A fair question we might ask of Jehovah's Witnesses, I think, is whether this movement is a religion or a utopian and theocratic ideology which, like Fascism or Communism, arose in the same historical era and aims at world domination in an imagined future.
More to the point perhaps, is this the same thing as a religion, a term which implies for most people some sort of communication with unseen transcendent powers that are not, and never will be, visible to the mortal human eye? Or is it a political slate which appeals to the underclass's desire for dominance and control and which relies wholly for its meaning on the eventual success of a social agenda? And is that, in and of itself, sufficient to call it a religion?
Two quotes to start a discussion:
"A genuine first-hand religious experience...is bound to be a heterodoxy to its witnesses, the prophet appearing as a mere lonely madman. If his doctrine prove contagious enough to spread to any others, it becomes a definite and labeled heresy. But if it then still prove contagious enough to triumph over persecution, it becomes itself an orthodoxy; and when a religion has become an orthodoxy, its day of inwardness is over: the spring is dry; the faithful live at second hand exclusively and stone the prophets in their turn. The new church, in spite of whatever human goodness it may foster, can be henceforth counted on as a staunch ally in every attempt to stifle the spontaneous religious spirit, and to stop all later bubblings of the fountain from which in purer days it drew its own supply of inspiration."
~William James
“We do not accept a religion because it offers us certain rewards. The only thing that a religion can offer us is to be just what it, in itself, is: a greater meaning in ourselves, in our lives, and in our grasp of the nature of things...a religion exists for us only if, like a piece of poetry, it carries us away. It is not in any sense a 'hypothesis.'”
"A genuine first-hand religious experience...is bound to be a heterodoxy to its witnesses, the prophet appearing as a mere lonely madman. If his doctrine prove contagious enough to spread to any others, it becomes a definite and labeled heresy. But if it then still prove contagious enough to triumph over persecution, it becomes itself an orthodoxy; and when a religion has become an orthodoxy, its day of inwardness is over: the spring is dry; the faithful live at second hand exclusively and stone the prophets in their turn. The new church, in spite of whatever human goodness it may foster, can be henceforth counted on as a staunch ally in every attempt to stifle the spontaneous religious spirit, and to stop all later bubblings of the fountain from which in purer days it drew its own supply of inspiration."
~William James
Interesting quote.
It's true....once a practice or religion has become established there will always be someone who rises up to rail against it. These things mirror themselves in other aspects of our society as well...what was once taboo is accepted as norm now, and as soon as its accepted as norm, someone else wishes to bring back the days of yore while another wishes to push ahead, and still another says "Wait a cotton pickin' minute! Can't we just stop here?"
What I find fascinating in the Kingdom Halls is that the Watchtower doesn't wait for heretics to arise and convince true believers. They immediately disfellowship them. Then they arrive at their Assemblies, march to the podium, grab the microphone, and proudly announce some "new truth" that is at complete odds with the "old truth" they mouthed at the same Assembly a year before. In this way their "fountain" springs eternal. The only orthodoxy is the most current utterance of the Governing Board.
Thus the Watchtower constantly proclaims itself heretical, because today's truth may be tomorrow's heresy. In fact, I've talked with many Witnesses who appear disappointed if the speaker does not announce a new bible based "do" or "don't" to the flock.
In my experience, the only thing that seems to trump a new heresy is a speech that narrows down just how soon Armageddon may arrive.
It's true....once a practice or religion has become established there will always be someone who rises up to rail against it. These things mirror themselves in other aspects of our society as well...what was once taboo is accepted as norm now, and as soon as its accepted as norm, someone else wishes to bring back the days of yore while another wishes to push ahead, and still another says "Wait a cotton pickin' minute! Can't we just stop here?"
What I find fascinating in the Kingdom Halls is that the Watchtower doesn't wait for heretics to arise and convince true believers. They immediately disfellowship them. Then they arrive at their Assemblies, march to the podium, grab the microphone, and proudly announce some "new truth" that is at complete odds with the "old truth" they mouthed at the same Assembly a year before. In this way their "fountain" springs eternal. The only orthodoxy is the most current utterance of the Governing Board.
Thus the Watchtower constantly proclaims itself heretical, because today's truth may be tomorrow's heresy. In fact, I've talked with many Witnesses who appear disappointed if the speaker does not announce a new bible based "do" or "don't" to the flock.
In my experience, the only thing that seems to trump a new heresy is a speech that narrows down just how soon Armageddon may arrive.
Thank you for that insight, and it seems to confirm what I'm getting at. It far more closely resembles utopian ideological movements than it does religions in general, and most Christian denominations in particular.
What I find fascinating in the Kingdom Halls is that the Watchtower doesn't wait for heretics to arise and convince true believers. They immediately disfellowship them. Then they arrive at their Assemblies, march to the podium, grab the microphone, and proudly announce some "new truth" that is at complete odds with the "old truth" they mouthed at the same Assembly a year before. In this way their "fountain" springs eternal. The only orthodoxy is the most current utterance of the Governing Board.
How is this any different from the RCC throughout the centuries (Inquisition) and the Apostolic Church (disfellowshipping heretics such as Marcion, etc.)?
What I find fascinating in the Kingdom Halls is that the Watchtower doesn't wait for heretics to arise and convince true believers. They immediately disfellowship them. Then they arrive at their Assemblies, march to the podium, grab the microphone, and proudly announce some "new truth" that is at complete odds with the "old truth" they mouthed at the same Assembly a year before. In this way their "fountain" springs eternal. The only orthodoxy is the most current utterance of the Governing Board.
How is this any different from the RCC throughout the centuries (Inquisition) and the Apostolic Church (disfellowshipping heretics such as Marcion, etc.)?
Compare RCC magisterium and JW FDS/GB.
In my own experience as a cradle Catholic and onetime monk in that church, the differences are slight where the institution is concerned, but profound in one's relationship with friends & family, as well as with society at large. Let me tell you how it strikes me as a whistebower on a potential scandal who's been shunned and marginalized by his fellow Cathoics for the last 47 years. In a very practical and palpable sense, I simply ceased to exist as a person in their eyes and became instead sort of a vaporous or holographic effigy of an issue.
First off, in order to find any sort of convivial companionship where I could discuss what had happened and how it affected me, I had to go competely outside both Catholic and anti-Catholic circles to get my bearings and re-establish my identity. I didn't exactly expect a hero's welcome home, mind you, but what I hadn't counted on was being treated as an enemy of the Church, not just for being a whistleblower, but just for telling in rough outline what had gone on in that monastery and how Rome dealt with it.
Over the long haul, though, the most damaging part of it was my telling lies about what really happened there and why I had left in all sorts of social and business settings, rather than jeopardize my career any further by needlessly alienating any more people. I told those lies so well and for so long that I came to half believe them myself, and it was remarkably gut-wrenching to write the whole story, something I didn't get around to properly until thirteen years ago after I had retired with a modicum of financial security. Even then, it took quite a while to get used to the idea that I didn't have to keep lying about it in order to make a living. You might be very surprised how many people, in the 1960's and on up through the '90's who had no affiliation at all with the Catholic Church, still regarded it as part of the Establishment and reacted to my story as an attack on the system as a whole.
One of the most peculiar ironies in the immediate aftermath was that once I'd made it clear to friends & family that I had left the Church, they all relaxed and started treating me better. There was still some subtle tension and shunning, but it wasn't nearly as blunt and confrontational as it had been during the very brief time in 1965 when I was still going to Mass, etc. Nor were they condescending, as if I were some sort of a "destroyed" person or an eternally lost soul. There were simply some family and social functions from which I was automatically excluded, and I gladly accepted the terms of that truce.
That was quite an eye-opener, because if they really believed what they said they believed, they should have been nagging me to get my butt back in the pews. Instead, it was as if they breathed a big sigh of relief that I wouldn't be tipping over any more ecclesiastical apple carts. It was a compromise they could live with, which still strikes me as a remarkable commentary on what church membership means to these people, and how unessential it really was in some ways to one's standing with God or status as a person who can be trusted.
Too many big words for my fever infested brain this morning but this is a good topic and I agree the movement/belief system is a utopian focused movement and a goal for a global domination. Fortunate for us it is a passive belief system for now, if the governing bodies do decide to get violent there will be massive death and injury, they will probably seek the aide of Iran's akmednutjob to reach their utopian society goals.
What I find fascinating in the Kingdom Halls is that the Watchtower doesn't wait for heretics to arise and convince true believers. They immediately disfellowship them. Then they arrive at their Assemblies, march to the podium, grab the microphone, and proudly announce some "new truth" that is at complete odds with the "old truth" they mouthed at the same Assembly a year before. In this way their "fountain" springs eternal. The only orthodoxy is the most current utterance of the Governing Board.
How is this any different from the RCC throughout the centuries (Inquisition) and the Apostolic Church (disfellowshipping heretics such as Marcion, etc.)?
Compare RCC magisterium and JW FDS/GB.
In my own experience as a cradle Catholic and onetime monk in that church, the differences are slight where the institution is concerned, but profound in one's relationship with friends & family, as well as with society at large. Let me tell you how it strikes me as a whistebower on a potential scandal who's been shunned and marginalized by his fellow Cathoics for the last 47 years. In a very practical and palpable sense, I simply ceased to exist as a person in their eyes and became instead sort of a vaporous or holographic effigy of an issue.
First off, in order to find any sort of convivial companionship where I could discuss what had happened and how it affected me, I had to go competely outside both Catholic and anti-Catholic circles to get my bearings and re-establish my identity. I didn't exactly expect a hero's welcome home, mind you, but what I hadn't counted on was being treated as an enemy of the Church, not just for being a whistleblower, but just for telling in rough outline what had gone on in that monastery and how Rome dealt with it.
Over the long haul, though, the most damaging part of it was my telling lies about what really happened there and why I had left in all sorts of social and business settings, rather than jeopardize my career any further by needlessly alienating any more people. I told those lies so well and for so long that I came to half believe them myself, and it was remarkably gut-wrenching to write the whole story, something I didn't get around to properly until thirteen years ago after I had retired with a modicum of financial security. Even then, it took quite a while to get used to the idea that I didn't have to keep lying about it in order to make a living. You might be very surprised how many people, in the 1960's and on up through the '90's who had no affiliation at all with the Catholic Church, still regarded it as part of the Establishment and reacted to my story as an attack on the system as a whole.
One of the most peculiar ironies in the immediate aftermath was that once I'd made it clear to friends & family that I had left the Church, they all relaxed and started treating me better. There was still some subtle tension and shunning, but it wasn't nearly as blunt and confrontational as it had been during the very brief time in 1965 when I was still going to Mass, etc. Nor were they condescending, as if I were some sort of a "destroyed" person or an eternally lost soul. There were simply some family and social functions from which I was automatically excluded, and I gladly accepted the terms of that truce.
That was quite an eye-opener, because if they really believed what they said they believed, they should have been nagging me to get my butt back in the pews. Instead, it was as if they breathed a big sigh of relief that I wouldn't be tipping over any more ecclesiastical apple carts. It was a compromise they could live with, which still strikes me as a remarkable commentary on what church membership means to these people, and how unessential it really was in some ways to one's standing with God or status as a person who can be trusted.
Your story is deep, though not suprisingly common. Any deviation, any contrariness to orthodoxy and to establishment, any perceived attack on the organisation is to be stamped out. It's not so much about faith as it is about community and a remaining in power.
I find a lot of things I could identify with. The biggest difference, IMO, is the degree to which one is shunned or ostracized. Whereas you were able to regain your familial and friendly relationships (to a certain degree), in the JW faith, you can only retain a relationship with your family if you live under the same roof. Your old friendships will never again blossom, unless one "comes back to the fold" and conforms to all the policies and procedures set forth by the Society.
IOW, you either conform and keep quiet, or you remain out. This keeps the their ideal alive, a perfect, peace-loving, God-fearing society clean from any "worldy" or foreign influence. Self-preservation at its best.
Your question asks 'what are Jehovah's Witnesses.'
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe we exist to explain who and what we are, and what our purpose is. So your question holds no meaning for me.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that we exist, or have been brought together, in order to Witness for God, to explain who God is, and what HIS purpose is.
“People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” ― Epictetus
Life is like photography, you need a clear lens, and the picture you get depends on what you focus on.
Attaching to (choosing not to let go of) your own painful interpretations of events, ideas, people, etc. results in 'self-created suffering.'
Anger stems from irrational beliefs about others, anxiety stems from irrational beliefs about yourself.--- http://www.amazon.com/The-Brain-Mechanic-Maximize-Emotional/product-reviews/0757315569/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Pretty sure Cherubino knows where to find what we believe.
He asked for an expression of what we are, religion, political movement, whatever. I am just expressing, we don't believe we exist to Witness to what we are, or about ourselves, but to Witness for God.
I didn't want him to feel his question was being ignored, it just serves no purpose for me, I know what my purpose is.
Editing to add... and Cherubino, being the clever fellow I know him to be, will notice that my 'non-answer' actually answered his question.
“People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” ― Epictetus
Life is like photography, you need a clear lens, and the picture you get depends on what you focus on.
Attaching to (choosing not to let go of) your own painful interpretations of events, ideas, people, etc. results in 'self-created suffering.'
Anger stems from irrational beliefs about others, anxiety stems from irrational beliefs about yourself.--- http://www.amazon.com/The-Brain-Mechanic-Maximize-Emotional/product-reviews/0757315569/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
