More than 10 years revealing secrets because there is no excuse for secrecy in religion – w1997 June 1; Dan 2:47; Matt 10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 12:2; Acts 4:19, 20.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ unity and control hangs in the balance as its leadership struggles to maintain power amidst growing criticism.
We initiated an interesting and detailed critique of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings regarding the 144,000, the sealing of the number in 1935, and the evolving doctrine regarding anointing and those required to have a heavenly calling when becoming members of the Governing Body. The subsequent discussion is fascinating, eye-opening, and enlightening.
1935, the Governing Body, and Avoidance of Accountability
The 1935 doctrine on the sealing of the 144,00 suggested the heavenly calling was “about complete” in 1935 was emphasized in publications, at least until 2006 with the release of the revised publication, Revelation – It’s Grand Climax At Hand! (See Chapter 20, paras 18 & 19) While the doctrine has been gradually abandoned, the absence of a formal apology or written clarification stands out as an issue for those seeking transparency.
The inclusion of individuals like Rumph, Jedele, Winder, and Fleegle, born long after 1935, suggests a significant shift in the interpretation of the 144,000. Their heavenly calling is now viewed as ongoing in terms of their role as Governing Body members, rather than their role being tied to a specific historical period.
The directive in the January 2016 Study Edition Watchtower (See page 25, para 10) where members are discouraged from asking anointed “personal questions about their anointing” has the potential of shielding leadership figures from scrutiny. It’s a possible mechanism to maintain authority without being held accountable to the worldwide congregation.
The sealing of the 144,000 was evidently a false teaching. However there has been a lack of apology for this doctrinal error. The absence of an apology for such a false teaching resonates with critics who argue that the organization should acknowledge and take responsibility for misleading doctrines.
Doctrinal Integrity or Accountability?
The evolving interpretation of doctrines like the 144,000 anointed raises questions about transparency, especially when significant changes are made without openly addressing past errors. On one hand, organizations like Jehovah’s Witnesses do grow and refine their teachings over time. But, failing to acknowledge mistakes – or directing members not to question certain practices – can come across as authoritarian or dismissive of legitimate concerns. This dynamic becomes even more problematic when it involves leadership selection, as it could lead to perceptions of manipulation or self-serving policies.
It seems that for most members, the promise of paradise on Earth outweighs any discomfort with inconsistencies or doctrinal shifts. The focus on the ultimate reward acts as a powerful tool for maintaining loyalty, even in the face of concerns about leadership or past errors.
For the small cohort who do question, the culture within the organization probably makes it challenging to voice doubts openly. The emphasis on loyalty, obedience, and unity – coupled with the risk of ostracism or being labeled as “spiritually weak” – makes critical thinking a high-stakes endeavor for many.
Critical Mass of Dissenters
It’s fascinating how this dynamic mirrors patterns seen in other high-control religious groups. How do the critics reach a tipping point where their concerns gain more traction? A critical mass of dissenters is necessary to challenge or force meaningful change in any authority structure. Without a significant and growing number of individuals willing to question, the leadership can continue to operate without addressing the underlying issues. This ensures the status quo remains intact as isolated dissenters are easier to dismiss or silence.
In groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, the mechanisms for maintaining conformity – such as shunning, discouraging independent research, dissuading higher education, and promoting a fear of losing out on paradise – are highly effective at preventing dissent from gaining momentum. As long as the majority remain convinced of the ultimate reward and view questioning as spiritually dangerous, the leadership’s authority remains secure.
The Importance of Exposure to External Information
How do we disrupt the balance and encourage more questioning to drive leadership accountability? In short, access to information is a powerful way to challenge an organization’s control. Websites like AvoidJW.org, JWChildAbuse.org and JWFacts.com play a pivotal role in peeling back the layers of secrecy and exposing practices that would otherwise remain hidden. For members who begin to question, discovering this kind of information could be the spark that deepens their doubts.
The leadership’s efforts to discourage access by vaguely referencing AvoidJW.org – without naming it outright (See Study Edition Watchtower, April 2018, pp. 30, 31) – is evidently an attempt to avoid drawing more attention to it. It also reflects how significant a threat this platform is perceived to be. The founder of the website receiving a cease-and-desist around the same time as the release of this Watchtower shows they are not just dismissing the website as irrelevant but actively trying to curb its influence.
Despite the leadership’s insulation strategies, the internet creates an unprecedented challenge. Members curious to explore these resources may find themselves questioning more than they ever thought possible. But for this to lead to widespread change, a tipping point in awareness and courage among members would still be required.
Critical Voices are Gaining Traction
The combination of websites like AvoidJW.org, JWChildAbuse.org, JWFacts.org, and personal stories and critical analyses on YouTube create a powerful counter-narrative. Hearing first-hand accounts of shunning, abuse, and doubts can resonate deeply, especially with those who are beginning to feel disillusioned. These stories humanize the issues in ways that doctrinal arguments or external criticism might not.
The rise of YouTube channels sharing personal experiences also highlights the courage of those willing to speak out. For many members or former members, and even non-members, it can be profoundly validating to hear others articulate what they may have felt but struggled to put into words. Together, these efforts chip away at the perception of unity and infallibility that high-control groups often project.
Systemic Change Possible
It is clear that online platforms are helping to build a growing network of awareness and support. But what is the end goal? We’ve recently seen some superficial changes where the leadership allows beards on men, pants on women, and a brief hello to expelled members. These may appear to soften Jehovah’s Witnesses’ control over their members, but the core practices remain as rigid as ever. The continued directive to cut off family members who are expelled – particularly those who simply wish to leave the faith – demonstrates how deep the control mechanisms are embedded.
These superficial changes are more like a public relations strategy to counter criticism and give the illusion of relaxing control, or modernization, rather than a genuine shift in policy. The underlying goal of maintaining obedience and isolating dissenters is unchanged, which highlights how these tactics are used to preserve the group’s authority while deflecting external scrutiny.
The refusal to address the human rights implications of shunning, especially for those who want to leave without hostility, continues to be a glaring issue. However, the leadership see these small changes as a way to pacify critics while maintaining their overall control. Therefore, significant change can only occur if there is sustained pressure from within or outside the organization, coupled with a growing number of members willing to demand it.
We cannot dismiss these small changes, though. Small changes like allowing beards or brief greetings can subtly signal to members that long-standing rules are not as divinely fixed as once believed. Couple this with the doctrinal change in who can claim to be anointed post 1935, it may plant seeds of doubt or encourage more members to question other beliefs, practices or policies.
These changes show that external pressure – whether from critics, former members, or human rights organization – and internal pressure – the progression of time, questioning members, or exiting members – can influence the group. As awareness of problematic beliefs and practices continue to grow, the leadership might feel compelled to implement more meaningful reforms to maintain their reputation and membership.
As younger members, who are often more exposed to modern ideas and online information, rise in influence within the organization, they might push for further changes.
Incremental shifts pave the way for broader, more progressive reforms. Whatever the leadership does, as time goes by, as members continue to age, as problems continue to mount, questions continue to be asked, doctrine continues to adapt, critical mass gathers pace, Armageddon fails to arrive, and paradise remains nothing more than a hope, change will happen. Of this we are confident.