WI: No Jehovah's witnesses.

What if the founder of Jehovah's witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, died before he had a chance to found what would today be Known as Jehovah's witnesses. How would history be different?
 
Am I allowed to say thank heaven's for that?

But does anyone know how the doctorine for Jehovah's witnesses has influenced society at large?
 
Eisenhower's parents were Jehovah's Witnesses, with some butterflies in his childhood I could see him never becoming a historical figure. Is Arthur Tedder the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in WWII? Does Dewey win the presidency in '52? Maybe the US doesn't threaten to undermine the pound in the Suez Crisis, and the British are able to remain a third faction in the Cold War?

Mormon have to pick up the slack on knocking on people's doors.
 
Am I allowed to say thank heaven's for that?

But does anyone know how the doctorine for Jehovah's witnesses has influenced society at large?

Honestly I can't see any real influx they have had on other faith, other than turning millenniumism into a joke, their theology beside that are fundamental pretty vanilla, it's not really something lending itself to ridicule outside some of their taboos, social isolationism and treatment of former members (where the reactions also tend to be more horror than that ridicule). The biggest difference are that the lack of Jehovah's Witnesses leave a empty niche in much of Europe, where they tend to be the door to door religious salesmen.
 
Is this really that important of an alternate divergence?
That's exactly what the OP is asking. You asking this adds nothing to the discussion.

Just to add another factoid- JW's are non-political, they don't vote, or run for public office. Meaning without JW's there would be millions of people voting and able to run for office who were unable to do so in OTL. Which means the butterflies alone could result in a very different world today.
 
Well I wouldn't exist for one, as my father would not have run the farm if his two older brothers hadn't abandoned that career for J.W women a decade before I was born.
 
This directly butterfly the life and thoughts of millions of people, and eventually everyone, as any change would do. But nothing foreseeable except the obvious implications, as in likely slightly more people in other non-mainstream christian sects (Mormons etc) or some other new church to fill this void. Also none of the famous people of JW background would be the same if even born, as religion plays a large role in molding one's personality.
 
This is a butterfly timeline more than a "PoD" timeline, which I really like - it tests the forum's capacity for imagination. For me, I fail that test (I know practically nothing about the JW's), but I'm interested to see where people go with it.
 
This is a butterfly timeline more than a "PoD" timeline, which I really like - it tests the forum's capacity for imagination. For me, I fail that test (I know practically nothing about the JW's), but I'm interested to see where people go with it.
The point is butterflies is that they can more or less go anywhere.
 
Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusion (but not artificial blood substitutes), so there would probably be fewer controversies during random surgeries in a no-JW timeline. Probably not much political change, since Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote anyway. It's also a non-trinitarian sect similar to Arianism, and they often try to convert other Christians to that viewpoint by citing Bible verses in their tracts. Perhaps fewer Christological debates without one of the more?

The Mexican telenovela actress Allisson Lozz quit her career after she became a Jehovah's Witness if my memory serves me. (She was in "Alegrijes y Rebujos", "Misión SOS", "Al Diablo con los Guapos", and "En Nombre del Amor".) So maybe longer careers for a few actors in this alternate world?
 
I think that some Christians might take on the role of 'door-to-door' advocates ITTL. As a Christian myself, one reason (usually unspoken) why we tend to avoid knocking on people's doors is because we do not wish to be confused with Jehovah's Witnesses, who are widely perceived as irritating (a view shared by many Christians, largely because of JWs' stubborn insistence that they are a Christian denomination, when they clearly aren't).

However, Christian door-to-door-'ers' would probably be less annoying than JWs because most of us do not feel the need to 'pester' or revisit one household unreasonably often. At most you'd probably get a Bible verse and perhaps a free Bible, with a longer conversation only taking place if the household owner was interested.

I know not all JWs are annoying, and I know many Christians are. I'm just speaking in general terms.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Well, for one thing, the Jehovah's Witnesses have been instrumental in some facets of Constitutional Law in the US. Mostly relating to Civil Rights. In particular how the First Amendment is interpreted and applied. In the United States alone, the JWs have argued more cases before the Supreme Court than most other groups (23 times just in the 8 years between 1938 and 1946).

They have also brought numerous cases to the European Court of Human Rights, again mainly in regard to the free practice of religion, freedom of speech, etc. So even though they don't vote, stand for election or support political parties, they've had an outsized impact on politics and the law. Butterfly them away and civil rights might look very different
 
Aren't Mormons known for door-to-door evangelism too?

Yes they are, but the absence of JWs would still leave a gap to fill. Probably the Mormons would also increase their doorstep activity.

I mean I'm far from a Jehovah's Witness but how aren't they?

Various things, chief among them the fact that they do not believe that Jesus is God. For a faith called Christianity, that's pretty fundamental. It's stated pretty clearly throughout the New Testament.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I mean I'm far from a Jehovah's Witness but how aren't they?
They are. But some people insist that they aren't because they don't accept the Trinity doctrine. Instead they teach that there is one God, Jehovah. That Jesus is not God, but is God's son who was sent to Earth to redeem all mankind. And that the Holy Spirit is God's active force, not a separate being. They also don't believe in the immortality of the soul. Probably one of the biggest things though, is that they reject the cross. They teach that Jesus was impaled on a simple upright stake. From a Medical standpoint, they're probably correct. From a theological standpoint, it shouldn't really matter what he died on, just that you accept that he died for your sins.
 
Top