The Watchtower does not comment on the work of outsiders. As some of you know, Bruce is my grand uncle. He is a retired educator, and he is dedicated to telling the story as it is. I do not think the Watchtower has a strong connection to Russell, and they probably do not care.
B is infirm, very old, and viewed with considerable respect inside and outside of the Watchtower. His work has been accepted and published by academic journals. He is endlessly curious, seeking out obscure references. He is guided by the verse "speak truth to one another."
Mom's introductory essay [Mom was not a Witness] contains some mild criticism of the current Watchtower which I quote below. But the most interesting part of her essay is a discussion of the historic antecedents of Watch Tower faith in the Russell era. Here is what Mom wrote about researching the Watchtower:
Acknowledgements and Cooperation
Before
considering some important thoughts, we have some housekeeping issues. First,
we have many to thank for their assistance. I cannot possibly name them all,
but our thanks are due to those who supported our research. We owe an extra
amount of gratitude to Antonius (Ton) Adrianus de Geus of the Netherlands who
continued to send us stellar research until his death. He was a beloved family
man and my friend. We owe a continuing debt to Alan Whitby of the United
Kingdom. In addition to those whose help we acknowledged in volume one, we owe
Dr. George Chryssides our thanks for helpful comments on the rough draft of one
of our introductory essays and a chapter. Professor Andrew Grzadzielewski
proofread parts of our work and helped us acquire original source material.
Stéphane Jeandrevin also read this volume, fact checking and making helpful
suggestions. Bernhard Brabenec of Austria provided us with rare photos and
helped locate biographical information. He drew the map found in a later
chapter. Dr. Kevin Cason, Archivist at Tennessee State Library & Archives
was exceptionally helpful. He gave us access to papers important to our
research, doing so promptly and without hesitation. He stands in stark contract
to the dilatory and obstructionist ways of the Watchtower Society’s Office of
Public Information.
We
have received a steady stream of queries asking if our work is sponsored by the
Watchtower Society. It is not. We have corresponded with them from time to time.
They are usually slow to answer; they have a cumbersome correspondence system
especially when confronted with a request for documentation. Among the answers
we received were: We don’t have that; we can’t locate that in our files; we
don’t know any more than you do; and once they undertook considerable work to
reclaim a document but without success. They sent a few pages of photocopy, all
of which, except four pages, we had. More recently they sent three newspaper
articles that will be helpful when we write the final book in this series. They
continue to refuse us access to the original ledger book, and recently they
refused to let us see the original of a letter quoted in Proclaimers. In
another setting, a refusal to share cited material would call into question the
accuracy of the quotation. I do not think the letter in question is misquoted.
The issue is attitude toward ‘outsiders’ rather than accuracy.
Researching Watch Tower Faith
An
article published in the June 1, 1997, Watchtower said: “True religion
in no way practices secretiveness. Worshipers of the true God have been
instructed not to hide their identity or to obscure their purpose as Jehovah’s
Witnesses. The early disciples of Jesus filled Jerusalem with their teaching.
They were out in the open as to their beliefs and activity. The same is true of
Jehovah’s Witnesses today.” [Italics are mine.] The same is not always
true of Jehovah’s Witnesses today, nor has it been true since the Rutherford
era. While their doctrine and practices are easily found in their literature,
they withhold historical material. I cannot explain why. I believe an
accurately told history of the Watch Tower movement benefits all of the
descendant religions.
One
of our prepublication readers suggested that Watchtower Society reluctance to
open its archives derives from a fear of misrepresentation. Internal matters,
policies for church headquarters staff and similar matters generate documents
not generally circulated by any religion, though few hold them as secrets. Carolyn
Wah, a Watchtower attorney, tried to refute the commonly made observation that
the Watchtower is secretive and uncooperative, writing: “As an active Witness
for over twenty years, I was initially puzzled by comments indicating that
professional researchers had found it difficult to gather information about
Jehovah’s Witnesses. Information about the Witnesses is, in fact, voluminous,
detailed, and readily accessible. The Watchtower and Awake!
magazines have been published ... for many decades and are regularly
distributed ... .”[1] She blamed researchers for
not consulting available material, quoting Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone’s
1997 article found in Journal of Contemporary Religion which noted lack
of serious and thorough research into Jehovah’s Witnesses. Though that
situation is slowly improving, we obviously concur with Stark and Iannaccone.
Wah is absolutely correct when she suggests that academic researchers should do
their homework. Witness doctrine is not secret. It is clearly explained in
Watchtower publications. Much of current congregation practice and social
structure is elaborated in easily accessible Watchtower publications.
The
Watchtower Society has over the years treated academic researchers as agents of
mystical Babylon the Great [All false religion in their view] or of Satan. This
was the experience of M. S. Czatt in the 1920s and Stroup in the 1930-40s, and
some claim it remains the common experience today.[2] A
letter from the Watchtower to Witness elders dated April 25, 2001, for the
United States, and July 1, 2002, for the United Kingdom remains current policy.
That letter suggested that elders use extreme caution when dealing with academic
researchers, that they inquire how the information will be used and who the
researcher represents. It advised referring them to previously published
literature. The Watchtower expressed fear that individual Witnesses would
“express personal viewpoints that may not be in line with Bible principles” as
presented in Watchtower Society publications thus presenting something other
than a united front.
George
Chryssides related an incident illustrating Watchtower’s past propensity
to control the message. When contributing to an anthology, his work was altered
without his permission to fit the demands of Watchtower editorial staff. Some
four thousand words were added to his text, and a note was added in his
manuscript’s margin referencing an early-days court case, reading: “Britain
Branch would prefer this not to be mentioned.” They also objected that
Chryssides did not cite the Watchtower product Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom. While no-one should ignore that book, it is
not written to an academic standard, is in no sense original source material,
is un-footnoted, and relies on material the Watchtower Society usually refuses
to open to outside scholars. It is hagiography and not history.
[Rachael
expressed her intention to enlarge this paragraph to note that for Chryssides,
the situation significantly improved. In 2017 he noted: “In the course of
writing two major books on Jehovah’s Witnesses ... researchers at the Society’s
New York headquarters were only too pleased to scrutinize my text meticulously,
make suggestions, and provide material that is not in the public domain.”[3] -BWS]
I
should add that our personal experience with this occurred when ready to
publish Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet. Someone,
then a member of the Watchtower editorial staff, told my coauthor to not
publish but to send the manuscript to the Watchtower Society ‘for their files.’
This man saw independent research and its subsequent publication as trampling
on Writing Department prerogatives. I should state that the Watchtower Society
has in no way tried to guide our work or suggest changes to it. And their view
of academics seems to be slowly changing. One indication of this is the tasking
of an Office of Public Information to deal with, among other things, queries
from academics.
Chryssides
also discussed the problem of citing source material not open to outsiders. His
work was altered on the basis of something written by Jack Felix entitled History
of Britain Branch, a typescript manuscript not made available outside the
Watchtower Society. A redacted version was published as a history essay in the 1973
Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but Dr. Chryssides was not referred to
that and was left puzzled by the reference. Felix’s work, even as printed in
the Yearbook, contains errors the severity of which depends on one’s
point of view. But the Watchtower representative saw it as authoritative
because it was the sponsored product written by a prominent adherent.[4]
There is a vast difference between academic writing and what the Watchtower
produces. None of the Watchtower’s product is meant to be academic.[5] It
is meant to guide Witness belief and practice. We cannot fault them for writing
to their specific audience; even if it occasionally makes a researcher’s job
the more difficult.
The
issue of withheld resources continues. Major portions of Jehovah’s Witnesses
in Europe: Past and Present, a multivolume anthology presenting Witness
history in various nations, were written by Watchtower archivists. I do not
suggest that they fabricated anything, and, though the writing is ‘spotty,’
researchers should read this. But frequently original sources cited are locked
in a Watchtower archive, inaccessible to outsiders. In the history of the work
in Belgium “the archive” is cited without saying which archive, who owns it, or
what document is meant. This leaves anyone interested in following the research
trail without resources and dependent on the Watchtower’s view of self. No
rational, ethical history is this unbalanced.[6] A
friend to this research who is best classed as an “insider” tells me that even
Governing Body members must submit a request stating their reasons for wanting
access to historic Watch Tower documents. While I believe this is true, I
cannot fully sustain it from outside sources.
Chryssides
suggested that Witness authorities marginalize or even retaliate against
unauthorized Witness writers. Correspondence with Witness writers suggests this
is sometimes true. Nevertheless, the Watchtower Society seldom acknowledges or
cooperates with authors inside or outside their faith.[7] In
many cases this is a rational response. Some writers have a clearly
anti-Witness agenda. We can hardly expect the Watchtower to cooperate with
those whose objective is to trash their faith. A Watchtower elder who read an
early version of this essay suggests that the usual Watchtower response to
‘unauthorized’ Witness writers is to ignore them. This appears to be true.
Though it was suggested to me, I don’t know that they are trying to hide
anything. Perhaps they’re avoiding the appearance of endorsing the work of others.
But in matters of documentation their decisions seem arbitrary. I hope that the
Watchtower’s Office of Public Information will create a better relationship
with academic writers.
Researchers
into contemporary Witness history should be aware that the Watchtower Society
revises previously published material. Using the online library or the
Watchtower CD may not lead a researcher to the original, sometimes
significantly different statement. The most widely discussed instance is a
revision to the January 1, 1989, Watchtower which originally read: “He
[i.e.: the Apostle Paul] was laying a foundation for a work that would be
completed in our 20th century.” The Watchtower library CD reads: “a work that
would be completed in our day.” Controversialist writers charge the Watchtower
Society with some sort of misdeed here. But while changing the wording found in
the 1989 magazine, apparently to conform to its international issues, they let
other similar statements remain unchanged, and there seems to be no significant
revisionism in the CD.
There were revisions to Truth
that Leads to Eternal Life to eliminate references to 1975 as a year of
Biblical crisis. These were unannounced except on the dedication-copyright page
of the 1980 and subsequent editions. Revisions generally cannot be found
through the Watch Tower publications Index.[9]
This makes consulting the original publication, when possible, necessary.[10]
[1] C. R. Wah: An Introduction to Research and Analysis of
Jehovah’s Witnesses: A View from the Watchtower, Review of Religious
Research, December 2001, pages
161-174. Among the resources she recommended were two of Firpo Carr’s books,
poorly written, neither particularly helpful, and sometimes inaccurate.
[2] See M. S. Czatt: The International Bible Students:
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Yale Studies in Religion Number 4, [1933] page 20.
Rutherford’s response to Czatt is found in the March 6, 1929, Golden Age.
See the article entitled Timely Warning. Rutherford detailed his conversation
with Czatt describing him as “a preacher [who] seems to be employed by the
active members of Satan’s organization to gather information.” Both Czatt and
Stroup were clergy – Congregationalist and Presbyterian – and this alone
explains Watchtower reluctance. But most modern researchers are not clergy. I
am not totally unsympathetic, especially in Stroup’s case. He was devious, lying
and willing to fabricate. See B. W. Schulz’ Introductory Essay.
[3] Retrieved from https://blog.degruyter.com/engaged-research-far-go/
on August 3, 2019.
[4] Felix was a long-serving Circuit Servant [Now called
Circuit Overseer], and wrote a revised introduction to the British edition of
one of M. Cole’s books. We only address two issues found in Felix’s work. Our
comments are found in a chapter on the work in the United Kingdom. One concerns
his contention that Sunderlin and Bender traveled together. They did not. The
other addresses his comment on the population benefited by Food for Thinking
Christians.
[5] There have been occasions when Watchtower writers have
sought a semblance of academic quality. Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine
Purpose [1959] is the first Watchtower book to include extensive footnotes.
Its writers, supposed to have been Ulysses V. Glass assisted by Harry Peloyan
and others, followed the standard set by the Watchtower author who wrote the
1955 Watchtower history series. A Consolation article cites many
references. [June 24, 1942] A Watchtower article entitled ‘The Ten
Commandments – of God, Not Men” [Feb 1, 1961] contains twelve footnotes,
apparently to make it appear well researched. All the references are derived
from one book. The writer nowhere acknowledges that. Bear in mind that this was
sixty years ago, and, as far as I know, is not current practice. The 2003
edition of Branch Organization¸ an internal document, indicates that far
greater care is taken today than in past years. [See chapter 24.] Insight on
the Scriptures cites some sources in brackets. Often these are references
to volumes of Lange’s Commentary cited by their individual rather than
series title. Some Watchtower publications on evolution are footnoted, though in
no proper format. These publications are accused of deceptive use of ellipsis
or abbreviated, deceptive quotation. I haven’t thoroughly examined this issue,
but an exhaustive list of the supposed deceptive quotations seems to include
many which are to the point and accurate. Some of these quotations, while they
are to the point, fail to carefully represent the original author’s point of
view. A scattering of footnotes appear in Watchtower articles. Little of
this is unexpected or unexceptional given the non-academic nature of Watchtower
publications.
[6] The series is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
[7] G. D. Chryssides: Conflicting Expectations? Insider and
Outsider Methods of Studying Jehovah’s Witnesses, DISKUS: The Journal of the
British Association for the Study of Religions, 17:1, 2015, pages 14-22.
[8] See for instance the article Ancient Patterns for the
Present, The Watchtower, September 15, 1950, page 324, which reads:
“From the foregoing it is clear that the Hebrew Scriptures are not mere ancient
history, but contain types and shadows of things now coming to pass upon this
twentieth-century generation.” This remains on the Watchtower archive CD as it
was in 1950, though it no longer reflects Watchtower doctrine. The CD is
faithful to the printed volumes issued after the end of each year. For books
and pamphlets it gives the date of the latest revisions, and these are what
appear on the CD.
[9] See pages 9, 88 and 89 and compare early editions with
later printings. A Witness elder who read an early version of this essay
suggested that the “Beliefs Clarified” entry in the Watchtower’s index to
publications would remove this issue. An examination of that entry shows that
it does not. It does, however, let one follow changes in doctrine, and for that
it is worth consulting.
[10] When the book Man’s Salvation out of World Distress
was revised to accommodate a new understanding of a parable, adherents were
notified through The Watchtower. See the October 1, 1975, issue, page
600.