From: hp-col!smithw@kd4nc.ampr.org (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:30:30 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

This is a followup to Diarmuid Pigott and Mark Sornson's postings
about the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Diarmuid had related that a friend
of his had joined the Jehovah's Witnesses and how they had some
"odd ideas" and a "murky past".  Mark in turn attempted to 
clarify, from a Jehovah's Witnesses perspective, some of the
subjects mentioned by Diarmuid.  

Mark wrote:  

>         Regarding blood, to make a long story short, we believe that the
>     modern practice of transfusing blood violates the command to Christians
>     to "abstain ... from blood" (Acts 15:20,29 RSV).  Our view is primarily
>     religious.  Whether blood is "good" or "bad" from a medical standpoint
>     is not really a major part of the issue. 

This is one of the subjects Diarmuid had referred to, and one that
shows why some might use the terms "odd" or "murky" in reference
to them.   Although the discussion Mark referred to (in talk.religion.misc)
verified that the issue of blood transfusions is really a religious
one, as opposed to a scientific one, much of the Jehovah's Witnesses
(Watchtower Society) literature still focuses on "scientific or medical"
justification for their positions.  For a more detailed analysis of
their medical reasons and the inaccuracies in them, see talk.religion.misc.

Also worth noting is the fact that even in the middle of this century,
the Jehovahs Witnesses condemned vaccinations and organ transplants as
evil, just as strongly as blood transfusions.  This meant that Jehovah's
Witnesses children, if required to have proof of vaccination, would
have had to have falsified the record.  Former Jehovah's Witnesses have
related that they used acid burns on their arms to make it look like
they had been vaccinated.           

Anyone knowing these facts might justly be concerned if a friend or
relative joined such a group.  

>         ==*==
> 
>         Regarding "the end of the world is nigh" ... Just before Jesus
>     ascended to heaven, Peter asked him,
>                       [...] 
>         Since everyone has 20/20 hindsight, fingerpointing at failed
>     expectations and dates is easy; but what these dates prove is that
>     a kernel element to the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses has been to do
>     what Jesus said, which was to keep 'watching' for the Lord so as to "be
>     ready."  Surely, all who profess true faith ought to do no less, no?

Surely, since for any given individual, *his* end might come at any
moment.  Since we could die at any time, we always want to be prepared
for it, with our consciences clean.  If we are always prepared, the
"date" for the end of the world really doesnt matter.  

Now, your use of the term "fingerpointing" is an awfully glib dismissal
of what many consider to be a serious subject.  As a group, the
Jehovah's Witnesses claim to have been commissioned by God to deliver
a message of condemnation against the world.  When someone claims
such a divine commission, it is much more serious than if they are
just preaching off the top of their heads.  And "dates" has been, and
continues to be, an *integral* part of their message.  
 
>         ==*==
> 
>         Rather than turning to 3rd party historians about what Jehovah's
>     Witnesses are all about, why not simply have an in-depth discussion of
>     the Scriptures with your friend?  Dwelling on past history isn't as
>     important as dwelling on the present, and on his (and your) current 
>     understanding of the Bible.

On the surface, this might sound logical.  But many things that may
sound reasonable to people at a given point in time, may later prove
to have been utterly absurd.   The world being flat, for example.
If Diarmuid's and his JW friend "forget history" and just concentrate
on the JWs current understanding of the Bible, some things may
sound logical.  But they may not be true at all.  50 years ago, it
seemed perfectly logical, *proved* from the scriptures, that 
vaccinations were a crime agaisnt God and nature (to the JWs).
The ban on transfusions may seem logical, proved from the scriptures,
at this point in time, but in 50 years, who knows?  You know what
they say about folks who ignore history.
  
>         As was mentioned, many religions have problems (or "murk") in their
>     past -- probably yours does too.  Even Peter had a little problem with
>     "dubious" views at one time, early on [ref. Mark 8:33]; but that didn't
>     stop God and Christ from using him in a mighty way (once those views
>     got straightened out).

If Diarmuid and his friend study the history of the Jehovah's Witnesses,
they will find that the group claims to have been used in a "mighty way"
well before their views "got straightened out".  The history of the
Witnesses is quite short, going back only to the 1870's.  The way
Jehovahs' Witnesses discourage people from looking it over, when they
write articles in the Watchtower/Awake magazines about past history like
the crusades, Colombus, the slave trade, etc, seems rather suspicious.

>     If you're REALLY going to compare the NWT with what is
>     'orthodox,' you ought to compare it with many other translations (and
>     NOT just one), for many of the allegedly "twisted" renderings in the
>     NWT are actually quite acceptable [and quite unchallenged] in other
>     translations.  

Some of the variant verses in the NWT may be considered "acceptable",
but not all.  Some appear to have been translated in the variant form
to support the JWs pre-existing doctrines; doctrines that may not be
readily supported by "mainstream" translations.  An entire book was
written (it was originally a college thesis paper) on the subject,
if anyone is interested, I'll get the name and author.

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com