The Society's View of Truth
At this point it should be clear that I am not convinced the Society is always concerned with truth. In the essay on the Flood I have documented how the Society ignores geological evidence it is unable to explain, as though by ignoring it the evidence would go away. By ignoring this evidence the Society makes it impossible for Witnesses to defend their beliefs when anyone challenges them on the geological evidence. In the essay on sin, imperfection and the ransom sacrifice I have shown how the Society has used circumlocution to avoid having to address sticky problems related to God's love, justice and mercy. This refusal to directly address issues of fundamental importance leaves Witnesses unprepared against charges that God is unloving toward mankind based on these issues.
It is as if the Society feels that by never discussing contrary evidence, doubts will not be induced in the faithful. The Society almost always mentions only the virtues of a position it has taken. Where a problem exists, it is only mentioned if a good argument can be given in explanation. Doesn't the Society think Witnesses are intelligent enough to handle things that aren't nailed down solidly? The Society seems to feel that only it is qualified to think seriously about fundamental religious topics. It is quite clear that the responsibility of the average Witness is to bring his thinking in line with whatever the Society happens to have most recently published.
The February 15, 1981 Watchtower said on page 19:
In view of what I've found in the course of thorough research on my own, one clearly should check things out with a skeptical frame of mind, because in so many cases the Society's writers clearly do not know "what they are talking about."
This essay deals with a few more issues related to what I perceive as the Society's attempts to muddle certain issues. I give examples showing simple misinterpretation, presenting only supporting evidence while ignoring contrary evidence, and wholesale obfuscation.
All of this may be due to simple ignorance on my part. If so I should like to see why, in enough detail that only an unreasonable person would be unconvinced. Only specific coverage of details will convince me the Society places any value on truth -- general arguments are of no value. I have often heard Witnesses say (ultimately based on statements from the Society) that scientific reasoning is of no value, as it "comes from men, not God." There is something to be said for this, when it comes to looking at conclusions drawn from evidence, but this argument is usually applied to anything that appears to conflict with what the Society says on scientific matters, even when the conflict is due to observations that do not require much by way of conclusions, other than that one can see, feel, hear, trust one's own senses, and think.
To illustrate what I mean, if you remember from the essay on The Flood, there were a series of floods called the Missoula floods, in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, that were of limited extent. That they were of limited extent, and not global, is a conclusion drawn from the observations that soil and bedrock were stripped away only up to a certain elevation, and the elevation decreased smoothly along the Columbia River from eastern Washington to its mouth near Astoria, Oregon. Geologists concluded that the source of the flood was the valley of the Clark Fork River in Montana, because of the observations that stripping of soil and bedrock occurred at elevations that were greatest near the mouth of the Clark Fork Valley, that giant ripple ridges were found on the floor of the valley, especially in the narrows, that wave cut benches were found on mountainsides throughout the Clark Fork Valley, and other such phenomena.
Suppose a water hose is turned loose on bare dirt, and the water strips out a little valley and runs off, and then the hose is taken away. No one would question the conclusion that someone turned on a hose, based on the observation that a little valley existed where none ought to be. Similar basic reasoning, based on geological observations, shows the Missoula floods occurred. The observations are too clear and the conclusions too simple, for a pat answer like "scientists make mistakes, so maybe the flood evidence that is being interpreted as local really points to Noah's Flood." One does not have to be a scientist to see what happened, any more than one has to be a scientist to figure out a hose had been turned on.
The point I'm making is that much of the evidence I've presented in these essays is of this simple nature. That is why I've made it so clear throughout that general arguments are of little value in proving a specific point, and so are of little value in proving that the conclusions I've drawn from all the observations I've noted are in error. The conclusions are too simple to be swept away by rhetorical generalities. That is why I've often said "I've been forced to conclude...." My present view is well expressed by what Steve Allen said in the introduction to his book Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality, about his difficulties with his religious upbringing:1
Is it ever reasonable to ask someone to suppress his intellect or to ignore facts?
The Society's View Of Material It Publishes
A major point I have trouble with is the Society's attitude about material it publishes and the way it expects Jehovah's Witnesses to view that material -- the topic of "adjustments in understanding," if you will. On one hand, the Society often writes articles from the point of view that it expects Witnesses to accept the material as if it came directly from God. For example, the United in Worship book asks several questions:2
Then the reader is referred to Luke 10:16, which says:
Although it is not directly stated, the implication is that an appreciative Witness will accept whatever spiritual provisions the Society makes as if those provisions came directly from God.
Another example showing the Society's expectations in this regard is found in some Watchtower main study articles "Loyally Submitting to Theocratic Order" and "Each One in His Place." One paragraph says of the "faithful slave":3
Another paragraph says:4
A third paragraph says:5
Another Watchtower article said:6
The Society appears to believe that it is actually inspired by God, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, "inspire" means to "influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration; to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on; to spur on, impel, motivate." The above quotations from Watchtower publications make it abundantly clear that the Society feels that its activities fit this definition, although it reserves the word "inspired" for the Bible alone. The Insight book, Vol. 1, says on page 1204:
Note how closely this description fits the way the translators of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures described their work, in the foreword to the 1961 edition:
On the other hand, the Society sometimes expresses a point of view in its publications in which it freely admits that it is not infallible, that the writers are not inspired, and that its views on certain matters change from time to time.9, 10, 11, 12 Through a process of searching the scriptures, a clearer understanding is reached on certain matters, and adjustments are made.13 This searching process is illustrated in the article "The Path of the Righteous Does Keep Getting Brighter,"14 which compares the searching to the tacking of a sailboat and to the progress of scientific truth.
I do not see how the two points of view can be reconciled. One viewpoint says essentially that as the "faithful slave" searches the scriptures, its understanding increases,15 and this increased understanding is communicated to readers of Watchtower publications. The other viewpoint says that the increased understanding comes from Jehovah through the channel of the "slave." On the one hand readers are asked to make allowances for mistakes or misunderstandings in print, but on the other hand they are asked to view what they are reading as coming directly from Jehovah, unaltered by the channel. On the one hand, readers are exhorted to believe that there is a "body of truth" to which "adjustments have been made,"16 that the adjustment process shows how Jehovah's Witnesses are "lining up with 'Jehovah's mind' as now revealed."17 On the other hand, this body of truth is said to be adjusted by Jehovah himself, that this body of truth even constitutes "Present Truth."18
I think the first viewpoint must be correct. The Society does its best to interpret the scriptures correctly but sometimes is in error. But if that is the case, then the Society cannot make statements such as quoted in footnotes 2, 3 and 4 above, and still expect to remain credible.
One argument that attempts to justify such statements says essentially, "to the extent that the Society's publications conform to God's Word, it can be said that the 'faithful slave' is transmitting Jehovah's thoughts to his people." But this argument requires someone to decide the degree of conformance. Who is to decide? The only reasonable choices are either the reader or Jehovah. If the reader is to decide, the argument is meaningless because it can be restated thus: "to the extent the reader decides the Society's publications conform to God's Word,...." But if Jehovah is to decide, then the issue is still undecided from any reader's point of view, since Jehovah does not tell readers of his decisions. Saying that Jehovah will make his decision known at some future time does nothing for the present question.
Another argument the Society uses to show it is "God's channel of communication" goes something like this: "The way Jehovah God has prospered the activities carried on under [the faithful and discreet slave's] direction can leave no doubt in the minds of dedicated Christians as to Jehovah God's approval19 being upon it."20 Well, even if those who direct the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed "the faithful slave" and they have Jehovah's approval, that approval still does not warrant the conclusion that Jehovah makes adjustments to the body of knowledge the Society has called "Present Truth." God's approval on an arrangement is no evidence that he directs it, in light of Romans 13:1, 2 which says regarding the present arrangement for ruling mankind:
I was even more surprised when these ideas were presented in a drama at the "Divine Name" district assembly the following summer, and illustrated by giant, glowing, talking models of a heart and brain. Did Jehovah direct these articles to be written and did he direct the assembly dramas to be staged? Did Jehovah then change his mind and make a complete turnabout on this question in 1984 and direct that the following statements be written?
This information is not new. Not one thing was stated in the 1984 article that was not known in 1971. Obviously some strong minded individual, who appears to have written numerous other articles (I recognize the writing style), managed to convince enough other people of his ideas on the heart that he got his ideas into print.
As another example of the Society's changing its collective mind, when the elder arrangement was first discussed in 1971, the Society stated that the chairmanship of the early Christians' body of elders "likely rotated".24 The entire arrangement was implied to be "God's doing."25 But as the years passed, the Society found that, on the whole, things worked better when elders maintained their positions for more than one year. So the rotation arrangement was officially cancelled as of 1983.26 Again I ask, did Jehovah learn from experience and then make this "adjustment to the body of truth" -- or was it the Society?
In the November 15, 1967 Watchtower the Society declared its opposition to organ transplants. The section "Questions from Readers" posed the question of how Jehovah's Witnesses were to view transplants, and the Society gave its official answer:27
The Society proceeded "to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint" in a rather shrill series of articles in the June 8, 1968 Awake!, using almost the entire magazine to consider such topics as health, misuse of humans for medical experiments, doctors and their view of organ transplants, experimenting with transplants, and the problems of heart transplants. The bottom line for Jehovah's Witnesses was presented on page 21, under the sub-heading, "The Scriptural Aspect," which presented no scriptures. This was:
There the official view remained until the March 15, 1980 Watchtower considered the question of congregational action towards someone who accepted an organ transplant. Here are some excerpts:28
The June 22, 1982 Awake! reiterated this position, stating:
This is quite a flip-flop, going from the view that organ transplants are cannibalism and akin to murder, to it being a personal decision. Where is the guiding hand of God in all this?
I think that from these examples, and from many other instances where "adjustments to understanding" have been made, the only conclusion is that Jehovah does not directly cause any particular statements to be written in Watchtower publications nor does he cause any particular actions, such as the presentation of Bible dramas at assemblies, to be taken. He does not directly adjust "Present Truth."
The publications do occasionally admit of this conclusion, but they also exhort the reader to ignore it. The Society strongly discourages readers from questioning or critically viewing the "spiritual food provided by the faithful slave."
It is as if the Society expects all Witnesses to simply accept the most recently published ideas on any matter as Present Truth, and unquestioningly, unthinkingly, discard anything not in line with it.
The very expressions "Present Truth" and "present body of truth" ought to be abhorrent to a lover of truth. They are oxymorons -- contradictions in terms. Truth does not change and does not depend on time -- only understanding changes. But the Society so strongly wants its readers to believe what it says that it seems to have no qualms about using such abhorrent terms to try to convince them that it is "God's channel of communication." I can only imagine the reply I would have received from the Society had I immediately written in response to the 1971 Watchtower article about the heart, saying exactly the same thing as the 1984 article did. I can especially imagine what would have happened if I had told anyone in the congregation what I thought. And from the 1984 article I can only conclude that the Society is not particularly interested in having its readers know it has changed its mind. There is not a word mentioned that this was a change of understanding with respect to the ideas presented in the 1971 article. Nor does the 1980 Watchtower article on transplants mention a word about the earlier views. In fact the 1930-1985 Watchtower Publications Index does not even list the 1967 Watchtower article. This is, in effect, changing history to suit current priorities. How many were injured or disfellowshipped because of following the "leading of men?"
What about the Society's major failed predictions? A great many things, including Armageddon and the bringing of the faithful to heaven, were predicted for 1914, but the Society now only claims that one was fulfilled, i.e., the end of the Gentile Times arrived. And this is invisible. Armageddon was again predicted for 1925, but that fell through, too. By the time the Society made near-predictions for the year 1975, it had learned from its earlier mistakes, so that it did everything but directly state that year would bring Armageddon. Were these things, and many others like them, done by the hand of men or the hand of God?
I certainly accept that, to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, one must conform to certain standards, but the Society is demanding too much when it requires someone to view its ideas in the same manner as Israelites were required to view Moses' directions. After all, who in the Governing Body or the "faithful slave" speaks to Jehovah "face to face"? The Governing Body claims that it as a body was commissioned by God, and that its members are "appointed by holy spirit." But when it comes right down to it, the members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses can only trace their appointment back to Charles Russell30 in the late 1800s, and no amount of logical squirming can get away from this. The article "A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation," under the sub-title "How the Governing Body Came to Exist,"31 manages to avoid being specific about its theme and the point I just raised, no less than ten times, by using terms such as "evidently," "patently," "according to the facts available," "facts speak louder than words," "the facts speak for themselves," "holy spirit must have been operative," "there came on the scene," and "a governing body made its appearance." Nowhere in all this dissembling does the article show why things are evident, refer the reader to what facts it is talking about, or say anything that it could possibly be pinned down on. It is a masterful work of subterfuge, and the best example I have ever seen illustrating how to use the passive voice to avoid hard explanations. The article certainly does not answer the question as to how the very first appointments to responsibility were made in the late 1800s. It simply states that certain things are so, and implies that all loyal Witnesses of Jehovah must accept these things because they come from On High.
All these words about remaining loyal, not questioning, appreciatively accepting spiritual provisions, and the like, may well have a good purpose, but they also have a negative effect: it is nearly impossible to discuss a point of difficulty with most Jehovah's Witnesses, because the moment a Witness suspects that someone is not toeing the party line he becomes defensive and closed-minded. This includes elders and circuit overseers, but is especially true of run-of-the-mill Witnesses. I have personally experienced this many times. The net effect is that it is nearly impossible to have a reasoned discussion with a Witness on any subject which he suspects might not conform completely to the "body of present truth." The only outlet is to write to the Society. That is not always possible, and the Society usually does not answer. It is also not easy to put one's thoughts into writing clearly and understandably. Understanding often comes best within the give and take of conversation.
I would certainly appreciate a clear response on the issues I've raised above. They can be condensed to three conclusions:
1 Steve Allen, Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality, p. xxiii, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1990.
2 United in Worship of the Only True God, p. 123, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.
3 The Watchtower, p. 17, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, June 1, 1982.
4 ibid, p. 17.
5 ibid, p. 24.
6 ibid, p. 19, September 15, 1983.
7 ibid, p. 13, December 1, 1981.
8 ibid, p. 17, June 1, 1982.
9 ibid, p. 19, February 15, 1981.
10 ibid, p. 29, March 1, 1981.
11 ibid, p. 20,27, December 1, 1981.
12 ibid, p. 26, January 1, 1972.
13 ibid, p. 701, November 15, 1971.
14 ibid, pp. 26-31, December 1, 1981.
15 ibid, p. 29, March 1, 1981.
16 ibid, p. 19, February 15, 1981.
17 ibid, p. 13, September 1, 1984.
18 ibid, p. 25, December 15, 1981.
19 Members of the Assemblies of God churches claim virtually the same thing. They have even more basis than do Jehovah's Witnesses to claim prosperity, as they have gone from almost no members in 1920 to more than 20 million in 1991. Mormons have increased from from a few thousand in the early 1800s to some 5 million today. Seventh-Day Adventists have increased to some 3 million since the mid 1800s. Jehovah's Witnesses' figure of some 4 million publishers is right in the middle. As to fast rates of growth, the Unification Church started in 1954 and had 2 million members by 1981. The Transcendental Meditation Church started in 1958 and had 2 million by 1981. The Divine Light Mission went to 8 million between 1960 and 1981. The real show stopper is the Church of Scientology, starting in 1954 and having 20 million members by 1981.
20 ibid, p. 18, February 15, 1981.
21 ibid, pp. 133-152, March 1, 1971.
22 ibid, p. 134, March 1, 1971.
23 ibid, pp. 3-7, September 1, 1984.
24 ibid, p. 685, 691, November 15, 1971.
25 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 250, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1974.
26 Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, p. 41, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.
27 The Watchtower, op cit, pp. 702-704.
28 The Watchtower, op cit, p. 31.
29 The Watchtower, op cit, pp. 18-19, February 15, 1981.
30 ibid, p. 760, December 15, 1971.
31 ibid, p. 760, 761.