate in views
• Racism in the Jehovah Witness Watchtower by Christian Peper
• Religious Tolerance.org Jehovah's Witnesses Policies & examples of child sexual abuse.
• Silentlambs.org Silentlamb's official web site.
• SoundWitness.org - A collection of articles examining the doctrine & practice of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
• The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Theocratic Subversion of Ethnicity - A Paper Presented to the American Academy of Religion
• TowerWatch Ministries - Jehovah's Witness and Watchtower Information Online.
• Watchtower Influences on Black Muslim Eschatology: An Exploratory Story by William A. Maesen
• Watchtower Letters - Contains scans of letters between the Watchtower Society and one of its members regarding the teaching of Noah's Flood.
• Witnessinc.com - A site containing information and articles on the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses.