Development of Jehovah's Witnesses Doctrine - Criticism

Criticism

Former Governing Body member Raymond Franz and Sociology lecturer Andrew Holden have pointed out that doctrines—including those relating to sexual behaviour in marriage and the "superior authorities" of Romans 13:4—have sometimes been altered, only to be reverted to those held decades earlier. Holden, author of a major ethnographic study on the religion, commented: "It could be that many Witnesses have not yet been in the organisation long enough to realise that 'new lights' have a habit of growing dimmer, while old ones are switched back on!" In his study of the Witnesses and their history, Tony Wills has suggested that when third president Nathan H. Knorr altered major doctrines established by his predecessor, J. F. Rutherford, he was returning the Witnesses to many of Russell's teachings. He asked: "How can the Society harmonize this circular development with the claimed progressive development?"

In testimony at a 1954 court case in Scotland, senior Watch Tower Society figures admitted that although doctrines were subject to change if they were later regarded as erroneous, all Witnesses were required to accept current teachings or risk expulsion. Under cross-examination, then Society vice president Fred Franz conceded a Witness could be disfellowshipped and shunned for "causing trouble" over a belief they held that was contrary to Society teaching but subsequently embraced by the religion. Society lawyer Hayden G. Covington told the court that although the Society had for decades published a "false prophecy ... a false statement" about the date of Christ's Second Coming, members of the religion had been required to accept it and any who had rejected it would have been expelled. He explained: "You must understand we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way."