My favourite Jehovah’s Witness myths
Jehovah’s Witnesses are told that they have been set free from enslavement to superstition and myths. Oh really? Well here are a couple of my favorite JW myths:
- God reveals His purpose to humankind in a progressive manner, in flashes of "new light" which require changes in doctrine. This is called "Present truth and New light"
- There are no clergy/laity distinctions in the organisation - they may not be called clergy but the distinctions exist.
- Voluntary Health Care Directives and Blood Cards:- exactly how voluntary?
- Christmas is a God dishonouring festival christians avoid
Present Truth and New Light
The doctrine of "new light" is a Watch Tower Society teaching used to explain away the problem of their frequent, and often contradictory, changes in published doctrine.
It is based on two theories:
- God reveals His purpose and will in a progressive manner
- This progressive manner involves change in their teachings
How does the society attempt to support this myth?
The usual Bible verses are Proverbs 4:18, Psalm 97:11 and the odd example from Christ's ministry, where his apostles misunderstood something He said or did such as Acts 1:6 and John 16:12.
Proverbs 4:18-19
Proverbs 4:10-19. What are these verses really about? They are a contrast between the life of the righteous and the life of the unrighteous.
Consider how Proverbs 4:18 & 19 appear in the New English Bible:
"The course of the righteous is like morning light, growing brighter till it is broad day; but the ways of the wicked are like darkness at night, and they do not know what has been their downfall"
Now, exactly where does it say Jehovah will allow His "single channel of communication with humankind" to continually get His message wrong, making change after change after change?
The society has taken verse 18 out of context and said that the light here referred to is not 'the course of the righteous", as the Proverb states, but Watch Tower Society teachings and publications.
They then suggest that because this verse describes morning light getting brighter (or changing), then this means its OK that the material they publish will be wrong and have to change from time to time.
But, what exactly is the light referred to in verse 18? The Proverb says it is the life-course of the individual, that is either like the light or the dark, not the teachings and publications of a self appointed "faithful slave".
"Morning light" that gets brighter until "broad day" and "darkness at night" are used for emphasis, in other words, the brightest light versus the darkest dark.
If you make a comparison of how these verses read in different Bible translations you will see that the point of this Proverb is that the righteous are not "in the dark" as the unrighteous are. Verse 12 says (NEB): "As you walk you will not slip, and if you run, nothing will bring you down" because, metaphorically speaking, the righteous can see where they are going.
[Top]
Psalm 97:11
The society also uses Psalm 97:11 to support this myth.
This verse, according to the New World Translation, reads: "Light itself has flashed up for the righteous one, and rejoicing even for the ones upright in heart"
However the New English Bible (NEB) puts it this way: "A harvest of light is sown for the righteous, and joy for all good men"
The New World Translation implies some form of divine 'flash of light' or guidence, and the society uses this to suggest that Jehovah reveals and clarifies His purposes to them in stages - these "flashes".
However, a footnote to "flashed up" in this verse, in the NWT Reference Edition, admits that many original sources say "is sown".
This verse does not support the myth of "new light" either, it has nothing to do with how Jehovah reveals His will to humans.
[Top]
Examples from Christs life and Ministry
Acts 1:6
This is an account of the Apostles asking Christ a Question:
""Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?" - Acts 1:6 NWT
Christ answered by telling them, as recorded in the next verse (7), that :
"It does not belong to you to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction" - Acts 1:7 NWT
The society has suggested that the Apostles misunderstanding what was going to happen at that time is the same as them publishing material that is incorrect (they too misunderstood what was going to happen), and then later having to change it. Thus Acts 1:6-7 support their "new light" teaching.
Is it really the same? No it is not. The Apostles asked Christ what was going to happen. They did not send out the disciples all over the known world telling them that Christ was going to restore the kingdom right then, and then later have to change their story because they misunderstood what was going to happen.
The Watch Tower sociey has an established track record of "running ahead of Christ" and failed prophecy about the time of the end.
The interesting thing here is, Why hasn't the society applied Acts 1:7 to themselves?
For over a hundred years the society has kept on prophesying the world would end on certain dates, such as 1914, 1925 and 1975. All through the 80s and 90s "the end" was imminent, and today they continue with this claim - even though this verse made it plain that it did not belong to Christs Apostles, and much less so the Watch Tower society, "to know about dates or times, which the Father has set within his own control" - Acts 1:7 NEB
[Top]
John 16:12
Another verse the society uses to try to support their "new light" myth, from Christs life, is John 16:12. This reads, according to the New World Translation (NWT):
"I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present"
The "Reasoning from the Scriptures" book suggest witnesses use this verse when someone challenges them about the Society frequently changing their doctrines. It says(Page 205): "The Bible shows that Jehovah enables his servants to understand his purposes in a progressive manner" and then lists this verse, and Proverbs 4:18 and Psalm 97:11 (discussed above).
But is that really the point Christ was trying to make here? Was Christs discussion all about the "progessive manner" in which God reveals his purpose and will for humans? No.
Christ had told his apostles that he was going away, and they would face some very difficult times, as can be seen by verse 2. But Christ then points out that it is for their benefit that he is going away: "It is for your good that I am leaving you. If I do not go, your Advocate will not come, whereas if I go, I will send him to you." -John 16:7 NEB
Verses 8-11 discuss exactly what this Advocate will do for the Apostles when Christ is away. This is the point at which Christ says he has much more to tell them, but they could not bear it (verse 12) - of course not, he had just covered an awful lot of ground with them.
Verse 12 and 13 point out another benefit of when the Advocate - The Holy Spirit comes - they (the Apostles & disciples) would understand things they did not understand currently. Why? Because The Holy Spirit would be their teacher.
Again we see the society taking a verse out of its context and missing its point. This verse is not about why Gods "single channel of communication with humankind" continually gets His message wrong. Its an introduction to the role of the Holy Spirit in christians lives and how it will be their teacher.
[Top]
Elders or Clergy, ministerial servants or deacons?
The society claims it has no clergy/laity distinctions in its organisation. Oh, Really?
The only difference here is the label. Priests are Elders, Deacons are ministerial servants. All are unpaid - irrespective of the fact that Paul said "the worker is worthy of his wages". But don't think for a moment that is it. We really need to look at the way the organisation classifies and labels its workers starting from the beginning:
- Return visit
- Study
- Unbaptised publisher
- Publisher
- Auxiliary pioneer
- Continuous auxiliary pioneer
- Regular pioneer
- Special pioneer
- Missionary
And Men only (not in strict order here):
- Ministerial Servant
- Literature servant, accounts servant, territory servant...
- Elder
- Presiding Overseer (Congregation elders only)
- Service Overseer (Congregation elders only)
- Secretary (Congregation elders only)
- Circuit Overseer
- City Overseer
- District Overseer
- Branch Committee Member
- Bethel Elder
- Zone Overseer
The many Bethels, factories and farms around the world have their own internal (and somewhat secretive) hierarchies and committees to add to these.
I'm not going to bore you with the details of what these positions involve.
The point I am making is that the organisation more closely resembles a military regime; very top-down, "rank" focussed and hierarchic than the "warm association of christian brothers and sisters" that it wants you to think it is.
When you meet another witness, they want to know two things (especially if you're a male):
- Your rank or "spiritual qualifications" as the Watch Tower society calls them, such as Elder
- The roles you play in the local congregation or "service privileges" such as Field Service Overseer.
Because this information determines how they relate to you - and for men, sorts out the pecking order.
The Watch Tower society is choc-a-block full of class distinctions, from the top down. These class distinctions dominate their thinking. Even Bible verses such as John 10:16 which discuss all Christians as being in "one flock" are used by the society to point out the class differences of Witnesses, (the "Anointed" who will be with Christ in heaven and the "Other sheep" who never will) rather than to point out why these class distinctions should be removed.
Strange but true.
[Top]
Health Care Directive, Advance Medical Directive/Release and Enduring Power of Attorney -
Just how voluntary are they?
The Watch Tower Society is well known for its policy on blood transfusions (less well known for its vacillations on blood fractions!). "Blood cards" as witnesses call them, or Health Care Directives have been issued to all witnesses for many years.
In January 2000, I was made aware of a new addition to the Blood Cards. I was shown a twelve page document looking more like a mortgage contract than a "health care directive". It included a legal contract called the "Enduring Power of Attorney", which makes another JW responsible for making sure you do not get a blood transfusion if you are incapacitated. Bad enough, but...
The first paragraph of the new HCD stated:
"I, ............... am of sound mind and I voluntarily make this Health Care Directive. This document shall take effect upon my incapacity."
That was when my "JW myth detector" went ballistic. Joking aside, I wonder if anyone has challenged the legal validity of this document since it most certainly is not a voluntary decision.
Why not? Well take a look at what the New Zealand edition of "Our Kingdom Ministry" of January 31 2000 had to say on filling out these forms:
"These cards are NOT to be filled out tonight. They should be filled out carefully at home but NOT signed."
"Signing, witnessing and dating of all cards will be done after the next congregation book study, with assistance where necessary from the book study conductor."
And:
"Book study conductors should make a checklist to ensure that all assigned to their group have the assistance they need to fill out the Advance Medical Directive/Release card, Health Care Directive and Enduring Power of Attorney forms. For the best possible legal protection all three documents should be filled out."
Now, how can this be voluntary when the society specify:
- what will be filled out
- the day and time it is to be signed
- and then tell overseers to make up a checklist to make sure no one is missed
And if you needed "assistance" to fill out a voluntary legal/medical document, surely you should seek assistance from your Doctor and Solicitor, not a legally and medically untrained representative of the society.
Why you shouldn't sign the documents
Aside from the fact that the society's view on Blood transfusions is medically, Biblically and morally irresponsible and incorrect, this document adds a horrifying new twist:
<Quote>
"...I hereby state that it is my conscious decision that my absolute refusal of blood transfusion shall not be revocable by me orally."
"If anyone claims that I have orally consented to a blood transfusion, I demand that such claim be ignored unless confirmed in writing signed by me and subscribed by at least two disinterested witnesses."
<End Quote>
That's right, if you have signed this document, you cannot revoke it by saying so.
Now, when you're in the emergency room, in a semi conscious state with your life in the balance, how the hell are you supposed to:
- write anything at all - you may not even be able to say you revoke the HDC never mind write it.
- find at least two "disinterested" people - to hear you say you revoke the HDC and add their signatures to the document testifying you revoked it.
No, most likely you will die.
Your partner will care, your children certainly will care, will the society?
[Top]
[Top]
1. It is not the actual birth date of christ
Do you know the old cliché about the half full glass of water? A pessimist says its half empty and an optimist says its half full. The fact that various pagan festivals have been held at the same time of year as christmas can be viewed in a similar way.
To the WatchTower, it’s offensive to hold a celebration of Christs birth on the day of a pagan festival.
However many christians don’t see it that way. To them its not important what others, at some ancient point in history, once did on the same calandar date. What is important to them is what they do on that day, not what anyone else does, or did, once upon a time.
Consider Thursday, yes the day of the week. It is named after the viking God Thor – god of wars and warriors. Now what could be more offensive to christ than holding a christian meeting such as the congregation book study (or even the Theocratic Ministry School in some cases) on the day named after a false god of war? Or for that matter holding a WatchTower meeting on a Sunday – the day of the week commemorating a sun god.
Of course, I’m being facious when I say it is offensive to Christ, but I’m sure you see my point.
Celebrating or remembering christs birth on the day of a pagan festival is no more offensive than going to a "christian meeting" on a day that commemorates a false god.
[Top]
2. Christ did not tell us to celebrate his birth
This is not strictly true, is it? The fact is, it is not recorded in the Bible whether or not christ instructed his followers to celebrate his birthday.
Is this then, a valid reason why not to celebrate it? No. Did anyone actually celebrate his birth? Yes, read for yourself Luke Chapter 2 verses 8-14. Now, why would angels celebrate and sing at christs birth if it was offensive to God? And why would they do so publicly, if not to show people that this was an occasion to be remembered and celebrated?
Maybe Christ didn't instruct his followers to celebrate or commemorate his birth, but then he didn't tell us to fill out monthly field service reports, or insist we all give talks on the "theocratic ministry school" either did he?
[Top]
3. Its customs are of pagan origins
Christmas trees, mistletoe, candles, carols and gift giving rituals – all of these christmas traditions are of pagan or non christian origin.
Again the WatchTower views this as offensive, and again many christians don’t see it that way. Just because a people at some time in history used these things to ward off evil spirits or encourage the spring to return doesn’t mean that christians use them for the same purpose today.
The trees, decorations and nativity scenes are icons and symbols. There were various icons and symbols used in Jehovahs temple in Jerusalem too. Just as the jews did not worship the icons and symbols in the temple, christians today do not worship the icons and symbols used at christmas.
There are many traditions that have pagan origins, such as wedding rings, but are their origins what is important?
Consider what happened when the jews were instructed to annihilate a city. They were often, though not always, allowed to take "spoils of war" such as silver and gold utensils, jewellry, ornaments, and clothing and sometimes a cut of the spoils was even given to the temple (Numbers 31:27).
No doubt many of these items were once used, by the original owners, in pagan festivities.
But their origins did not matter, what mattered was how the jews used them. The same is true today.
[Top]
4. Deceptions at christmas
‘God is a spirit and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth’- John 4:24 NWT.
"Through the pages of the Bible, Jehovah has made it clear that he hates all forms of deception (Psalm 5:6) In view of this, is it not ironic that so many features associated with Christmas smack of falsehood?" The WatchTower – December 15, 1997, page 6
"When a child learns that he has been deceived about believing that Santa is a real person, does it not undermine his trust in his parents?" The WatchTower – December 15, 1997, page 7
These quotes show the WatchTower views the stories of christmas, such as Santa, as deceptions that interfere with the parent-child relationship.
If the objection to christmas is that deception is involved, then the simple solution is to choose not to deceive our children about Santa or any other part of christmas they may ask us about.
Banning christmas because some parents "deceive" their children for a time, is tantamount to "throwing the baby out with the bath water".
In any case, most parents explain the truth about Santa to their children when they think it appropriate, possibly by the time the child is ten years old. It is difficult to see how this could cause any lasting difficulties in their relationship with their children.
[Top]
5. Excesses in eating and drinking, immorality, financial burdens and stress
The Watchtower likes to point out the many excesses that some people get up to at this time of year. Drunkenness, over-eating, immorality – on top of the "financial burden" of gift giving.
The fact that some cannot restrain themselves (or make no attempt too) when celebrating christmas is not a valid reason to cancel christmas for everyone, including those who choose to celebrate the event in a more moderate fashion.
Otherwise, the society would have to ban alcohol, food and sex because some people cannot or will not control themselves.
The society's arguments against christmas do not stand up to scrutiny.
[Top]
|
