This is a canned response to questions about Jehovah's Witnesses. This is discussed often enough that I sometimes don't want to start yet another discussion on the newsgroup. Thus I've tried to summarize the issues as I see them, based on both discussions in this newsgroup and reading I've done on my own. Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian group if you define Christian as relying of Christ for their salvation. They believe in the truth of the Bible, that Christ died for them, and that they are saved through him (although see below on the 144,000). However they have a number of beliefs that are fairly unusual. Whether they are "Christian" or "a sect" depends primarily upon exactly how you want to define Christian and sect. It's probably more important for people to understand the nature of their differences from mainstream Christianity than to agree on the exact labels to be applied. First, a comment on sources. There are a number of books on the Jehovah's witnesses, not all of which are reliable. Like Catholics and Mormons, they have inspired a good deal of opposition literature, much of which is not responsible. The primary source of information I'm relying on -- aside from discussions with JW's in talk.religion.misc and soc.religion.christianity -- is "Crisis of Conscience" by Raymond Franz. Franz is the nephew of the president of the JW's, and was himself on their highest governing board for many years. In his book he is still sympathetic with them in many ways. Thus I think he is both well informed and not badly biased. The one exception to this is where he treats his own case, in the latter third of the book. He accuses the JW's of attempting to practice "thought control", and ejecting him for no good cause. I understand why he feels this way, but I think his judgement is not entirely fair. His own book shows a number of people who disagreed with the leadership, and who they did not do anything about. It's pretty clear that they pursued him and a few people around him because they believed that his errors were contaminating a number of other people, and were thus becoming a serious problem for the organization. I know he thinks he kept his doubts to himself, but I think he underestimates his effect on the people around him. He had clearly come to a place where he placed the authority of Scripture above the organization. I suspect that this attitude came through to the people around him more clearly than he realized. Anyway, here's a summary of the most visible differerence between JW's and mainstream Christianity: The JW's believe in an authoritative leadership, much along the line of Roman Catholics. Their official paper, the Watchtower, is considered authoritative, and seems to be at least as influential as the Bible. However they do not claim it to be inerrant. Their stands do change from time to time. But you are expected to submit to the current ones. Franz accuses them of placing more weight on their own reasoning than on Scripture, and not encouraging their members to become conversant with the Bible. This is a slippery kind of accusation, since just about all conservative Christians consider everyone they disagree with as placing human reasoning over Scripture. Thus it's possible that Franz has somewhat overstated the case. But it does appear that the Watchtower have a lot more authority than any equivalent in Protestant groups. They have been accused of being authoritarian, of demanding absolute obedience. It is true that the Watchtower and Governing Body have more doctrinal authority and command more obedience than Protestants are used to. It is also true that they use "disfellowshipping" to protect themselves against "apostates", i.e. those who doubt that authority of the Church, and you can be disfellowshipped for having fairly minor contact with someone who has been disfellowshipped or resigned. However while they use these mechanisms more often than other Christian bodies, they do not appear to consistently attempt to eject everyone with doubts. They tend to take rigid and literalistic stands, in order to maintain a separation between their members and society. E.g. they do not allow members to participate with government in any way, including voting or serving in the military. They do not even accept alternative service. (Oddly enough, this is not true in Mexico, where they are allowed to get draft cards, and even to be listed as part of the Army Reserve, but may not actually participate in any military training or service. To carry this out requires bribery.) They are not permitted to accept blood transfusions, as it is considered "eating blood", which is prohibited by the OT. They do not object to medicine per se, just to "eating blood". They reject the Trinity. Their concepts appear to be essential Arian. That is, they consider Christ to be someone who is superhuman but not fully equal to God. Contrast this with the orthodox view, which considers Christ to be human, not superhuman, but which also believes that God was fully present through him. That is, orthodox Christianity attempts to maintain both Jesus' full humanity and the presence of God himself. The Arian view is a compromise, maintaining neither Jesus' full humanity, nor the presence of God himself. It makes of Christ in effect a demi-god, neither fully human nor fully God. It's unclear how much of this difference is due to JW's simply not understanding what orthodox theology actually says. Discussions of this occur fairly often in talk.religion.misc. It's very unusual for the JW participants to give their own belief. They simply attack the orthodox belief, in ways that the most informed orthodox participants think indicates that they don't understand them. JW's believe that the second coming happened in 1914. They have had a history of "date-setting" i.e. of predicting things and having them not happen. Thus this is simply the latest of several different dates. Rather than slipping to a later date, when Christ didn't come in 1914, they have chosen to reinterpret the second coming as being invisible, so he came, but only they can see it. They believe that only 144,000 people have the "heavenly hope". Note that there are several million JW's, so this means not all JW's have it. The result is that there are two types of JW's, normal and "annointed". They leave it up to people to determine for themselves whether they are annointed. Only the annointed are allowed to participate in communion. Not many people claim to be annointed, so it is not unusual to have communion services where no one communes. (Franz says there is some concern that they may not have enough annointed to continue to populate their governing bodies. They may have to start using non-annointed even for high office.) Other differences between and 144,000 and others are that only the 144,000 will reign with Christ in heaven. The others will be part of an earthly kingdom. Christ is only the mediator for the 144,000. He is mediator for the others only in an indirect sense. Much of what the NT says about Christians applies directly only to the 144,000. This view upsets a number of JW's, so it's possible that it will change. I'm reporting the situation as of about 1985, which is when Franz wrote his book. JW's consider it important to use the word "Jehovah", or the more scholarly "Yahweh". They object to Bibles that replace God's name with "the Lord". Note however that they replace "the Lord" with Jehovah even in the NT. The original Greek is simply "kyrios", which just means "lord". There's no justification to replace this with God's name. By the 1st Cent. Jews had abandoned use of a specific personal name for God. There is only one, so it's enough to call him "God". He doesn't need a name to distinguish him from other gods. His name was also considered too holy to pronounce. So the JW's are returning to older practices abandoned by both Jews and Christians by the time of the NT. The Governing Body prepared a manifesto for use in their discussions with Franz. It was in the form of doctrines that they reject. I've inverted the sense, to get the doctrines that they believe: 1. Jehovah has an organization on earth today, and its Governing Body is being directed by Jehovah. 2. Not everyone baptized from Christ's time (C.E. 33) forward to the end should have the heavenly hope. [This is confined to the 144,000 annointed.] Not all of these should be partaking of the emblems at the Memorial time [communion], but just those who claim to be of the anointed remnant. 3. There is a proper arrangement as a "faithful and discreet slave" class made up of the anointed ones and their Governing Body to direct affairs of Jehovah's people. This is described at Matt. 24:45. Rules are needed to guide the people: it is not enough just to follow the Bible. ["faithful and discreet slave" is a technical term used to describe the JW leadership collectively] 4. There are two classes today, the heavenly class and those of the earthly class also called "other sheep" at John 10:16. 5. The number 144,000 mentioned at Rev. 7:4 and 14:1 is to be taken as literal. Those of the "great crowd" mentioned at Rev. 7:9 do not serve in heaven, but only the 144,000. 6. That we are now living in a special period of "last days". 7. That 1914 is an established date. Christ Jesus was enthroned then. 8. That Abraham, David and other faithful men of old will not also have heavenly life. From news@nntpd.lkg.dec.com Fri Aug 27 18:09:40 1993 Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA26635; Fri, 27 Aug 93 18:09:40 EDT Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA22516; Fri, 27 Aug 93 15:09:35 -0700 Received: by nntpd.lkg.dec.com (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA16240; Fri, 27 Aug 1993 15:31:06 -0400 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: illusn.enet.dec.com!news From: news@illusn.dnet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) Subject: JW stuff (reply to CJ Silverio on non-JW literature, conscience, &etc) Message-Id: <1993Aug27.193053.16186@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> Sender: usenet@nntpd.lkg.dec.com (USENET News System) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation References: Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 20:37:14 GMT Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@Pa.dec.com [Advance warning and apologies to the moderator -- 318 lines follow] In soc.religion.christian, you wrote to Alfredo De La Fe: In article , you write... >--- >delafe@mindvox.phantom.com (Alfredo De La Fe) writes: >|Everything beginning with ">>>" is sbradley@scic.intel.com. > >|>>> Intellectual Censorship, Electronic Bulletin Boards, and Jehovah's >|>>> Witnesses > >[delete-o-matic] > >| Humble person, sheep <==> anyone who uncritically accepts what >| the Watchtower Society teaches >| >|This simply is not so. The society does not expect anyone to blindly except >|ANYTHING. In fact, they even recommend that you put everything you learn to >|the test. There is a big difference between humility and plain stupidity. >[...] > >Are you allowed to read sources critical of the Watchtower? >Are you encouraged to consult any non-Watchtower sources at >all, critical or otherwise? Are you encouraged to read >counter-arguments & assess for yourself their validity? Since you are an ex-Witness (or from a Witness family ... though I have forgotten whether you ever actually became a Witness yourself), you already know that the Watchtower has written many an article about the danger (as perceived by them) of reading material whose sole purpose is to be critical of Witness views and writings. [Material of this sort is pretty blatant, anti-Witness propoganda. IT certainly doesn't present PRO-Witness views as well and encourage people to weigh the counter arguments in FAVOR of Witness views -- so if you want to talk about being fair, you ought to rule out the opposing sources which are likewise unfair, right?] Really, given what I'm sure you already know, there's no way you could possibly think that any Witness, or the Watchtower Society itself, could go so far as to grant 'permission' or give approval to a person's desire to read what amounts to 'apostate literature' (from the Witness point of view). In a manner of speaking, that's like asking whether the American government encourages people to read literature that espouses views that are diametrically opposed to the 'American way' to the point of espousing it's destruction. Clearly, in the interests of freedom of speech, American government allows an awful lot to be printed -- but even IT draws the line somewhere. To be blunt, that line is called 'treason,' which is still a high crime. Since blatantly anti-Witness literature essentially implores those who currently ARE Witnesses to commit 'spiritual treason,' how could any Witness actually ENCOURAGE anyone to read it? However, when you ask whether a Witness is "allowed" to read something, you have to determine first who, of anyone, is in a position among Jehovah's Witnesses to DENY permission to read this sort of literature -- the answer being no one (except for Witness parents who have the authority as family heads to police what their children read). Neither congregation elders nor the Watchtower Society itself has authority to DENY permission for someone to read this sort of literature. If that authority existed, there would ALSO be a way to enforce it; and whether you know it or not (or believe it or not), NO way to enforce such censorship exists. No policy has ever been implemented to police what individual Witnesses read. The Watchtower Society does come down hard on anti-Witness literature on principle; but it's up to each individual to police themselves. From a practical standpoint, it's IMPOSSIBLE for the Witness organization to enforce the kind of 'censorship' that more than a few critics seem to feel is so absolutely in force. It's also NOT even a desire of Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower Society to wish there was a way to do it. In the world, policeman and even armies who bear the force of arms can't really enforce moral or ideological behavior. How could Jehovah's Witnesses expect to do so, either? Really, each individual must a) learn good judgment and b) practice it himself. As far as the matter of consulting non-Watchtower sources in general goes (i.e., sources which are not blatantly anti-Witness, but are merely non-Witness, and maybe pro-something-else), it's absurd to think [which you seem to be implying] that ALL non-Watchtower literature is out-of-bounds. WBTS literature FREQUENTLY quotes outside sources. Anyone who has ever taken a tour of WBTS headquarters and seen the many libraries scattered throughout the facilities knows that non-Witness religious works ABOUND for residents to read and research. Witnesses who REALLY enjoy studying (and have extra time to devote to it, as well as the cash) often have quite a library of non-Witness material as well. Including myself, I can think of quite a few Witnesses who collect and read non-Witness, religious material. However, whether the Watchtower ENCOURAGES people to do so is a bit different, given that the Bible itself says: "My son, beware of anything beyond these [the afore- stated "sayings of the wise" which are recorded as Scripture]. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a WEARINESS of the flesh." (Eccl 12:12 RSV) Since there now exists more than a person could EVER read in his or her lifetime, each person must make the wisest decisions as to what he or she should or should not read (given what they have TIME to read). It's certainly no crime to learn (by reading) the basic facts about other positions. However, each individual must decide whether any given work is appropriate, given its purpose, and its approach. To draw another parallel, a Witness wanting to learn more about the physiological what-fors of human sexuality *might* in good conscience read a book purchased from the Health, Family or Psychology section of B. Daltons or Waldenbooks, but would most surely be out of line purchasing the latest edition of Hustler magazine in order to 'read all about it'. [NOTE: I'm not recommending anything here ... I'm just using an example of an area of human interest that is somewhat controversial, not forbidden in and of itself, but which has an obvious extreme.] Similarly, a person wanting to know the facts about other religious views has a wide selection to choose from, but would surely want to weigh the relative value of how well the information presents the facts in relation to the degree to which the material lobbies FOR one view and against another. Going back to my previous example, reading about the factual physiological details of human sexuality (in, say a textbook) is a bit different than reading pornography which advocates immoral sexual activity. Similarly, reading something like Kittel's Theological Dictionary or the works of A.T. Robertson, W.E. Vine, Marvin Vincent, or a host of other trinitarian scholars to become familiar with the trinity as presented by trinitarians is rather different than reading works which more or less begin with the premise, "Jehovah's Witnesses are false prophets and a false religion, and here's why you should believe me/us." >What would happen if you found, while putting things "to the >test", that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society had made a >mistake in its bible interpretations? Talk about loaded questions. Who's to say what would happen if a particular Witness concluded that some particular explanation was a mistake? > Could you explain your >point of view to other Witnesses? There are those that do ... Without naming names, I know one Witness who has explained his view(s) [which are contrary to official Witness views of major importance] to me at SUCH length that I can barely respond to but a small fraction of his writings. He has been at odds with the Watchtower Society for a good many years [and written them many letters], and to the best of my knowledge, he's never been disfellowshipped. I don't believe he is really an active Witness, either (and he doesn't pass himself off as one), but his case is one in particular which proves that such a thing can and has been done. By and large, being one of Jehovah's Witnesses involves more than mere belief in matters great and small; it includes a dedication to Jehovah and a loving loyalty to the brotherhood of Jehovah's Witnesses, with a willingness to have a share in public ministry that we're so [in]famous for. People who become Jehovah's Witnesses decide to become public advocates of the things we (as a group) stand for, and generally feel that the positive things about Jehovah's Witnesses and our organization outweight, by far, our imperfections. Witnesses who develop questions about MINOR things either keep their thoughts to themselves, figuring that their questions will be cleared up over time, or voice them privately to one or two and come to some resolution of their questions thereafter (either getting answers, or resolving to put their questions on the 'back burner,' so to speak, if further research doesn't pan out). Minor issues generally are just that -- MINOR, and aren't worth making a fuss about. By their nature, they are NOT make-or-break issues that would stand the body of Witness-faith on its head, or motivate a Witness to make a campaign over them. On the other hand, Witnesses [often those who grow up in Witness families, and thus have a limitted or no 'outside perspective' to begin with] who develop questions about MAJOR issues generally find their questions harder to resolve, sometimes because of the issue itself, sometimes because of their experiences and circumstances, and sometimes because of their own attitude. A Witness with a desire to remain in association with Jehovah's Witnesses -- being convinced that our religion, as a whole, represents 'The Truth', and that what we stand for and advocate, on the whole, is worth advocating himself -- will probably find some way to express his concerns in a way that keeps him from damaging his overall relationship with Jehovah and his brothers (local and remote). Additionally, he'll keep from losing sight of all else that he values, and the importance of advocating things like God's Kingdom, and all the other basic doctrinal points that pretty much stand out on their own in the Bible. On the other hand, because of the way these cases always seem to turn out, Witnesses who choose to attempt to 'explain their views to others' almost invariably find the advocation of their views leads to conflict since there's not a lot of slack between the views of each individual and the views of Witness leadership. I personally don't know of any Witness who has ever maintained an opposing view over a MAJOR issue and NOT eventually left (either freely or by being disfellowshipped) ... but I suppose that there could be a test case of someone somewhere that would prove that such a person could hold a disagreeing view of something MAJOR and which would not eventually lead him to the doorway out. BUT, since if the person were not ALREADY a Witness, he probably would not be accepted by the congregation for baptism since he was not in agreement with what we collectively stand for, it's hard to imagine that he would or could remain for long as a Witness once he's come to disagree over some make-or-break point. > Would your contributions >be accepted? I imagine that you don't mean monetary contributions, but rather his spiritual contributions. [If you do, the answer is "yes", unless the person tried to make his contribution conditional, as though he could buy the right to air his views through organizational channels, such as in Witness publications or from the platform at meetings or larger assemblies.] As long as a Witness does not cross any scriptural lines which would lead to his expulsion from the congregation [because of having repudiated one or more Bible commandments or principles], such a person would be free to contribute his time in the public ministry that every Witness volunteers to engage in. If a person DOESN'T preach what Jehovah's Witnesses as a whole teach, however, there doesn't seem to me to be much point in that person formally identifying himself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Additionally, a person who makes his area of disagreement a public issue in the congregation would NOT qualify (or would be disqualified) for privileges of service as an elder of ministerial servant, since he would be a poor example of one who was able to advocate and maintain the unity of thought with the congregation/organization as a whole, which is the point of 1Cor 1:10: "I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be NO dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." (RSV) Although all the work of Jehovah's Witnesses is voluntary, volunteers need not volunteer if they disagree with Witness goals (which includes the spread of our beliefs), and really have an agenda of their own to pursue in opposition to the tenets and goals of our faith and religion. > Would you be allowed to believe what your >conscience tells you to be true, even if that belief conflicted >with the Society's teaching? "Allowed to believe" ... again, as individuals, everyone is 'allowed' to believe whatever they want. If a person DOESN'T believe in the MAJOR things that Jehovah's Witnesses do, there isn't much point in that person taking the name "Jehovah's Witness," and joining with us as advocates of our views, is there? I mean, are Jews "allowed" to believe in Jesus? Are Muslims "allowed" to believe in the trinity? Are Seventh Day Adventists "allowed" to believe that the seventh day has no special significance? As I recall, you grew up in a Witness family and at some point decided your parent's faith was not for you. Since you AREN'T a Witness now, clearly YOU were "allowed" to believe (or not believe) according to the dictates of your conscience. But again, if you mean can a person be a Witness and then believe things that are seriously out of harmony with main-line Witness thought (and presumably proclaim them as the truth), odds are that THAT person isn't going to remain a JW for very long (let alone become one in the first place). I'm guessing a bit, but I wonder if your question isn't really, can a person grow up in a Witness household, develop and hold views that are contrary to MAJOR Witness views, and expect that no trouble will arise between family and/or the congregation. Like it or not, the answer surely is "no" -- but then, this is probably true for ANY person and/or household where the religious views of the family and of the church [regardless of what they are] are strongly held. If you want to know, "how come religion XYZ won't change for me," you're asking the question that has led many to leave religion completely, or start their own (if they couldn't find one more suitable). Jehovah's Witnesses didn't get their start by attempting to change any existing religion either ... they more or less started from scratch (organizationally speaking), incorporating aspects of various religions and religious writings which seemed to them to be right. The views and organization of JWs have changed over the years -- the changes being viewed as attempts to refine both understandings and organizational procedures -- but change has always come from the top (which pretty much insures that the change will take affect world-wide). If you want to effect changes among Jehovah's Witnesses, you have to get to and/or influence the top, first. If you can't do that, you're going to be unhappy. Really, for most Witnesses who've made the conscientious choice to become a Witness in the first place, it's not so much a matter of why the might not be "allowed" to believe something else, but why they should want to (or have to). You seem to be arguing that the Watchtower Society won't let people with other opinions get their 'foot in the door' to introduce new ideas, and that, for that reason, as a 'closed shop,' they are bad. If so, welcome to the flip side of being a Witness. Most people don't let us get OUR 'foot in the door' (literally as well as figuratively), because they either believe they are right and we are wrong (or they just can't be bothered). Jehovah's Witnesses don't feel the world is unfair for not giving us a fair shake and plenty of air time. We've simply gone ahead and make our own opportunities, and gone the extra mile our own consciences have prodded us to go in telling people about OUR views. If you have views you think JWs and others should hear, then get to work. If most of us choose not to listen to you, then that's to be expected -- but then again, most people don't listen to us, either. We just don't complain about it. ==*== I don't have much time for a lengthy public debate; but I'll gladly read any e-mail (pro or con), and would be willing to work something out in the way of further, private e-mail exchanges with anyone who is reading. -mark sornson. From sornson@illusn.enet.dec.com Mon Oct 11 00:19:42 1993 Received: from aramis.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA11711; Mon, 11 Oct 93 00:19:40 EDT Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA14608; Mon, 11 Oct 93 00:19:38 EDT Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA02948; Sun, 10 Oct 93 21:19:35 -0700 Received: by us2rmc.bb.dec.com; id AA27599; Mon, 11 Oct 93 00:15:57 -0400 From: sornson@illusn.enet.dec.com Message-Id: <9310110415.AA27599@us2rmc.bb.dec.com> Received: from illusn.enet; by us2rmc.enet; Mon, 11 Oct 93 00:17:17 EDT Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 00:17:17 EDT To: gkruk@unix2.tcd.ie Cc: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu, sornson@illusn.enet.dec.com Apparently-To: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu, gkruk@unix2.tcd.ie Subject: Re a question about Jehovah's Witnesses (posted to s.r.c) Status: R Grzegorz, I received a copy of your posting to soc.religion.christian which was sent to me directly by the moderator (Charles Hedrick). He's quite right that questions about Jehovah's Witnesses tend to spark "flame wars" -- so I think his sending your questions directly to a Witness (me) was a good idea [To C.H.: thanks!]. Since I only have a moment to spare right now, this reply is fairly brief, but please feel free to send me e-mail inquiries for more detail. You wrote: > Where is the Jehova witnesses religion from and when that started. The religion now called Jehovah's Witnesses began as a small independant Bible-study group in the US (Allegany, Pennsylvania) back in the mid-to-late 1800's. It's principle coordinator was Charles T. Russell, who was in the clothing business with his father, but also had a strong interest in the Bible, and etc. (I believe his family was Presbyterian.) He was influenced, to some extent, by the works of earlier 19th century Second Adventists, and eventually joined one of them in publishing a religious journal as well as a number of books. [For the most part, you could say this was a layman's movement, since Russell and his associates weren't clergyman by trade.] After a while he had a doctrinal 'falling out' with his chief writing/publishing partner, so he started up his own journal (in 1879) which is now called _The Watchtower_. (Basically he sold his business interests and put his money into his publishing activities.) Russell and his early associates founded a series of legal organizations (non-incorporated and, later, incorporated) as part of their publishing activities -- since they felt their views were worth spreading. One of the corporations founded in Pennsylvania, and it's later sister corporation in New York, was the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, which is the main, corporate body that represents the organizational interests of Jehovah's Witnesses today. At first, the early Witnesses called themselves the International Bible Students Association (IBSA). As interest in the Watchtower Society's writings spread, interested people were organized into class-like congregations (in what was more-or-less Congregational fashion). These congregations kept close ties with the 'home office' of the Watchtower Society. Over time, the Witness organization grew to what it is today, as the number of people who agreed with Watchtower writings grew. In 1931, the Bible Students adopted the official name "Jehovah's Witnesses." Jehovah's Witnesses of today are a world-wide organization of 4,000,000+ (which is the number of officially baptized "publishers", who are people who participate in the public ministry work that JWs are fairly infamous for, who thus "publish" the Good News). There are 10,000,000+ people total who associate with Witnesses in some fashion (though again, the official membership numbers only count "publishers"). > When did they start predicting the end of the world > and looking for the devils was it in 1960s ? The early Witnesses (in the 1800's) adopted what appears (to me) to be a modified version of Second Adventist reckoning on the meaning of a number of Bible prophecies (from Daniel), which lead them to conclude that the late 1800's was the final approach to the 'time of the end.' They figured something drastic would happen in 1914, possibly the 'end of the world' itself that the Bible talks about. 1914 came to pass -- and WWI got their hopes up -- but after the war was over, it was pretty obvious that their reckonings needed some reconsideration. They still has high hopes for things to happen soon (in the 1920s), but by the 1930s, they abandoned most of their original views on prophetic chronology, and looked at things afresh with a 20th Century perspective [which has continued to change as time advances and the world changes]. I'm not sure why you think the Witnesses went "looking for devils in the 1960's". If you're thinking about the speculation that arose in the late 60's that 1975 might have been the year of the end [funny coincidence here; I JUST looked up an article from 1968 on this], then I think I have a clue as to what you're asking -- but these writings really didn't predict with assurity that 1975 was any conclusive date (though I think more than a few got their hopes up). > Did they have already many deadlines for the end of the world ? Yes and no. The Bible itself says (in so many words) that there IS a "deadline" for "the end of the world", and that Christians should "keep on the watch" for it -- so as a result, Witnesses have made a few attempts to fit the details of Bible prophecy into their time-frame, which naturally leads to speculation on when the "end" will come. But according to what I've read, the dates really weren't "deadlines" that they were SURE of (as though God had told them directly about them) -- but were speculative figures that they could only hope in, at best. According to what I've read, regarding just about every date I've come across, they knew that they were just guessing, and that their guesses could well have been wrong [which they often were ... so they had to eat humble pie a few times]. Earlier this year the Watchtower Society released a 700+ page work on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses [but I've loaned by copy out, unfortunately]. Since it is now available for order by the public (it was originally released with a limitted distribution), I could probably get you a copy. It would proabably answer most of your questions far more accurately than I can [by memory]. Please feel free to write via e-mail. regards, -mark sornson. Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: king@CS1.sequoia.com (Jack King) Subject: Jehovah's Witnesses Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu username@osu.edu (Your Name) writes: >I am very interested >in understanding more about this religion.............. Below is a brief doctrinal statement. I would have sent it to your private e-mail address, and not burdened s.r.c with a public post (since they have seen this before), but the above e-mail address is obviously a generic one: ------------------------- cut -------------------------------- Jehovah's Witnesses What Do They Believe? Jehovah's Witnesses today form an international organization that is completely seperate from all other religious organizations. Since we are often misrepresented, it would be a mistake to expect to learn the truth about us from prejudiced sources. So we are pleased to explain to you some of our principal beliefs. God's Name God has a personal name, and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that those who worship him should use that name. Almighty God declared to Moses that his name is "Jehovah". (Exodus 3:15; Psalms 83:18) Moses, Abraham, and many others faithful men of old used this name of God. In fact the name Jehovah occurs thousands of times in the Sacred Scriptures. Therefore, like those faithful men of ancient times, we use God's name and serve in behalf of that name. (Isaiah 43:10) The Bible Jehovah's Witnesses firmly believe that the Sacred Scriptures, known also as the Bible, are inspired by God and that they constitute his chief means of communication with mankind today. King David expressed it this way: "The spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, and his word was upon my tongue." (2 Samuel 23:2) We follow the scriptures closely, allowing these to interpret themselves. Jesus Christ Jehovah's Witnesses accept Jesus as the Messiah that the ancient Hebrew prophets foretold. Jesus is the means by which mankind can be saved. The prophet Jeremiah spoke of a "new covenant" that would bring complete and lasting forgivness of sin. (Jer. 31:31-34) This "new covenant", based on a perfect sacrifice (Jesus' sacrificial death), would provide the means for bringing faithful people into the promised earthly paradise. (Isaiah 53:4-6,10-12; 65:21-25) Basic Teachings Jehovah's Witnesses are no part of Christendom. In fact, Christendom was founded nearly 300 years after Jesus' death, and it's beliefs have greatly deviated from what Jesus taught. For example, we do not accept Christendom's belief in the Trinity, which teaches that Jesus is God himself. We do not use the cross as a symbol, nor do we employ statues in any way as part of our worship. These are all things that the Bible condemns. (Exodus 20:3-5; 1 John 5:21). The Kingdom of God Clearly, the Kingdom of God is the dominant theme that runs throughout the Sacred Scriptures. The prophet Daniel speaks of the Messiah and says: "To him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinately lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin." (Daniel 7:13-14) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's Kingdom by his Messiah is a real government and that the rule of this government will restore true peace to the earth. (Isaiah 9:6,7; Psalms 46:8,9; 72:7). The Scriptures show that the seat of this government is in the heavens and that the Messiah, resurrected from death to God's right hand, is its Ruler. (Psalms 110:1,2) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that eventually billions will receive everlasting life on earth as subjects of the Messianic Rule. Thus, we are firmly convinced that the earth will never be destroyed and that the Bible promise will be fulfilled: "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it." (Psalms 37:29) But how will God's Kingdom come? The Bible realistically shows that the coming of the Kingdom will require God's direct intervention in earth's affairs: "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself....will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinate." (Daniel 2:44) When will God's Kingdom come? On the basis of Bible prophecies now being fulfilled, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it will come in our generation. The Greek Scriptures (New Testament) contain prophecies that foretell in detail features of "the last days" of this system of things. We invite you to consider some of these prophesies recorded at Math 24:3-14; Luke 21:7-13, 25-32; 2 Tim 3:1-5. Because we love Jehovah our God with out whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love our neighbors as ourselves, we are not divided nationally, racially, or socially. (Lev 19:18; Deut 6:4,5; Mark 12:30,31) We are widely known for the love and unity that is manifested among our spiritual brothers, who are found in all nations. This is in harmony with prophesies concerning "the final part of the days" that speak of people of all the nations worshipping God in unity and 'not learn war anymore'. (Isaiah 2:2-4; Zeph 3:9; John 13:35) Thus, we maintain a neutral stand toward the political affairs of all nations. We believe that worshipping God properly means avoiding immoral conduct, including lying, stealing, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, the misuse of blood, idolatry, and other such things condemned in the Scriptures. (Exodus 20:3-5, 13-17; Lev 17:10; 20:13; Psalms 15:1-5; 1 Cor 6:9-11) Hope For The Future Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the present system of things, with its cycle of birth, life, death, is not all there is. We have complete confidence in a future life, including a resurrection from the dead under God's Kingdom. We believe, as the Bible teaches, that when a person dies, his existence really ceases. (Psalms 146:4; Ecc 9:5; Ez 18:4) Therefore, the Bible does not teach the concept of an immortal soul or reincarnation. Rather, future life for the dead is based on God's remembrance of them in a resurrection. (Isaiah 25:8; Dan 12:1,2,13) However, Jehovah's Witnesses are convinced that many now living will survive when God's Kingdom brings an end to all present governments. Then, just as Noah and his family survived the flood, these survivors will live on to enjoy life on a cleansed earth. (Isaiah 11:1-9; 65:17; Math 24:36-39) In order to survive the end of the world, one must meet Jehovah's requirements, for the Bible says: "The upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and blameless are the ones that will be left over in it." (Prov 2:20-22; Psalms 37:9-11,29) Obviously, it is not possible here to cover all the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, but we invite you to obtain further information from Jehovah's Witnesses in your neighborhood. --- [I realize that this concentrates on distinctive ideas, but it would be helpful to know how you think salvation occurs. What sort of relationship do you believe people have to Christ, and how do you think justification and salvation occurs? I ask this because the beliefs as stated here don't seem to include what most Christians would regard as the heart of the Gospel. Again, I realize you may have been taking that for granted. --clh] From news@mathcs.emory.edu Tue Dec 5 03:49:19 1995 Return-Path: news@mathcs.emory.edu Received: from relay5.UU.NET ([192.48.96.15]) by aramis.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq+grosshack/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14426 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 03:47:54 -0500 Received: from emory.mathcs.emory.edu by relay5.UU.NET with SMTP id QQzstv13440; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 03:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by emory.mathcs.emory.edu (5.65/Emory_mathcs.4.0.17) via MAILPROG id AA25187 ; Tue, 5 Dec 95 03:47:14 -0500 To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: noel.pd.org!betty From: Betty Martini Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Moderator/JWs, Salvation & Jesus Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 03:45:38 -0500 Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS Lines: 75 Message-Id: References: <4a0ne5$f19@farside.rutgers.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: noel.pd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <4a0ne5$f19@farside.rutgers.edu> Our Moderator queried how JWs think salvation occurs; fine question! As one of Jehovah's Witnesses this is my personal confession of faith: Adam was created with a conditional right to eternal life on earth. Condition = obedience to one simple restriction. Eve, then Adam, ate the literal fruit, lost their liferight. We inherite from them not a liferight but a deathright. "through [Adam] sin entered .. and death spread to all men Ro.5:12 "All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" Romans 3:23 "The wages of sin is death" 6:23 No man can redeem himself or another from the power of death Psalm 49:7 Thus we are lost, without possibile hope, save for Jehovah's grace. God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son John 3:16 Whoso believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life NWT here says: "exercises faith in him" suggesting obedience While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us! Romans 5:8 Faith cometh by knowledge, and knowledge by hearing the word of God Repent, and turn around and be baptized One perfect liferight was lost in Adam; Jesus replaced it with his life sacrificed in our behalf. He became the 2nd Adam. 1 Cor 15:45 Forgiveness of sins comes only on the basis of our Saviour's blood poured out in our behalf at Calvary Other name has not been named by which men might be saved Acts 4:12 Therefore no organization can save us, only Christ Without faith it is impossible to please God Faith without works is dead James 2:26 Jesus: "You are my friends if you do what I am commanding you" John 15:14 Christ is King of the church, as well saviour. Colossians 1:13 The central doctrine about Jesus is His Kingdom Matthew 24:14 He rules & owns the congregation, will come to bind satan, bless the earth, restoring eden planetwide. Thy Kingdom come! In approximately 36 parables about The Kingdom of Heaven he taught us to work in the fields, wear pure garments of conduct, love our neighbors as did the good Samaritan, and keep on the watch. Christians "observe the commandments of God, and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus." Revelatin 12:17 Now here's where Jehovah's Witnesses understand the scriptures differently than many others. We understand 2 hopes: New Heavens and New Earth are opened up by Christ's blood. 2 Peter 3:13 Isaiah 65:17 Rev. 21:1-5 Only 144,000 [the ISRAEL OF GOD] receive heavenly life. They sit down with Jesus in his throne and share as Kings and Priests with him. Revelation 7 & 14:1-6 Romans 2:28-29 9:6&7 Galatians 3:26-29 "They rule as kings over [epi] the earth." (Rev 5:10) "Epi" can be translated "on", but what King rules from his footstool? Isa 66:1 In the 1,000 years just ahead (we've been quite impatient about that) Christ and his elect shall rule, resurrecting both the righteous, and the unrighteous who shall be judged on their future conduct. So there is a hope for all those of righteous heart who have never known Jesus. They shall be resurrected to learn of his sacrifice and eventually receive the gift of eternal life thru Jesus Christ our Lord. Acts 24:15 Isaiah 26:9-10: "When thy judgements are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness." So Jesus saves planet earth, and most of the human race! He is our commander and King and Saviour. Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! Rev 22:20 Agape! Betty Martini Domain: betty@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!betty > Moderator queries: > > >[I realize that this concentrates on distinctive ideas, but it would > >be helpful to know how you think salvation occurs. What sort of > >relationship do you believe people have to Christ, and how do you > >think justification and salvation occurs?