A Prophet by Any Other Name (Introduction)

 A Prophet by Any Other Name

"These speculating ones may acknowledge that some of their past theories were wrong, but they do not show they have learned the lesson from these mistakes by refraining from bringing forth new theories." - February 1, 1952 Watchtower, pp. 80-81

“True, there have been those in times past who predicted an “end to the world,” even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet nothing happened. The “end” did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying.” - October 8, 1968 Awake!, p. 23

Are the religious leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses false prophets? My answer is that at least some Witness leaders are likely false prophets. While there are exculpatory statements found throughout the Witness literary corpus, there are other damning statements that, to my mind, are hard to explain away by the methods usually adopted by Witness apologists. These statements may be at odds with the passages that Witness apologists cite in order to show that none of their leaders are false prophets, but all this reveals is that sometimes Witness leaders are either confused or duplicitous. But neither of these options nullify the presumptuous claims they have frequently made.

A key piece of evidence to answer the question given at the outset – with respect to Witness leadership as a whole, or to particular Witness leaders, such as Joseph Rutherford – will be to examine what they themselves have said about the nature and origin of their teachings. Accordingly, such evidence will play a key part in the essay to follow. Additionally, four compilations of quotations from Witness publications are included as appendices to this essay. The first list contains exculpatory claims, which tend to exonerate their leaders of the charge of being false prophets. The following three lists contain inculpatory evidence, which tend to substantiate the charge that at least some of their leaders are false prophets. The first of these three contains quotations that more directly contradict their more qualified, exculpatory claims. The second of these takes a less direct approach. It contains quotations that reveal an implicit definition of what a false prophet is that is used by Witnesses against others, especially the clergy of Christendom. In fairness it ought to be applied to their own leaders. The last of these lists contains further quotations wherein Witness leaders describe their authority and teaching office as the sole visible channel of communication used by God. Given the quotations presented in these three lists, one ought to suspect that no matter how vehemently Witness leaders may deny being inspired, infallible or the like their situation is much like Caesar’s, who denied the title king but aimed to possess the powers thereof. 

A fair consideration of the evidence will vindicate my claim that at least some Witness leaders are likely false prophets. However, even if Witness apologists could successfully refute this accusation, they would not have evaded the lesser included charge. For, whether they are false prophets or merely false teachers, Witness leaders have a poor track record of interpreting prophecies. Since they rely in no small part on their and their organization’s supposed place in end-times prophetic fulfillment to establish their own authority and the legitimacy of their organization and its restorationist claims, the fact that they have such a poor track record interpreting prophecy necessarily undermines their religious authority. This will be the argument of the final portion of this essay.

For the sake of this essay I am assuming that one is familiar with what Witnesses have claimed about various dates, such as 1799, 1874, 1878, 1914, 1919, 1925, and 1975. While such claims are not the only teachings made by Witness leaders that are relevant to the present topic, they are often central to this discussion. So, if one is not familiar with Witness chronologies, I suggest that he examines such claims first. For the remainder of this essay it will be assumed that any reader is familiar with the many false claims, including predictions, that Witness leaders have made about such dates.