AHC: post-1975 Jehovah Witnesses split in more liberal direction?

I am familiar with the theory regarding cognitive dissonance, and that following a failed prophecy people often become more fervent believers. But it seems to me that cognitive dissonance can probably play out in a number of different ways, several of which probably have a 20% chance or more of happening on a particular occasion.

So, paint me a scenario in which the JW's have a major split in a more liberal direction post-1975?
 
Last edited:
"Local Jehovah's Witnesses hit with schism', Tuscon Citizen, around 1981
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
upload_2018-3-13_14-52-11.png

.
.
.
.
.
upload_2018-3-13_14-1-39.png


And a split can start over a small thing. In this case, James Penton of Alberta, Canada wrote a letter to headquarters on behalf of his son. And he received a rather uncharitable response which basically said, Hey Buddy, you need to adjust your thinking!

https://orthocath.files.wordpress.c...n_disfellowshipping_david_brown_1980-1981.pdf
(see about 1/3 of the way down, and then second page of the news article)

And where James is talking about "more freedom and more love," yes, I'd say that's a potential split in a more liberal direction.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
I might be able to help here. I was raised as a JW and IIRC, there's a few issues with using the 1975 issue. One is that it was never officially doctrine of the church. While it was broadly accepted by the members, the Governing Body (what the JW's call their head body of theologians) never officially endorsed it. They didn't disavow it either though. So when nothing happened, they could, legitimately, say that, "we never did actually make the claim that this was certain, y'all just assumed." So maybe have the Governing Body officially endorse the theory as doctrine? That could cause a much bigger split.

A large part of the blame was also placed upon Raymond Franz. Who was a member of the Governing Body from 1971-1980 and the head of the writing committee for the emphasis that was placed on 1975. He was essentially scapegoated. It was easy to do that since he left the religion at that time. Perhaps if he DOESN'T leave the faith, and the organization as a whole has to take responsibility for it instead of just a handful of "misguided" individuals, that could result in a larger split.
 
I might be able to help here. I was raised as a JW and IIRC, there's a few issues with using the 1975 issue. One is that it was never officially doctrine of the church. While it was broadly accepted by the members, the Governing Body (what the JW's call their head body of theologians) never officially endorsed it. They didn't disavow it either though. So when nothing happened, they could, legitimately, say that, "we never did actually make the claim that this was certain, y'all just assumed." So maybe have the Governing Body officially endorse the theory as doctrine? That could cause a much bigger split.

A large part of the blame was also placed upon Raymond Franz. Who was a member of the Governing Body from 1971-1980 and the head of the writing committee for the emphasis that was placed on 1975. He was essentially scapegoated. It was easy to do that since he left the religion at that time. Perhaps if he DOESN'T leave the faith, and the organization as a whole has to take responsibility for it instead of just a handful of "misguided" individuals, that could result in a larger split.

SsgtC:

So then would I be correct in thinking that the 1975 prediction never appeared in the pages of The Watchtower and Awake? Or was it possible for something to be in the magazine, but not be official doctrine?
 

SsgtC

Banned
SsgtC:

So then would I be correct in thinking that the 1975 prediction never appeared in the pages of The Watchtower and Awake? Or was it possible for something to be in the magazine, but not be official doctrine?
To the best of my knowledge, The Watchtower never explicitly stated that Armageddon would begin in 1975. However, it was heavily implied. In 1980, a public apology was issued that laid the blame on one member of the Governing Body (Raymond Franz) and several individuals on the Writing Committee (the people who actually write the publications). Both Raymond Franz and the members of the Writing Committee were disfellowshiped (the JW equivalent of excommunication). It's a little hard to know EXACTLY what happened behind closed doors (minutes are not required to be kept for religious discussion), but the Organisation as a whole got a huge black eye and there was a considerable amount of turmoil within Bethel (what the JW's call their World Headquarters) at that time.
 
. . . So when nothing happened, they could, legitimately, say that, "we never did actually make the claim that this was certain, y'all just assumed." . . .
And maybe with just a small change, seemingly an almost glitchy change in phrasing or tone, that comes across as weasel-ey?

And far worse than if a leader just says, I’m sorry, I made a big mistake.

And if not Ray, perhaps two other such leaders do make this heart-felt apology and in fact go on to rather compete on who can best work the “less rules, more love” side of the street. And just maybe this semi-competition turns out to be a very positive thing and eventually draws, say, about 30% of Witnesses to the newer approach?

===========

PS I understand Witnesses often have higher than average turnover, which I suppose can make a side branch either more or less likely.
 

SsgtC

Banned
And maybe with just a small change, seemingly an almost glitchy change in phrasing or tone, that comes across as weasel-ey?

And far worse than if a leader just says, I’m sorry, I made a big mistake.

And if not Ray, perhaps two other such leaders do make this heart-felt apology and in fact go on to rather compete on who can best work the “less rules, more love” side of the street. And just maybe this semi-competition turns out to be a very positive thing and eventually draws, say, about 30% of Witnesses to the newer approach?

===========

PS I understand Witnesses often have higher than average turnover, which I suppose can make a side branch either more or less likely.
Possible. They also didn't issue the apology until 1980. It was also at this time that they changed what they classified as apostasy. Previously, you had to actively encourage a belief different from official doctrine. Now, you could be charged with apostasy for mearly holding such a belief personally, even if you did nothing to encourage others to change their beliefs to match yours. So that could possibly also provide a schism.

As for high turnover, I'm not so sure about that. I think it's more common among young people (teens to 20-somethings) that were raised within the congregation than other groups. They currently have about 8.5 million active members worldwide. And that number has been steadily increasing.

To me, the more I think about it, I'm not sure if 1975 is a big enough shock to the system for the church as a whole. There have been a lot more bigger changes to official church doctrine previously. For example, celebrating birthdays and holidays (Christmas especially), the use of the Cross, whether a Witness could serve in the Military (they could until just after WWI in a non-combatant role), voting, holding public office, etc. The only way 1975 works, for me, is it has to be handled worse than OTL, or Franz has to stay a member of the Governing Body and they are unable to lay the whole mess on him and have to accept blame as a whole.
 
I am familiar with the theory regarding cognitive dissonance, and that following a failed prophecy people often become more fervent believers. But it seems to me that cognitive dissonance can probably play out in a number of different ways, several of which probably have a 20% chance or more of happening on a particular occasion.

So, paint me a scenario in which the JW's have a major split in a more liberal direction post-1975?
What kind of liberal beliefs do you imagine a more liberal JW would hold?
 
Possible. They also didn't issue the apology until 1980. It was also at this time that they changed what they classified as apostasy. Previously, you had to actively encourage a belief different from official doctrine. Now, you could be charged with apostasy for mearly holding such a belief personally, even if you did nothing to encourage others to change their beliefs to match yours. So that could possibly also provide a schism.

As for high turnover, I'm not so sure about that. I think it's more common among young people (teens to 20-somethings) that were raised within the congregation than other groups. They currently have about 8.5 million active members worldwide. And that number has been steadily increasing.

To me, the more I think about it, I'm not sure if 1975 is a big enough shock to the system for the church as a whole. There have been a lot more bigger changes to official church doctrine previously. For example, celebrating birthdays and holidays (Christmas especially), the use of the Cross, whether a Witness could serve in the Military (they could until just after WWI in a non-combatant role), voting, holding public office, etc. The only way 1975 works, for me, is it has to be handled worse than OTL, or Franz has to stay a member of the Governing Body and they are unable to lay the whole mess on him and have to accept blame as a whole.
How does the Jehovas Witnesses gain members? Is it by conversion of outsiders or is births inside the group?
 

SsgtC

Banned
How does the Jehovas Witnesses gain members? Is it by conversion of outsiders or is births inside the group?
Both. They engage in a public preaching work to convert people, but they also raise their children in the faith. One thing I should mention here, they do not count infants and children as members until get baptized. They also do not practice infant baptism. You have to make the decision to get baptized yourself. Usually, they want you to be at least 12-13 before they'll let you.
 
SsgtC:

I hope you're not feeling overwhelmed with all the inquiries, but...

To the best of my knowledge, The Watchtower never explicitly stated that Armageddon would begin in 1975. However, it was heavily implied.

May I ask, how was this implication put forth? Was it something like "Sound financial management is definitely part of Jehohvah's plan for families, but you might not have to worry much if you're not retiring until after 1975."

Or like "Some people think Armageddon will get going in 1975. We don't know if that's true or not, but something to think about, anyway."

I believe the Catholic Church takes something like the second approach to Marian apparitions, stipulating that no one is required to believe in them in order to be a good Catholic, but that they're more than welcome to believe in them, and the Pope himself certainly likes to make pilgrimiges to Fatima etc. Of course, those don't involve predictions linked to specific dates in the future, so the Church manages to avoid the kind of embarrassment that the JWs used to get into.
 

SsgtC

Banned
SsgtC:

I hope you're not feeling overwhelmed with all the inquiries, but...



May I ask, how was this implication put forth? Was it something like "Sound financial management is definitely part of Jehohvah's plan for families, but you might not have to worry much if you're not retiring until after 1975."

Or like "Some people think Armageddon will get going in 1975. We don't know if that's true or not, but something to think about, anyway."

I believe the Catholic Church takes something like the second approach to Marian apparitions, stipulating that no one is required to believe in them in order to be a good Catholic, but that they're more than welcome to believe in them, and the Pope himself certainly likes to make pilgrimiges to Fatima etc. Of course, those don't involve predictions linked to specific dates in the future, so the Church manages to avoid the kind of embarrassment that the JWs used to get into.
No problem. Click here and it'll give you a sample of what was said.
 
Hey, you and I were doing the same search just now!

It looks like it was closer to my second format, basically saying that it very likely will happen, but leaving a bit of wiggle room in case things don't pan out. This is interesting from the site...

Witnesses stocked up on long life food, reminiscent of Mormon pantries. One of my friend's families hid items in the bush, including a cross bow so they could quietly hunt animals during Armageddon. Others went further; they cashed in superannuation plans, cancelled health insurance and sold their homes and bought caravans to live in. This created great problems for many families as they were totally unprepared for lives that would extend on for many decades.

I'm not sure I knew that JWs had ever gone through a survivalist phase, but I guess it makes sense, if they really did think that the shit was gonna hit the fan in 1975.
 
Both. They engage in a public preaching work to convert people, but they also raise their children in the faith. One thing I should mention here, they do not count infants and children as members until get baptized. They also do not practice infant baptism. You have to make the decision to get baptized yourself. Usually, they want you to be at least 12-13 before they'll let you.
Jehovah's Witnesses have an active presence in most countries, but do not form a large part of the population of any country.

For 2017, Jehovah's Witnesses reported more than 8.45 million publishers—the term they use for members actively involved in preaching—in 120,053 congregations.[3] For the same year, they reported over 2 billion hours spent in preaching activity, and conducted Bible studies with more than 10.1 million individuals (including those conducted by Witness parents with their children[295][296]).[3] Jehovah's Witnesses estimate their worldwide annual growth since 2016 to be 1.4%.[3]

The official published membership statistics, such as those mentioned above, include only those who submit reports for their personal ministry;[297] official statistics do not include inactive and disfellowshipped individuals or others who might attend their meetings. As a result, only about half of those who self-identified as Jehovah's Witnesses in independent demographic studies are considered active by the faith itself.[298][299] The 2008 US Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey found a low retention rate among members of the denomination: about 37% of people raised in the group continued to identify themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses.[300][301] The study also found that 65% of adult Jehovah's Witnesses in the US are converts.[302]

I got this from wikipedia
 

SsgtC

Banned
Jehovah's Witnesses have an active presence in most countries, but do not form a large part of the population of any country.

For 2017, Jehovah's Witnesses reported more than 8.45 million publishers—the term they use for members actively involved in preaching—in 120,053 congregations.[3] For the same year, they reported over 2 billion hours spent in preaching activity, and conducted Bible studies with more than 10.1 million individuals (including those conducted by Witness parents with their children[295][296]).[3] Jehovah's Witnesses estimate their worldwide annual growth since 2016 to be 1.4%.[3]

The official published membership statistics, such as those mentioned above, include only those who submit reports for their personal ministry;[297] official statistics do not include inactive and disfellowshipped individuals or others who might attend their meetings. As a result, only about half of those who self-identified as Jehovah's Witnesses in independent demographic studies are considered active by the faith itself.[298][299] The 2008 US Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey found a low retention rate among members of the denomination: about 37% of people raised in the group continued to identify themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses.[300][301] The study also found that 65% of adult Jehovah's Witnesses in the US are converts.[302]

I got this from wikipedia
Yeah, that sounds about right. I'm not entirely sure though. I left the faith 17 years ago when I joined the Marine Corps. I know in the US they've got well over a million members. And data is incomplete from some other countries because the religion is banned in them (China being a prime example of this).
 
What kind of liberal beliefs do you imagine a more liberal JW would hold?
Say, less judgmental and more accepting of people as they are.

And maybe, the type of religious organization which, for example, helps out in the aftermath of a hurricane in an attempt to serve the broader community, without trying to pressure people to join your particular church.

-------------------

And if they loosened up about blood transfusions, I think that would help. I understand now that an elder sometimes visits a sick Witness in the hospital, both to "support" the person but also maybe to bully them to hold the line on the policy.

And I understand that some Witnesses don't fully understand that blood fractions are now allowed.

All of this creates difficult situations for doctors and nurses, even if they have a good social read of the situation.
 
Last edited:
https://jwvictims.org/conventions-k...cial-scams-and-schemes-of-jehovahs-witnesses/

' . . . I never knew one JW, not one, who enjoyed going to these. A circuit assembly is both Saturday and Sunday, and means a long drive to that one facility for your circuit. You need to dress up in a suit and tie or a dress, and have your children do the same. You need to pack a lunch, sit and listen to day-long sermons, and then make that long drive back home.

'District conventions are even worse, as they mean getting all dressed up to sit in a sports arena which may not even be air-conditioned despite the summer heat. These too mean a long drive, agitated and bored children, packing a lunch for everyone for those days, and for some, a hotel bill for the entire trip.

'The elderly and those with health concerns no doubt have it the worse, as no one with arthritis should be sitting in stadium seats all day. I also remember many fainting episodes at the conventions I attended because of the heat and the crowds. Single parents also struggled to attend; one woman I know, back when district conventions were four days long (they’re now three), had three daughters. She spent the night before the convention ironing 12 dresses, and then each night also making and packing four lunches for herself and her girls.

'All of this is done for sermons that are simply repeated in Watchtower magazines a few months later. . . '
Yes, I'd say there's some potential for new leadership.
 


Joyce is not a Witness. What I'm saying is that she's the kind of person who might have potentially led a JW reform movement, or at least have a good as chance as anyone.

And JWs gender discriminate big time. Women are flatly not allowed to become elders. Maybe in the heady days of the late '70s, someone builds a organization to start challenging that.

And probably only 1 out of 10 reform attempts really take off, if even that.
 
Last edited:
Top