A Conclusion for Jehovah's Witnesses

So since last spring I have been in regular dialogue with a JW named Don.

We've discussed a lot of things. It's obvious I've been taken through the routine evangelism process, covering issues like Christ's divinity, war, holidays, the soul, and eschatology.

I think this last topic ("last things") is an appropriate time to end the visits. Here are my thoughts in the matter, and what I plan to discuss with Don next time I see him.

One of my intial challenges for him (and really any Christian sect or denomination besides Catholicism and Orthodoxy) was to establish authority for the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Scripture, since this would be the basis for any discussion of doctrine to come. Don's response was to turn to Scripture, citing Jesus's parable of the "narrow path" and "fruits" as indicators of religious authority.

Specifically, the "fruits" Don identified as the good works, pleasant demeanors and the ethnically and nationally diverse nature of the JW's. This he contrasted with the "pagan" influences of celebrating holidays, encouraging Voodoo, and pronouncing the impeccability of the pope.

The problem with this is that approx. one-sixth of the world is Catholic, a tradition that's been around for 2,000 years. I can say with great confidence that for every "good" JW, I can produce a "good" Catholic. This renders his argument ineffective as a means of establishing authority.

Authority to interpret Scripture in the Catholic faith is largely historical. The Church was the institution that arose from the early apostolic Christian communities. No other Christian faith but Orthodoxy can make that claim.

I've tried to get Don to examine the historical roots of his own church, which, the more I read, are pretty dubious. Some highlights:

1. Unlike the founders of Catholicism, namely the Apostles and Christ himself, Charles Taze Russell (and Joseph Smith for that matter) had historically documented motives for establishing a non-traditional Christian sect. Russell questioned his faith at an early age and was uncomfortable with hell and predestination. He bounced around between Presbyterianism, Adventism, and Congregationalism before founding the movement that would become the JW's.

2. Also unlike the founders of traditional Christianity, Russell had some serious character flaws which are indicative of a deceptive personality. In 1913, Russell sued Baptist minister J.J. Ross in the Ontario High Court for libel for a tract Ross wrote about Russell the previous year. Ross accused Russell of being undereducated in areas of religious concern, such as theology, classical languages and philosophy. Ross also discussed Russell's divorce with Marie Ackley on the grounds that he was cruel and had "wrong relations with other women". Court transcripts show Russell perjured himself by lying repeatedly on the stand regarding his; knowledge of Greek, education, ordination, and separation from his wife, to the point that his suit against Ross was dismissed. Russell had lost another libel suit a few months prior. He sued the Brooklyn Daily Eagle for publishing a piece of investigative journalism regarding his "miracle wheat" advertised in the Watchtower magazine. The seed was claimed to grow five times as much as any other seed and proceeds were to go to the Watchtower and for publishing Russell's sermons. During the course of the trial, a government panel tested the wheat and found it un-miraculous in its growth, and the suit was dismissed.

3. Russell's credentials as a religious leader were poor. During the Ontario trial, Russell himself admitted to having never taken a philosophy or theology course, dropping out of school at age fourteen, and he knew nothing of Latin, Hebrew or Greek.

More concerning is the nature of JW doctrine, especially its contradictory and sometimes dishonest date-setting:

1. In 1881, Russell wrote about his short-lived partner Nelson Barbour's prediction that Christ would return physically in 1874. Russell then argued that Christ had come, but his coming was invisible. Originally, Russell himself also believed in a physical return, but in the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witness, his first pamphlet (which he wrote in 1877 about Christ's invisible coming in 1874) was back-dated to 1873 in order to look like Russell knew the return to be invivsible all along!

2. Russell then went on to formulate a chronology with Barbour in 1876 that predicted the rapture of the church in 1878 and the beginning of the earthly golden age in 1914.

3. Two books expliciting setting dates for end time events, The Time is at Hand (1912) and Thy Kingdom Come (1901), were later doctored to salvage failed prophecies (the former in 1920 and the latter in 1907).

4. After 1914 came and went, Russell and Rutherford (2nd president of the Watchtower Society) returned to old tactics and dishonestly claimed Russell had predicted an invisible return of Christ in 1914.

5. Rutherford next fixed 1925 as the date the resurrection of "the faithful men of Israel", including "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob". He even built a mansion and bought a luxury car for the occasion.

6. The Watchtower sets 1975 as the date of the end of Armageddon, but finally, learns somewhat from its mistakes and remains ambiguous as to whether this is doctrinally true or just speculation.

All this undermines any claim to authority. More disconcerning is the dubious New World Translation, which uses poor knowledge of biblical language to justify JW beliefs.

But for me, the historical evidence is enough. How can a founder so flawed as Russell and the Watchtower be convincing as a candidate for truth? I don't get it.

All in al,l Don may be right that the JW's are a narrow path, but it's in the wrong direction. They might have some fruit, but no more than other trees, and their roots are rotten.