What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe?

Somebody recently asked me what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. I used to know a lot about Jehovah's Witnesses. I read several of their books, a ton of their magazine articles, and I dialogued with them on beliefnet and in person. But it has been many years since I've read any of their material or even talked much with them. I've forgotten a lot. But I wrote an email explaining as best I can remember what the big ticket items were with Jehovah's Witnesses, focusing especially on areas where they differ from other Christians.

The best way to learn what Jehovah's Witnesses believe is to get their little book, Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life. Or it used to be anyway. They put out a newer book that contains pretty much the same information called What Does the Bible Really Teach?. Either of these books will give you the basics, and they're both pretty short. I've always thought that if you want to learn what other religions, deminations, sects, or whatever teach, it's best to get it from the horse's mouth. People do tend to misrepresent others, especially when they disagree with them. It's not always intentional, but it happens.

For those who just want the basics at a glance, here is the email I wrote. If there are any Jehovah's Witnesses reading this who think I got anything wrong, left anything important out, or just want to elaborate on what I wrote, please leave a comment. Without further ado. . .

You've asked me a few times now what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, so I thought I'd write it all out for you as best I can remember. I used to be pretty heavy on Jehovah's Witnesses, but it's been a long time. This is mostly about how Jehovah's Witnesses are distinguished from every other Christian sect.

1. JW's believe God chose their organization to be his mouthpiece in the end times. They believe their organization, which is run by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, was appointed by Jesus around 1918 to be the "faithful and discreet slave" mentioned in Matthew 24 to "give them their food at the proper time." They believe their organization is God's "sole channel of communication," and that one must be part of their organization in order to receive salvation. The governing body publishes their material through the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They believe these publications contain the "food at the proper time." They study this literature on a weekly basis. When talking to each other, they refer to each other as being "in the truth" because they believe it is only through their organization that God is revealing his truth to mankind. They do not believe that one can simply study the Bible and arrive at the truth; one must study the Bible through the lense of their literature.

2. JW's believe that the second coming of Jesus happened in 1914. Whereas most Christians believe Jesus will physically return to earth, JW's believe the meaning of the second coming is that Jesus will be present in kingdom power. This means Jesus actually was enthroned as King in 1914. This isn't a physical return to earth. Rather, it's the beginning of Christ's kingdom. They also believe the beginning of WWI was the result of Jesus being enthroned in heaven. His enthronement caused a war between Satan and God's angels, which somehow manifested itself in WWI.

3. Since JW's believe they are part of the heavenly kingdom, they maintain a degree of separation from the political affairs of the world. They don't vote or take political office. Many of them avoid any type of government work, but that is mostly a matter of individual conscience. They also don't join the military or engage in any type of warfare. It isn't because they are necessarily pacifists, but because they believe they are to maintain a separation from worldly politics.

4. Whereas most Christians believe God is a trinity, JW's believe God is a unity. In their view, Jehovah created Jesus. Then Jesus created the rest of the cosmos. Jesus was the only thing Jehovah created directly. Everything else was created through Jesus. Since Jesus is created, he is not part of a trinity. He is subordinate to the Father, and only the Father is Jehovah. Prior to the incarnation, Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Whereas most Christians believe the Holy Spirit is one of the persons of the Trinity, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person at all. In their view, the Holy Spirit is more like a force. They sometimes refer to it as "God's active force."

5. It is very important to JW's to use God's proper name, which is Jehovah. Jehovah is an Anglicised version of the divine name, which is transliterated from Hebrew as YHWH. There are no vowels in the old Hebrew. The Hebrew name for God is sometimes called the tetragrammaton. While Jehovah shows up in the King James Version, most Christians these days use Yahweh as God's proper name. Nobody actually knows how God's name was originally pronounced because Jews stopped pronouncing it out loud a long time ago, and because there are no vowels in ancient Hebrew.

6. JW's do not believe we survive as disembodied souls when we die. When we die, we essentially cease to exist. Jehovah remembers us perfectly and uses his memory of us as a blueprint for reconstructing us at the resurrection. Almost all Christians believe in a resurrection at the end of the age. Whereas a lot of Christian understand a "soul" to be something like a ghost, JW's understand it as referring to a living person. When God breathed life into Adam, Adam became a living soul. According to JW's, our spirit is an animating force that causes us to be alive. It is not something capable of conscious disembodied existence.

7. Jesus did not physically rise from the dead. When Jesus died, he ceased to exist. The resurrection of Jesus involved him being recreated again as a spirit person in heaven. The body that lay in the tomb was disposed of by Jehovah, so the empty tomb really had nothing to do with Jesus rising from the dead. Jehovah got rid of the body in order to avoid confusion. The appearances of Jesus after his resurrection were similar to how angels appeared to Abraham and Lot. Jesus manifested himself temporarily in a physical way, but he was not actually physical.

8. JW's believe there are two classes of Christians--those with a heavenly hope, and those with an earthly hope. Those who have the heavenly hope are made up of 144,000 people. Most of them were chosen during the first century, but some of them were chosen during the 20th century. The resurrection of the 144,000 began when Jesus was enthroned in 1914. Since that time, whenever a member of the 144,000 dies, they are immediately resurrected in heaven as spirit beings. They do not have a physical resurrection. For everybody else, they will be physically resurrected on earth at the end of the age.

9. At some point, Jesus is going to overthrow all the governments on earth and establish God's kingdom on earth. This event is called Armageddon, the eschaton, or the end of the age. Once Jesus takes over, he will rule earth for 1000 years. The 144,000 will reign with him as kings and priests. The rest of Jehovah's Witnesses will be resurrected around the beginning of the escahton (my memory is a little fuzzy about the timing). During the 1000 year reign, Satan will be bound so that he has no influence in the world anymore. The earth will be restored to paradise conditions. I think those of us who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will be resurrected sometime during the 1000 year reign, possibly toward the end of it. Again, my memory is fuzzy. Around the end of the 1000 year reign, Satan will be released for one last hurrah. He will wage a war against Jesus, and he will lose. Once he loses, he and everybody who followed him will be snuffed out of existence. Everybody who is left will have eternal life on a paradise earth, except for the 144,000. I'm not sure what they do after the 1000 year reign. Once Jesus has destroyed Satan along with everybody else who didn't take Jesus' side, Jesus will hand the kingdom back over to Jehovah.

10. It is very important for JW's to maintain a degree of separation from the world. They don't want to engage in any activity that might have any hint of paganism, which is why they don't celebrate any birthdays or holidays. The only thing they celebrate is their annual memorial service, which is where they commemorate the death and resurrection of Jesus. During this service, only those who think they are members of the 144,000 partake of communion. The rest just watch.

11. There are some other minor issues that JW's tend to make a big deal about. For example, they think Jesus died on a simple upright pole rather than a cross shaped structure. This is another area where they just want to avoid anything that might smack of paganism. They think the cross is a pagan symbol. Another minor issue that is very important to them concerns blood. They believe the command to abstain from consuming blood applies to blood transfusion. So not only will they not eat blood, but they will not take it into their body through blood transfusions either.

There are a lot of other things that distinguish Jehovah's Witnesses, but these are all the big ticket items. At least the ones that I can remember.

12. Oh yeah, and they also have their own Bible translation. It's called The New World Translation. They believe it is superior because whereas most English translations substitute "LORD" for the divine name, theirs uses "Jehovah." Most people think it's a terrible biased translation, though.

Sam

Motive mongering in the abortion debate

While motive-mongering is a big pet peeve of mine, I find it hard not to speculate about the motives of other people. I pretty much always keep those thoughts to myself, though.

I've complained about pro choice people engaging in motive mongering before ("Have pro-choicers given up?"). The go-to tactic of pro-choicers these days is to say that what's really motivating pro-lifers is not a concern for the unborn, but just the desire to control women. After all, pro-lifers allegedly only care about people before they are born. Once they are born, they no longer care.

Besides being wrong about the motives of pro-lifers, these speculations are irrelevant. They amount to ad hominem fallacies. They suffer from irrelevance because they have nothing to say about the morality of abortion. They neither refute any pro-life arguments nor defend any pro-choice arguments. By themselves, they tell you absolutely nothing about whether or not it's okay to have an abortion.

While it bothers me how much weight pro-choicers seem to think their irrelevant motive-mongering carries, it bothers me a whole lot more when I see pro-lifers engaging in the same behavior. I've seen pro-lifers attribute some of the worst motives to pro-choicers. For example, they'll say people only take the pro-choice position so they can endulge their sexual lusts without consequences. Or they'll liken the pro-choice denial of the personhood of the unborn to the dehumanization of other races, the motive being to discriminate against them and deny them their rights.

One reason it bothers me so much when pro-lifers engage in motive-mongering is because I'd like for those who are on my side to be above all that silliness. But it bothers me even more because I think it does damage to our message. We should want to persuade people, not insult them. People tend to stop listening to you when you attack them personally.

The major problem with motive-mongering, besides being irrelevant, is that when you speculate about somebody else's motives, the other person always knows better than you do whether or not you are right. Each of us has direct and immediate access to the content of our own mental states in a way that nobody else does. If you are wrong about the motives you attribute to another person, then they know it. And if you keep insisting on it, then they also know that you're a fool. Why should they have any future interest in anything you have to say once you have exposed yourself as being a fool?

Even if you happen to be right about their motives, the fact that you are trying to shame them will make them resistant to being honest with themselves about their motives. People will delude themselves by rationalizing in order to avoid ethical pain until they convince themselves that their motives are pure, at which time, they will still think you are a fool.

Can we please stop the motive-mongering? It doesn't do anything but give you the illusion of moral superiority while simultaneously causing you to lose all credibility with the person you are trying to persuade.

What is reasoning?

There are some things we have in common with computers. When we reason, we use logic. There are also logic circuits built into computers. I remember learning about these in my first engineering class in college. There's AND, NAND, OR, NOR, and so on. There are specific outputs given specific inputs. They work in a way that's not unlike deductive logic.

Recently, I was reading through some comments (I don't even remember where), and somebody described what computers do as reasoning. While I can see why I person might think of it that way, that is not how I think about reasoning. To me, reasoning is a conscious process. If you don't have consciousness, then you don't have reason.

A computer with logic gates behaves mechanistically and blindly. They don't actually think. When we reason, we do not just passively process information. We draw conclusions from premises by mentally "seeing" that the conclusion follows from the premises. There's an intuition involved in reasoning because it is by intuition that we recognize the logical relationship between various statements and propositions. In order to reason, we have to process and understand the meaning of the information we receive in a way that computers don't.

I am tempted to say the difference between what we do when we reason and what computers do when they process information using logic gates is even more apparent when we move away from math and deductive reasoning and more into inductive reasoning. I'm not sure, though. On the one hand, the conclusions of inductive arguments are not logically required in the same way the conclusions of deductive arguments are. On the other hand, there are algorithms that allow computers to form generalizations. On the third hand, those algorithms have to be able to be reduced to deductive processes. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to code them. I'm not sure that's true when people reason inductively. It might be, though.

Often when we reason inductively, a lot of that reasoning is subconscious. For example, when we have negative experiences, we automatically anticipate the same negative experience under similar circumstances. We start avoiding those circumstances because of this anticipation, but we don't have to explicitly think anything like, "Every time I have been faced with these circumstances in the past, it has resulted in unpleasantness; therefore, I should expect the next time I run up against these circumstances, it will also result in unpleasantness; therefore, I should avoid those circumstances." Any baby or animal can learn through experience that fire is hot, for example, without having to go through a set of propositions and a conclusion. If humans come to conclusions through subconscious processes, and we consider that "reasoning," then is consciousness really necessary for reasoning?

I still say yes. Everything about this subconscious way of coming to a conclusion still requires consciousness. There's the conscious experience of feeling the heat from the fire, the conscious experience of dreading future contact with the fire, etc. Any conclusion we reach results in a belief, and a belief is something that requires consciousness. A belief does not have to be expressed in words. A dog probably has no idea how to express the thought, "Fire is hot," but he still knows it's true. Language isn't necessary for belief or thought, but consciousness certainly is.

That is not to say we have to constantly be thinking about or giving mental attention to a belief in order to have a belief. If I were presently consumed with thoughts about pizza, and diamonds were the furthest thing from my mind, I would still have a belief that diamonds were hard. You don't have to be presently thinking about something in order to have a belief about it. A belief can be stored like a memory where it can be recalled, but it doesn't have to be right in front of our mental gaze.

I know I've rambled a bit. I'm just thinking out loud. The bottom line is that I don't think computers reason, at least not in the usual sense of the word. While there are similarities between what computers do and what minds do, I think the major difference is in whether the process is blind and mechanistic, like a computer, or whether it involves intuitively "seeing," as well as understanding, like a mind. The way we draw conclusions by thinking things through is not how computers arrive at outputs, even when those outputs are expressed in words.