Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on Jehovah's Witnesses
About Jehovah's Witnesses
Demographics
History
Organizational Structure
Governing Body Faithful and Discreet Slave Legal Instruments
Government Interactions
Beliefs
Beliefs and Practices
Eschatology Blood · Disfellowshipping
Persecution
Controversy
Related People
Formative Influences
William Miller · N.H. Barbour Jonas Wendell
Presidents & Members
List of Jehovah's Witnesses C.T. Russell · M.G. Henschel J.F. Rutherford · F.W. Franz D.A. Adams · N.H. Knorr
Former Jehovah's Witnesses
R. Franz This box: view • talk • edit

Jehovah's Witnesses have beliefs and practices that are commonly regarded as controversial; by mainstream Christians for their doctrines that differ from mainstream Christianity; by governments for their refusal to participate in patriotic activities; and by the general public for their beliefs about blood transfusions and their treatment of members who dissociate.

Contents 1 Doctrinal differences 2 New World Translation 2.1 Translation committee 2.2 Theological bias 2.3 Use of the name "Jehovah" 3 Blood 3.1 Fractions and components 3.2 Storing and donation 3.3 Legal considerations 3.4 Animal blood 4 Attitude towards other religions 5 Statements of the Watchtower Society 5.1 Unfulfilled predictions 5.2 Changes of doctrine 5.3 Statements about itself 6 Family integrity & freedom of mind 7 Treatment of members who disassociate 8 Reporting of sexual abuse 9 Internet use 10 United Nations association 11 References 12 External links 12.1 Positive or neutral resources 12.2 Critical resources

[edit] Doctrinal differences

Jehovah's Witnesses have a number of doctrines that differ from those of mainstream Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism). Some of these doctrines differ on points which are considered to be of central importance; others are relatively more minor. The table below shows a comparison of a number of doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses vis-à-vis those of mainstream Christianity which are considered to be controversial, and of major importance.

Mainstream Christian teaching (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches)[1]	Corresponding Jehovah’s Witnesses teaching
Nature of God
God has revealed himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are one God. (see Trinitarianism)	Only the Father (Jehovah) is God.[2](see Unitarianism)
Jesus (the Son) is God in the flesh. During his life on earth he was both fully God and fully human. He is eternal and equal in power to God.	Jesus is God's Son, but not God.[3]
The Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is eternal and equal in power to God.	The holy spirit[4] is God’s impersonal, "active force". [5]
Jesus
Jesus is God's Son. He is God in the flesh.	Jesus is God's Son, and is a god (or divine being); but not God Himself. Jesus is also the archangel Michael in his prehuman existence,[6] as well as Apollyon/Abaddon, mentioned in Revelation 9:11.[7]
Jesus was crucified on a cross.	Jesus was nailed to a torture stake.[8]
Jesus’ body was resurrected.	Jesus’ body was not resurrected; he was resurrected as a spirit. [9]
The return of Christ to the earth will be physical, and has not yet occurred.	The return of Christ occurred invisibly in 1914.[10]
Death/Afterlife
The human soul is eternal and does not cease to exist at any time.	The soul ceases to exist when a person dies, requiring a resurrection to live again. [11]
Immediately following death, there is afterlife for all mankind in heaven, hell or (for Roman Catholics) purgatory.	There is no spiritual afterlife immediately following death, [12] except for the 144,000, who are immediately taken to heaven. There is no purgatory, and hell refers to mankind's common grave.[13]
The unrighteous will be tormented in hell for eternity.	There is no eternal torment. Those who have committed an unforgivable sin (such as Judas) experience 'Gehenna' (eternal destruction or extinction) at death.[14]
Judgement and Salvation
At the resurrection, people will be judged by what they did during their lives on earth.	Those who are resurrected to life on earth will be judged by future deeds which they will perform during the millennial reign. [15]
All who are saved (born again) will spend eternity in heaven with God.	Only 144,000 are born again and will spend eternity in heaven ruling over the Earth with Jesus Christ.[16] With the exception of those who have experienced Gehenna, all who have died (both righteous and unrighteous) will be resurrected with the potential to live forever on a paradise earth. [17]
To be saved, a person must believe in Jesus Christ. Many Christian denominations also believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. Many Christians (particularly Roman Catholics) also believe that good works are important.	To be considered righteous, a person must believe in Jesus Christ,[18] dedicate himself to Jehovah,[19] and serve God as part of Jehovah's Witnesses.[20]

These Witness beliefs are considered by most Christians to be blasphemous or heretical in nature. For this reason, many Christian denominations consider these beliefs to place Jehovah's Witnesses outside the category of Christian, often labelling them as a cult or as a non-Christian religion.

See also: Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

[edit] New World Translation

See also: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

[edit] Translation committee

The members of the committee that translated the New World Translation wished to remain anonymous, with the stated goal of ensuring that the glory goes to God and not to man.^[21] This move has been criticized, as it is meant that the credentials of the translators could not be checked. In 1950 the New World Translation Committee said, "The true scholarship behind the New World Translation will make itself known, not by the disclosure of the names of the translating committee, but by the faithfulness of the translation to the Greek text and by the reliable help it gives toward understanding God's written revelation to men." ^[22] A former member of the Governing Body, Raymond Franz, has stated that the translation committee consisted of Frederick William Franz, George Gangas, Karl Klein, Nathan Knorr and Albert Schroeder.

[edit] Theological bias

The New World Translation has been criticized as either adding or selectively translating certain portions of the Bible so as to conform to Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. The criticism of "theological bias" concerns mostly matters of the divinity of Christ (i.e., that Jesus was God), but also concerns other matters such as the eternity of the soul or the return of Jesus to the earth. ^[23] Some scholars have defended the translation, to some degree.^[24]

The most frequently criticized rendering is that of the first verse of the Gospel of John:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Most English translations - e.g., KJV, NIV, NASB)

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT, emphasis added)

The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society states that the latter rendering is the literal translation of the passage, and that the original language indicates not that Jesus ("the Word") is "God", but that he is "godlike" or "divine" or "a god".^[25][26] Some scholars state that "a god" is a possible literal translation of the passage,^[27] though not the one they would prefer to see.^[28] Some scholars also state that a literal translation does not equate persons, but assigns a quality (godlike nature or essence) to Jesus.^[29]

A large number of scholars, however, have disagreed with the Witnesses' translation of this passage,^[30] describing the latter rendering as "a frightful mistranslation", "monstrous", "intellectually dishonest", "totally indefensible", and "evidence [of] an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar".^[31]

Other New World Translation renderings that form major points of contention include Jeremiah 29:10, Luke 23:43, John 8:58, Acts 20:28, Colossians 1:15-20, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8 and Revelation 3:14.

The New World Translation rendering of the Greek word proskuneo has also been a source of criticism. The word is rendered "worship" in almost all occurrences in the New World Translation. However, when the word is used in reference to Jesus, it is consistently translated "do obeisance".^[32] The Watchtower Society has explained its renderings in the publication Insight on the Scriptures.^[33]

[edit] Use of the name "Jehovah"

Main article: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Jehovah in the New Testament

The New World Translation contains the name "Jehovah" 237 times in the New Testament. The Greek manuscripts from which the New Testament is translated do not contain the name "Jehovah". Original Hebrew manuscripts contains the name "Jehovah" more than 7000 times.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the justification for using the name "Jehovah" in the New Testament is that it existed in the original New Testament writings, but was subsequently replaced by the Greek words for "God" and "Lord" some time around or before the fourth century. The evidence for this is the subject of debate (see Tetragrammaton in the New Testament).

[edit] Blood

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood

Jehovah’s Witnesses reject transfusions of whole blood and its primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma). This is due to the 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 partaking in any blood) to include taking blood into the body via a transfusion.^[34] Controversy has stemmed, however, from what critics state are inconsistencies in Witness policies on blood.

[edit] 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.^[35][36] 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 Jehovah's Witnesses personally choose to accept the use of blood fractions and some do not.

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.^[37] Witnesses respond that blood as the fluid per se is not the real issue. They say the real issue is respect and obedience for God’s personal property- blood.^[38][39] That the matter blood is not at stake, is seen in the fact that members are allowed to eat meat which will still have some blood left in it. As soon as blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God and then a person can eat the meat even though it will contain a small amount of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses view of meat and blood thus is different than the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove any little trace of blood.^[40]

According to author Kerry Louderback-Wood, the Watchtower Society misrepresents the scope of allowed fractions. If taken together, they "total the entire volume of blood they came from".^[41] 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.^[42] When considering such an analogy it is important to keep in mind that Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the whole blood or any of its major components. And 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.^[43]

The human body contains between 2-3kg 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. Human breast milk contains about 500,000 - 5 million white blood cells per millilitre,^[44] however this is not forbidden.

[edit] 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 autologous blood is prohibited – that is the storage of one’s own blood before surgery in the case of an emergency. They do on the other hand accept blood components from blood that has been donated and stored by blood clinics. Factor VIII is a clotting factor used in haemophiliac preparations that is acceptable under the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's guidelines. Critics say that over a lifetime an average haemophiliac would require extractions from over 100,000 litres of stored blood.

In a similar fashion Jehovah’s Witnesses accept blood fractions from donated blood but view the donation of blood to be unbiblical. This has led to criticism of perceived contradictory and inconsistent policies.^[45]

[edit] Legal considerations

Regardless of the medical considerations, Jehovah Witnesses advocate that physicians should uphold the right of a patient to choose what treatments they accept or do not accept (though a Witness is subject to religious sanctions if they exercise their right to choose a blood transfusion).^[46] Accordingly, US courts tend not to hold physicians responsible for adverse health effects that a patient incurred out of his or her own requests.^[47] 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 minor 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.

[edit] 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.”^[48] Despite this stance, the use of Hemopure, which is a blood substitute solution of chemically stabilized bovine haemoglobin, may be acceptable to some Witnesses.

[edit] Attitude towards other religions

It has been suggested that “one of the more common criticisms of Jehovah’s Witnesses over the years has dealt with their outspoken denunciations of other faiths, religious leaders and clergymen.”^[49] In the 1930s and 1940s, the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses were described as “notoriously anti-Catholic”,^[50] including such images as a semiclad harlot (the Roman Catholic Church) reeling drunkenly into fire and brimstone. Witnesses during the time were openly critical of churches and clergy who they deemed were coconspirators in the war effort. Many highly critical pamphlets were written at the time.

The book entitled Enemies, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1938, included some of the more direct denunciations of primarily the Catholic Church but also the Protestants and the Jews. It includes references to the Catholic Church as "the old harlot" who has a "bloody record… many crimes… a filthy record". The same book is quoted as saying, "Today the so-called 'Protestants' and the Yiddish clergy openly co-operate with and play into the hands of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy like foolish simpletons and thereby aid the Hierarchy to carry on her commercial, religious traffic and increase her revenue… the hierarchy takes the lead, and the simpletons follow… poor simpletons.”^[51]

Since World War II, publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses have not included the same level of attack against the church but do continue to view all religions except Jehovah’s Witnesses as being included in “Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion” and are represented as the harlot riding the wild beast in Revelation 13. Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to denounce other religions and refuse to participate in any interfaith relations. Publications continue to contain elements of what the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights consider to be anti-Catholic sentiments. An example cited by the 1998 Report on Anti-Catholicism included a publication depicting a person kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary, with the caption, "Some worship idols. God says you must not use idols or images in worship...”^[52]

[edit] Statements of the Watchtower Society

The Watchtower Society has made a number of statements in its publications since its inception that have resulted in criticism, particularly from mainstream Christians and former Jehovah's Witnesses. These critics have highlighted a number of controversial statements, changes of doctrine, and failed predictions made by the Watchtower Society. Lists of controversial statements, such as those found below, are found in a number of books^[53] and on numerous websites.^[54]

[edit] Unfulfilled predictions

Predictions such as the following have appeared in various Watchtower publications:^[55]

• 1907: Armageddon will culminate in the year 1914.^[56]
• 1917: In 1918, God would begin to destroy churches "wholesale" and church members by the millions. ^[57]
• 1922-1923: The resurrection of the dead would occur in 1925.^[58] In preparation for the 1925 date, the Watchtower Society acquired a property in California, and built a mansion on it. The property was to house people such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Samuel, whom they thought would be resurrected to life in 1925.
• 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]
• 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.^[62]
• 1969: Christ's thousand-year reign would begin in 1975.^[63] There was a considerable amount of related speculation in Watchtower publications in the decade or so leading up to 1975.^[64]
• 1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.^[65]

A number of Christian apologists have argued that in making predictions about the future, the Watchtower Society have acted as a prophet,^[66] often citing Watchtower Society publications that use the word "prophet" in referring to the organization.^[67][68] The Watchtower Society itself has condemned others for making false predictions about the future, stating that such people were "guilty of false prophesying".^[69] The apologists argue, based on Deuteronomy 18:22:

“

When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (ESV)

”

that the Watchtower Society does not represent God.

The Watchtower Society has stated as early as 1908, "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises....We do not even [assert] that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them."^[70] They have also stated that they do not have the gift of prophecy.^[71] More recently they have defended themselves against claims of "false prophesying", by saying that they do not claim to be inspired prophets,^[72] and that their predictions have never been made "in the name of Jehovah" but rather are given only as an interpretation of Scripture.^[73]

However, the Watchtower Society has also made contradictory statements asserting their predictions to be definite. "The date of the close of that ‘battle’ is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874."^[74]; "Surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of God that the Lord Jesus is present and has been since 1874"^[75] (notably, this was written in 1923, indicating that 1914 was not taught as the beginning of Christ's presence until a later period, despite contrary claims by Jehovah's Witnesses today); "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. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."^[76].

See also: Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians

[edit] Changes of doctrine

The Watchtower Society has made a number of changes to its doctrines since its inception. The controversy surrounding this issue is that the Watchtower Society has said that:

• People can only fully and accurately understand the Bible and God's purposes through their association with the religion.^[78]
• Witnesses are encouraged to attain to “oneness”^[79] and thus not to “harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding,”^[80] or be suspicious of their teachings, but rather to have confidence in what they print.^[81]

A number of changes in chronology have occurred, particularly in regards to dates for important events such as Armaggedon, the end of human existence on the earth, and the return of Jesus to the Earth (see table, right). For example, prior to 1914, it was said that Armageddon would end in 1914. In a 1915 edition of the same book, it was said that Armaggedon would end that year. Today, Witnesses are taught to expect Armageddon imminently.

Other changes in interpretation of the Bible have been noted by critics. These have included statements about the Bible itself;^[82] identification of persons in the Bible;^[83] whether or not people receive a second chance after death;^[84] and perhaps most controversially, their standing on blood transfusions.^[85] The standing of the Watchtower Society on other matters such as the acceptability of vaccinations^[86] or tertiary education^[87] has also changed over time.

See also: Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses

[edit] Statements about itself

Critics of the Watchtower Society (or of Jehovah's Witnesses generally) often cite statements such as those listed above alongside other published statements that the Watchtower Society has made about itself; namely that:

• The Watchtower Society is the "one and only channel" used by God to continually to dispense truth^[88]
• The Watchtower Society is "directed by Jehovah" and "under the direct supervision of Christ Jesus"^[89] and that it "alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or force"^[90]

These critics have used such statements to question the credibility of the Watchtower Society.

[edit] Family integrity & freedom of mind

Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses (e.g., Randall Watters, Timothy Campbell, David Grosshoeme, Kaynor Weishaupt, 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.

Others believe that some members of anti-cult movements have impinged on the religious freedom of Jehovah’s Witnesses through coercive deprogramming and discrimination.^[91]

Witnesses teach that "freedom to make decisions [is] to be exercised within the boundaries of God’s laws and principles," ^[92] and that "only Jehovah [is] free to set the standard of what is good and bad."^[93] As mentioned above, however, it is believed that such principles can only be understood through association with Jehovah's Witnesses.^[94] In practice, members may face sanctions if they do not abide by regulations set forth by the leadership, which presents itself as the channel through which God instructs members about "what is good and bad."

Religious scholar Sergei Ivanenko 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. 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." ^[95] James Beckford, an expert of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and a professor at the University of Warwick, England, mentioned, "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." ^[96]

[edit] Treatment of members who disassociate

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline

When a member of Jehovah's Witnesses unrepentantly engages in "gross sin", 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. [6] 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.” ^[97]

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 gross 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.

Critics state that fear of being shunned and family break-up causes people to stay who might otherwise freely leave the religion.^{[citation needed]} 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, contradicts the precedent found in the Bible and the organizations' own teachings^[98] and can be used in an arbitrary and punitive manner if there is consensus among just a few to so use their authority.^[99]

[edit] Reporting of sexual abuse

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse

Critics 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).^[100][101]

Some victims of sexual abuse also assert that when reporting abuse they have been directed to maintain silence to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization.^[102][103]

The official policy on child protection for Jehovah’s Witnesses, 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. It also emphasizes the right of the victim to notify the authorities if they wish to do so.^[104] A Religious Tolerance.org website article on the handling of child sexual abuse cases acknowledges this, stating, "[T]he WTS recommends that the victim's parent or guardian — or even the accused person themselves — report the abuse to the police."

[edit] Internet use

The Watchtower Society has instructed Witnesses to be careful in the use of the Internet because of the availability of what Witnesses consider "harmful" information. This can include information that is objectionable on moral grounds such as pornography, but also information considered to be 'apostate'. The word 'apostate' is assigned special meaning by Witnesses, to refer to individuals who leave their religion over doctrinal matters rather than the broader sense of any person who changes religious or political alliance.^[105]

A 2000 issue of The Watchtower stated, "Some apostates are increasingly using the internet to spread false information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking."^[106] While Witnesses define the existence of "harmful" information, critics define all accurate information valid. What Witnesses consider "apostate propaganda", critics consider merely an alternative viewpoint, which must be considered in order to claim one has a rounded viewpoint. Witnesses teach that Scriptures such as 2 John 8-11 apply to such "apostates" and thus they must, "look out" for themselves and never "receive" such teachings in any form.^[107]

Critics have stated that this warning against Internet use is an example of "milieu control"^[108] in which the society controls its members by restricting negative information regarding the society.^[109] Jehovah's Witnesses respond to such criticism by stating that branch libraries, accessible by thousands of Witnesses and visitors, include books that speak negatively about Jehovah's Witnesses.^[110]

[edit] United Nations association

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations

See also: Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses - External links

On October 8 2001, a newspaper article was published in the British Guardian newspaper questioning the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's registration as a non-governmental organisation NGO with the United Nations Department of Public Information and accusing the Watchtower Society of hypocrisy.^[111] The reason for this criticism is that Jehovah’s Witnesses have long taught that the United Nations is the “image of the wild beast” referred to in Revelation 13:1-18 and the second fulfillment of the "abominable thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15.^[112][113] The doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses clearly expresses the need to be wary of forming voluntary attachments to organizations that have objectives contrary to the Bible.^[114]

An official UN/DPI Web page states, “Please note that association of NGOs with DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status.”^[115] However, the criteria for NGO association as outlined in the DPI's current brochure states that “The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles”^[116] Critics point out that Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that God is going to destroy the United Nations is not consistent with the UN's principles.

Within days the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society submitted a formal request for disassociation removing all association with the United Nations,^[117] and released a letter stating that the reason for becoming associated with the United Nations Department of Information (DPI) was to access library resources, and that they had not been aware of the change in language contained in the criteria for NGO association.^[118]

[edit] References

[edit] External links

[edit] Positive or neutral resources

• Jehovah's Witnesses' Response on child abuse, from official site (video)
• Jehovah's Witnesses Official Policy on Child Protection, from official site
• In Defense of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
• Article about Erica Rodriguez's suit
• NoBlood.org - A forum to investigate, discuss and report the latest techniques in blood conservation and alternatives to blood transfusion.

[edit] Critical resources

• Robinson, B.A. (2003), "Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse".
• TowerWatch Ministries - An extensive collection of information regarding Jehovah's Witnesses
• Historical Idealism and Jehovah's Witnesses - Documents the historical development of Jehovah's Witness chronology and the idealized history of it by the Watchtower Society
• Apologetics index - Criticisms of Jehovah's witnesses from a mainstream Christian viewpoint.
• Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood - A large site that promotes changes to the Watch Tower Society's blood doctrine. Contains many original Watch Tower Society source documents and references.
• Exposé on the Jehovah's Witnesses - From Blue Letter Bible. An examination of the claims of the Watchtower Society. Contains relatively brief explanations of each point.