Have Jehovah's Witnesses Ever Prohibited Consulting a Psychiatrist? [Opposers Dismythed]
I had withheld writing about this because I thought it was obvious what our unchanging stand has been on this subject, but some have been negatively affected by false and misleading claims so much that it is listed among the major claims against us by sociologists. (Perhaps, as psychologists, they take the accusation personally.)
Disgruntled former members claim that Jehovah's Witnesses used to prohibit consulting a psychiatrist. This claim originated with a former member, a psychiatrist who used to treat Jehovah's Witnesses. After leaving the way, he claimed that we had a higher number of those with mental disorders than the general populace. (I addressed this claim in another post.) Obviously the claim was bogus. Being a JW at the time while treating JW's, of course he had a larger number of JW clients than non-JW clients because they trusted him to do their treatment over anyone from the world. (A trust which he ultimately betrayed.) Thus he got taken by data bias. He claimed that this high number was due to our stand against psychiatry, which of course is belied by the fact that his business catered to JW's. (Do you get the contradiction here? The facts are not supporting the claim, as per usual with disgruntled former members.)
Others like to take advantage of the confusion between us and the Church of Christ Scientists and Scientology (less so in the last decade as they have become more widely known) to dissuade our Bible students and people of the world from listening to us. But is the claim about us true? Let us base our opinion on actual facts and not the selective statements taken out of context by our accusers to paint a blatantly false picture about us.
I have gone all the way back in our publications where the psychological profession is mentioned and found the claims against us to be exaggerated, and found no evidence of so much as a negative opinion of psychiatry as a profession, except when connected to Freud, torture, misguded experimentations, or abuse. But what I have found is cautions against psychiatrists who push their own unbiblical and unscientific opinions without regard for one's person's beliefs. I hope you find it informative.
I have finally chosen to stick only to the timeframe of the claims made by our opposers, which is between 1952 and 1990, moving backward through the Watchtower and Awake! magazines. If you have come across a quote cited by our opposers, or statements made in books published by Jehovah's Witnesses not addressed here, comment below and I would be glad to add it. (Please do not include statements about the quote. The reader can deduce the claim by the text selected out of context.)
Though this post specifically addresses claims about psychiatry, it is important to cover all our claims about psychological professions up to now.
A Brief History of Psychology
Ideas about psychology go all the way back to the days of the late Egyptian and early Greek empires, and perhaps earlier. Fourth century philosophers like Thales, Plato, and Aristotle had ideas about psychology. [1] But this does not make psychology a mere philosophy, fancifully speculating at how the world works, leading to superstition. Like science and logical reasoning, and being a type of science which utilizes logical and inductive reasoning, it has its roots in philosophy, but also in seeking actual facts, albeit with a lot of educated guessing, probing and analysis of human behavior.
Hippocrates (c. 460 – c. 370 BCE), who is called the father of modern medicine, was the first to connect the conditions of one's bile to mental disorders [2], as has only truly been understood to any degree and explored in recent years. Though the concept of humors (or contributors to emotion) as it was then known, fell out of favor due to an "imbalance of the humors" or "bad bile" also being blamed for physical maladies, leading to treatments such as vomiting, purging and blood-letting, and misdiagnoses of many physical ailments, when in reality it is ailments of the body that are often responsible for digestive problems, which in turn can lead to chemical imbalance in the brain, potentially causing mental instability. Discovery of microbial pathogens and the need of Doctors to wash their hands, turned this around, but the link between intestinal and mental health was lost.
A culture of distrust arose around institutions housing the mentally ill as a result of such places as York Asylum and Bethlem Royal Hospital (a.k.a., Bedlam, from which we get the word, due not to its eventual infamy, but its presence in popular culture of the day), which eventually became known for their tortures and repository of political rivals. These things continued in United States hospitals into the 20th century.
Psychology was first proposed to be its own science, distinct from medical practice, by Christian Wolff in his text Psychologia Empirica in 1732. [3] Experimental psychology, the true science of psychology, began with Gustav Fechner in the 1830's with his research in psychophysics, the relationship between physical stimulus and the brain's response to it through sensation, the precursor to neuropsychology. Other psychologists have explored areas of perception, cognition, attention, emotion, intelligence, subjective experience, motivation, brain functioning, pain control and resistance, interpersonal relationships, group dynamics, psychological resilience and family resilience.
There are seven themes of psychology: personality, unconscious mind, motivation, development, brain structure, genetics and environment. (Parapsychology, the ability of the mind to interact with and perceive its environment apart from physical processes, has also been explored without quantifiable results.) From these, much has come to be understood about the mind so that even the layman has a basic understanding of it. As a result, professions treating ailments of the mind have arisen, most notably psychiatrists who treat mental and physical ailments, clinical psychologists who only treat mental ailments, and counselors of psychology who only teach the person how to manage and mitigate their condition and educate their relatives on how to help them.
But early ideas about the mind were full of naive philosophical speculations and dangerous experimentation. In England they adopted phrenology, a now debunked pseudoscience, in which psychologists attempted to connect disorders of the mind to geographical features of the human head. Deranged and even deadly practices involving torture were visited upon the insane over the years by men whom themselves were in need of treatment. These early days of experimentation tarnished the reputation of mental health workers into the 20th century. Such scandelous tortures as extreme shock therapy (inducing the condition of mental shock in the patient), convulsive therapy and physical labotomy left the public with a bad taste in their mouths towards psychological professions and treatments. Then there were the parapsychologists and hypnotists who did not distinguish their profession from normal psychology in the beginning, leading to religious people in general castigating psychology as a spiritistic practice into the twentieth century.
Thus, from 1879 to 1940, people, especially religious people, held the psychological professions in low regard. This was reflected in articles submitted to the Watchtower and Awake! that quoted Christendom's preachers. But this was just a sign of the times. Most people at that time were skeptical. But as psychology gained respectability, despite occasional bad actors, so the public's opinion began to soften. But as people slowly became complacent, and the flood of distrust subsided, a solidified practical view of psychological treatment emerged among Jehovah's Witnesses that has remained unchanged to this day; though more clear over time as to how to navigate it.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Psychiatry
Yes, Jehhovah's Witnesses have discouraged seeking out psychiatrists, not because we don't think they can be helpful, but because they historically had the tendency to discourage any kind of religious belief (some still do) due to the teachings of Freud, as well as posing speculative, biased and unchristian ideas that always get debunked down to this day. Thankfully, the mental health community, by and large, eventually came to realize that belief in God and hope for the future can have a profound net positive effect on mental health. But before the 1980's, this was not the case. So we cautioned against seeking out psychiatrists to a certain point because they were inclined to lead people away from Jehovah. Obviously we had good reason for this.
From the beginning, our publications have always recognized the need for psychiatrists even among Jehovah's people, but in only severe cases. In fact, our publications have frequently quoted the research of psychiatrists, and referred to the need for psychiatrists, throughout the period our detractors claim we prohibited consulting psychiatrists and well before.
I concur with having caution. I have sought out psychiatric help in the past myself. I got diagnosed for ADHD-pi and generalized and social anxiety, and to treat severe depression and complex PTSD. I developed my depression, not because of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, but because of my choices, their consequences and my trust issues that continued to plague me from my youth (I was not raised in the truth and was baptized at 25 years old).
Out of a handful of psychiatrists, only two adequately helped me, and only because of their consummate professionalism that others lacked. They were keenly interested in a correct diagnosis and proper treatment, not just churning the grinder, the way others did. Group therapy only ever ballooned my social anxiety, though simple socialization helped with depression. It was ultimately a single chapter in a book about anger management that helped me get all my issues under control (and later recognizing that I cannot control the world around me or what it does to me). It was printed in a stapled stack of copy paper that was handed to me in an anger management seminar. It helped me contextualize how the Bible principles I had learned from Jehovah's Witnesses could be applied in my circumstances. So reading a single well-written chapter in a book on anger management that was in harmony with Bible principles did more for me than all those psychiatrists.
For subjects not covered here, see the subjects Mental Illness, Psychiatrists, Psychiatry and Psychology in the 1930-1985 and 1986-[Present] Publications Indexes.
For our views on hypnosis, see the Supplemental: The Problems of Hypnosis.
So with these things in mind, let us consider the things our opposers like to quote as "proof" of a stand against psychiatry as well as the actual information found in those articles and other articles in our publications. Let us start with 1990, the last point in our publications that our opposers claim we prohibit consulting a psychiatrist and then move backwards to find our historical stands on mental health professions to see if we can find any point where our opposers' claims become true in the time range selected by them.
1990
The Kingdom Proclaimers Report in the September 1, 1990 Watchtower, p.15, titled "From Depression to Happiness", starts off saying, "If one of his servants is depressed, Jehovah will help him to endure the pain and sometimes even to regain a happy spirit." It thus acknowledges that one of Jehovah's people can get depressed and says that Jehovah will help them endure it. It does not say he will always help them cure it, but says, instead, "sometimes even to regain a happy spirit." (Italics mine.) Thus, no claim is made about how only the Bible can help.It gives the account of a sister who was telling a story to someone about how she had gone into deep depression (before becoming a Witness) when her 18-year-old daughter died. Did she say she was condemned for ever having visited a psychiatrist? No. It says, "Neither psychiatrists nor costly medications helped her to overcome this depression. Several times, she said, she was hospitalized, but no improvement resulted." So she was at the end of her rope. The article also does not say that psychiatrists are "evil" or "demonized". It said that "she did not return to the psychiatrist. Her will to live was stimulated by her knowledge of God’s Word, and this proved to be the best medicine." It was not anything she heard from us, but she had simply read something that gave her hope from the Bible.
So if she was helped by God's word, how can anyone say this is a condemnation of psychiatry, or say that this article claims that the Bible is the only cure for depression or any other psychiatric illness? There is not one negative word in the article spoken against psychiatry nor making any effort to keep anyone away from it. She simply was unable to find the help she needed before learning about the Bible's promises. The article is simply providing proof that the Bible has the power to change lives for the better.
A similar story appeared in the August 8, 1975 Awake!, p. 26.
1988
In the article, "Mental Distress—When It Afflicts a Christian", in the October 15, 1988 Watchtower, p. 29, it says, "What, though, about accepting treatment from a psychiatrist or a psychologist? This would be a personal decision to be made with due caution." Clearly, a Christian seeing a psychiatrist was not prohibited. But why the caution? Our disgruntled former members won't share that part. What it says immediately after that is, "Therapists differ in their approaches to treatment. Some, for example, still practice forms of Freudian psychoanalysis, the validity of which is challenged by many in the mental health field." What? No mention of Satan and the demons? Oh my! How could this be? Might it be because we don't demonize psychiatrists?
It goes on to say, "Of even more concern is the fact that some well-intentioned practitioners have given advice that flatly contradicts the Bible." Well, since we are Christians, it makes sense that we would cling to God's word ahead of bad psychiatric advice. The Bible's time-tested counsel far surpasses human wisdom. But our opposers like to leave out the next words that say, "Failing to understand Christian principles—even viewing such as “foolishness”—some therapists have even concluded that following the Bible’s strict moral code is the source of a person’s difficulties!" I saw a psychiatrist's video that recommended reading the Satanic Bible as a form of exposure therapy to get out of an obsessive miopic mindset about one's limited religious beliefs in order to open them up to a broader range of thought and experience. (You know, because lying, greed, unrestrained sex, anarchy and reenacting human sacrifice every week are more psychologically healthy than peace, love and happiness.)
The article then asks, "Does the physician understand and respect the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses?*" (The footnote says, "* If an ill one has difficulty explaining his Bible-based stand to a physician or therapist, perhaps some mature Christian can assist him." A friend is not required, but is available to help anyone who asks. That is a valuable survival skill.) Should a patient not expect a mental health professional to respect their beliefs? But now, leading up to that, it says, "... Some practitioners, including psychologists and psychiatrists, offer forms of talk therapy that are not really psychoanalysis but are a means of helping a patient to understand his illness, reinforcing the need for medication, and ironing out practical problems. A Christian may find such therapies helpful, but he needs to get his facts straight before accepting treatment: Just what does the treatment involve? What kind of advice will be given?" It then says afterward, "If talk therapy is agreed to, "test out the words’ of a doctor instead of just accepting everything unquestioningly.—Job 12:11, 12." That is good advice for anyone, not just Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly the article is giving advice on how a Christian can exercise reasonable caution when choosing and visiting a psychiatrist.
1981
The article, "Attacking Major Depression—Professional Treatments", in the October 22 issue of Awake!, pp. 23-27 gave particular focus to what therapies are available (surgery, nutrition, talk therapy, antidepressants) for Christians suffering depression, how they can help, and how they may go too far or simply fail. It is an enlightening article well worth review as it reflects views that remain relevant today.
It had a poignant statement to make regarding talk therapy, saying, "There is also a danger here for persons who are endeavoring to live by high moral standards. Some therapists go too far, justifying attitudes that the Bible disapproves. This is done to alleviate the patient’s guilt. True, a person should neither be overwhelmed with guilt nor feel “condemned by God” if improper feelings enter his mind. Yet, rather than reasoning that such erroneous thoughts are not wrong, as some therapists would say, those who highly value the Bible’s counsel prefer to correct such ideas or dismiss them. So they have to weigh seriously (or have help to weigh) counsel offered by a therapist. Potential problems may be avoided if the patient, or a companion, explains to the therapist the importance of the patient’s religious beliefs.—Gal. 5:16, 19-21; Jas. 1:14, 15."
Indeed, it is better to put faith in God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ, cleansing our conscience, than to simply corrupt our conscience. As Christians, we need to protect our conscience and keep it responsive, rather than rendering it useless and insensitive by paying attention to wayward counsel. (Ps 119:70-72) Such insensitivity leads to those who would hurt or otherwise manipulate others, not to mention disregard God. (Ps 17:10) Having an advocate to help you maintain moral fortitude can be invaluable when getting psychological help.
The article ends with this sound advice: "So while there is a variety of professional treatments for major depression, never forget that a sound effort on the part of the depressed one must go along with all of them. Only then will one conquer major depression." Indeed, if I had not made the effort, I would only have gotten worse with each mental health professional that failed me. I didn't give up until I found what worked.
1977
"Insight on the News" in the November 1 issue of the Watchtower, in a piece called Psychiatry Challenged, p. 668, it cites an Ontario study in which delinquent children were found to be more likely to reoffend if they visited a psychiatrist than if they just went home. Of course, this is data bias in which the data given does not relate that the problem offenders are the ones sent to psychiatrists, and thus they already have a strong inclination to reoffend.
The concluding paragraph of the article plainly states in no uncertain terms, "For the most part, then, mental distress can be viewed as a medical problem—not a spiritual one. Understanding this fact, families, elders, and congregation members can better be of support to sufferers." But our former members won't show that to you. The focus of this information is to establish that "A basic problem of psychiatry is that counsel can differ with each psychiatrist. Also, there is no overall general acceptance of standards for human behavior. That is why those who turn to the Creator of the mind and body, Jehovah God, and observe his counsel for mental health find much more practical help than those who go to psychiatrists. The Bible’s counsel is time tested, applies to any period of history and is consistent." This is absolutely true even if the author used weak data to support his claims.
1975
1975 was a big year for mental illness in our publications. The April 22 Awake! magazine that year provided a long series of articles, from pages 3 to 21, covering mental illness and prodigiously quoted psychiatrists and their institutions. The April 15 issue of the Watchtower had a "Questions From Readers" that asks a question directly related to this post that we will discuss afterward.
But disgruntled former members ignore those entirely in order to quote the one article, "Psychiatrists Replacing Clergymen—Why?" in the August 22 Awake!, p.25, out of context. Notice why. It says, "Is the turning of people from the clergy to the psychiatrists a healthy phenomenon? No, for it really is a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire. They are worse off than they were before…" That certainly sounds like they are saying psychiatry is bad. Oh my! But the context they replace with an ellipse gives us a better picture of what is really being said: "for, as has well been noted by The National Observer, people need a “fundamental religious ground for their existence, the reason why you can still go on living in the face of tragedy.”" It then talks about the benefits of God's word. So, in other words, they are not worse off for turning to psychiatrists, but worse off for abandoning the word of God!
However, the following statement is, indeed a case of bias. It says, "That they are not the ones to go to for help when one is depressed and beset with all manner of problems is to be seen from the fact that suicides among them are twice as frequent as among the population in general." This means what it says. This was written by someone who does not understand statistics and was thus fooled by data bias. Psychiatry attracts people who are depressed and looking for help, so of course the number of suicides are going to be higher. That the number is not many times higher speaks to the effectiveness of psychiatry, not its ineffectiveness. In fact, we now know that there is as high a number as there is in the general populace for the very reason that people who need to do not consult a mental health professional. Those who make the effort to get any kind of help, psychological, religious or otherwise, are many times more likely to recover from depression.
So why did they make the above point? It is not that they are saying ALL psychiatrists are bad at preventing suicide, but as the next paragraph says, "many" buy into freudian psychology because Freud repudiated belief in God. So the author is trying to make the point that abandoning belief in God results in a higher suicide rate. But they also did not understand, back then, the need for compassion in psychiatry. Even today it is still slow to catch on. But Freud has long been left behind now and more effective means of treating mental illness and depression have been developed. So back then, the author's words were indeed warranted if slightly overstated.
Now there is certainly a copious amount of confirmation bias in that article. We have learned much about writing a good article since then and how to fact check and eliminate the personal bias of the author.
It is curious that our opposers found nothing to quote in the entire series of articles that appeared earlier that year addressing mental health in the April 22 Awake!, pp. 3-21. This is because those gave a decidedly positive spin on seeking mental health professionals who do their jobs properly, while providing caution on shock therapy and medications that remain relevant to this day, some of which became controversial and were even outlawed. I will not cite all of them, but note a couple which you would think would be the easiest to find a negative quote in:
The article, "Can Shock, Drugs or Psychosurgery Solve the Problem?", pp. 10-12, looks at common treatments, including risks and failures, and certainly expresses modern sentiments. As indicated in the 1981 article along similar lines, it says nothing against mental health professions, only some of the methods employed.
Why do our opposers not at least cite the article, "Does the Solution Lie With Psychiatrists?, pp. 15-18? Surely with a title like that, they could find something negative! But under "Help Provided", it says, "... It cannot be denied that some persons have received genuine help from psychiatrists. A man in California writes: “The help I received from that kind man was extremely beneficial, and my problem was resolved quickly.” Posing the question, “What did this psychiatrist do for me?” he answered: “He listened. He really listened. . . . he helped me to realize that within myself I had the ability to develop self-control.”
"This disturbed man had a behavioral problem, one that evidenced a serious sexual aberration. But through kindness and encouragement the psychiatrist helped him to correct his weakness. Even extreme cases have responded to such psychiatric treatment."
It also states: "Such successes in helping the mentally disturbed point to the type of treatment they especially need. Sir Geoffrey Vickers, as chairman of the Mental Health Research Fund, years ago explained: “By far the most significant discovery of mental science is the power of love to protect and restore the mind.”
"Yes, love, kindness, patience and understanding are now generally recognized as vital in the successful treatment of mental patients."
Under "Basic Failure of Approach", the article points out that people question the reason for their existence in the face of tragedy, but psychiatrists do not provide satisfactory answers, and thus many whose difficulties are based on such questions are left adrift. But God answers those questions in satisfying ways. It goes on to note that psychiatrists themselves have the highest suicide rate among all the medical professions. Even after therapy for therapists became a part of their education, psychotherapists today are at least as likely to commit suicide as any other medical profession.
It then relates how a non-Christian father was unable to get help from a psychiatrist and eventually he received counsel to throw his son out of the house until he sought drug rehabilitation, and after doing so, the son came to realize how much his parents loved him to do that and sought treatment and recovered. It was a story that did not involve being a Witness! Besides that, it was an example of shunning.
The reason that our opposers do not quote the article is because there is not one statement that can be taken out of context because every sentence contains context or is dependent upon the context. An excellent example of good writing.
Earlier that month, the April 15 Watchtower, "Questions From Readers", pp. 255, 256, asks the question, "Do Jehovah’s Witnesses feel that it is proper to consult a psychiatrist?" The answer?: "Whether a Christian will consult a psychiatrist, or any other doctor, is a matter for personal decision." Or how about this statement, relevant to the present day, that discusses health problems that cause mental stresses and decries blaming demons for mental health problems, saying, "... Those with mental or nervous problems may find it advisable to have a thorough physical examination, as frequently there is a health problem of which they are not aware. Even some who thought they were going insane, or suffering from demonic harassment, have found that they had “low blood sugar” or another ailment." Today, as I mentioned, they are finding out that bowel health has a significant impact on mental health. I even found out by my own experience that seeing humanoid shadows out of the side of your eye is a common trait of depression and is a function of your brain to identify threats. After I recovered, I no longer experience such corner eye shadows.
The article goes on to state: "... If a Witness does consult such he should carefully scrutinize any treatment recommended." How can that be bad counsel for anyone seeking a mental health professional? It is certainly not a prohibition!
1973
The September 22 Awake!, in the article, "Home Care for the Mentally Ill?", headings, Institutional Care Not Always a Blessing and Why Home May Be a Better Place, on pp. 17-19, after mentioning a psychiatrist who lauded someone for caring for their mentally ill relative at home, points out an experiment to explain why home therapy may be best. Eight people posed as mentally ill. Four were either entirely ignored by staff or slighted three fourths of the time. The researchers concluded that "the consequences to the patients hospitalized in such an environment—the powerlessness, depersonalization, segregation, mortification, and self-labeling—seem to be undoubtedly counter-therapeutic."—Medical World News, February 9, 1973.
Noting the words of a couple of psychologists, the article cited a piece in the January 1969 Mental Hygiene magazine, entitled “Making Chronic Schizophrenics,” saying, "[Attendants] recurrently humiliate patients and emphasize the low esteem in which they are held," and take the view that patients "are essentially different, and what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for them." The Awake! article summarized that "Tragically, the way the attendants treated the patients caused the patients to act in the very ways that the attendants claimed they wanted to suppress."
The Awake! then states, "No doubt there are many sincere and dedicated doctors and staff members in such institutions, so what is wrong? Ever so much! For one thing, institutions often are unable to pay for quality help or are understaffed. And it is just too much to expect that every mental patient will get the sort of sympathetic personal help that he needs. …
"Then, too, experience has shown that mental patients are generally more sensitive to the behavior of others than they were in their normal state; this is because of their helplessness. A mental patient needs the care of someone with a steady hand and controlled sympathy, things that he is more likely to find at home than in an institution."
It then quotes the World Health Organization as stating, "With the extension of education on psychiatric topics, more and more relatives have developed sufficient insight to be able to tolerate the patient in home surroundings, provided they are given (professional) help. . . . It is not always advisable to admit the patient to a hospital if his family is prepared to maintain him in the close emotional relationship of the home."
It then states the Biblical responsibility of parents toward underaged children and adult children toward aging parents. Then it acknowledges that "not every emotionally ill person can be cared for at home."
1971
The article discussing a similar subject, "Research in Psychotherapy", in the September 22 Awake!, p. 23, focussed on "psychotherapists, physicians who treat mentally and emotionally disturbed patients, tend to look down on the help that anyone outside their profession may give to those having emotional problems." The article then asks, "But do they do so with good reason, in view of what is stated in the book Research in Psychotherapy?" The book is quoted, saying, "Indeed, several studies are presented which suggest that nonprofessionals are no less effective or possibly even better than well-trained professionals!”
The article then states: "In view of the foregoing, who is to say that unselfish, mature Christian ministers may not be effective in giving help to lovers of righteousness who come to them with emotional problems? The facts show that they have helped ever so many persons" and quotes Matt. 11:28-30. Indeed, modern psychiatry promotes building a strong emotional support system among family and friends.
1968
The article, "Schizophrenia Is Not Hopeless", in the August 22 Awake!, pp. 12-16, a thoughtful consideration of schizophrenia was provided along with a discussion of helpful psychological and medicinal treatments on p. 15. An article well worth reading.
1963
The January 15 Watchtower, pp.37-39, in the article, "Where to Turn for Counsel", identifies Julius Wellhausen (a higher critic), Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx as enemies of the Bible with good reason. Wellhausen and Marx made blatant attempts to discredit the Bible and Freud and Marx outright opposed religion. Darwin spearheaded a belief that directly contradicts the Bible's creation account; a belief that has failed to be proved for the past 3,000 years since it was first proposed in Hindu Vedic literature.
Another paragraph identifies Freud's desire to see an end to religion. I verified this. In the book, Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices (1907), Freud called religion a "universal obsessional neurosis". In Totem and Taboo (1913), he stated his belief that gods (no exception made) are created by the "psychic powers of man." In The Future of an Illusion (1927), he said that all religious beliefs are "illusions and insusceptible of proof." In fact, most of his books make some kind of negative claim about religion despite none of them establishing any sort of negative effect of religious belief in general beyond his personal insults. So clearly Freud's opinion of the Bible and religion were negative personal bias unsupported by facts. They were pervasive and highly influential, not to mention wrong, though he identified as a non-religious Jew and admits little knowledge of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) beyond stories told to him as a child.
So, again, this only attacks Freudian psychology, which has been largely discredited in the psychiatric community since most of his claims about human psychology were wholly speculative, extremely biased and unscientific. His views also reflected his own psychological quirks, such as his fascination with incest and a strange preocupation with the rare idea of killing one's own father, which he inexplicably tied to religion.
That article says that psychiatry is not in the lump that should be rejected for bad counsel, but instead highlights that the counsel varies according to the skill and experience of the giver and is expensive to acquire. So the complaint is not about psychiatry being anti-biblical, but about its limited accessibility. It also highlights that "Its aim to help people achieve a normal capacity for living is not wrong, but some of its methods are." That is when it discusses Freud, as shown above.
It then refers to the tendency of some analysts to "impose his own values on you, confusing his personal ideals with impersonal truths." One of the psychiatrists I mentioned previously did just that when he attempted to apply so-called "Christian psychology" on me (More on that in a later Cult Myths post). It quotes Abraham Kaplan, professor of philosophy and member of the Academy of Psychoanalysis, as saying: “The danger here is that the analyst may accept the role of omniscient moral authority in which the patient casts him. … Psychoanalysis cannot tell us what is virtuous and what is not. It cannot establish premises to deduce the principles of morality.” So if their own prominent educators view psychoanalysis that way, how can we think any differently?
It also identifies psychoanalysts as being among the "broken cisterns, that cannot contain the water" that the Jews turned to in ancient Judah at Jeremiah 2:13 (NWT Reference). The point is that people turn to analysts for counsel on how to live their lives, a role traditionally held by religion. But psychoanalysts really have no clue.
After mentioning people who turn to syndicated columns in newspapers for advice and professional marriage and family counselors who charge fees for their services and set up many return visits, it states, "While some psychoanalysts may take religion seriously in their personal lives, the profession generally ignores man’s vital relationship to God." Then it briefly discusses the dependence of many analysts on Freud.
It goes on to say, "In psychoanalysis there is also the great danger that the analyst may impose his own values on you, confusing his personal ideals with impersonal truths. Patients often develop an exaggerated admiration for their analysts. Abraham Kaplan, professor of philosophy and member of the Academy of Psychoanalysis, warned: “The danger here is that the analyst may accept the role of omniscient moral authority in which the patient casts him.” But the analyst is not an all-wise authority on morals, as Kaplan readily admits: “Psychoanalysis cannot tell us what is virtuous and what is not. It cannot establish premises to deduce the principles of morality.” Obviously, psychoanalysis is not the answer to some very basic questions. If it helps people get on the go again, it does not point them in God’s direction. Being able to travel is not enough; you must know where you are going. If psychoanalysis cannot tell us what is moral or immoral in the sight of God, who judges our actions, then it is hardly a safe guide."
So that article is not againsts psychoanalysts doing their job, but against such ones going well beyond the role they are actually meant to serve, namely, "the science and practice of treating mental, emotional and behavioral disorders."
The rest of the article simply points out the Bible as the best source of counsel. Psychiatry, as a profession, was never maligned here.
In fact, in the May 15 "Questions from Readers", pp. 319, 320, we get a very clear statement. I will simply quote the entire text of the question and answer here:
"● Would it be necessary for a psychiatrist to change his profession before he would be eligible for baptism and recognition as one of Jehovah’s witnesses?—R. W., United States.
"No, it does not seem that this would be necessary. The fact that the Watch Tower publications have discouraged dedicated Christians consulting worldly psychiatrists except in extreme cases does not mean that a psychiatrist cannot and does not help those who consult him. Whether a psychiatrist continued to practice his profession upon dedication or not would be entirely his decision to make. It is possible that he could be a far better psychiatrist by reason of his now understanding and appreciating Bible principles, and especially because of his faith in Jehovah God and his dedication to do God’s will. See “Scriptural Aspect of Psychosomatic Medicine,” in The Watchtower, April 15, 1954, pages 232-236.
"However, a dedicated Christian psychiatrist would need to be very careful not to unduly influence other Christians so that they would come to him for worldly wisdom instead of going to their overseers for heavenly wisdom. In fact, he would have to lean over backwards, as it were, so as not to imply that his psychiatry is a higher wisdom than that found in the Bible. The Bible contains far better advice for making over our personalities than does either psychiatry or psychoanalysis. And only its wisdom leads to everlasting life.—1 Cor. 13:1-13; Gal. 5:19-23; Col. 3:1-25."
Obviously, then, we were not against psychiatry. Also, our stand is succinctly stated as "discourag[ing] dedicated Christians consulting worldly psychiatrists except in extreme cases."
1960
Our disgruntled former members like to highlight the following text from the March 8, Awake! article, "Should a Christian Consult a Psychiatrist?", pp. 27, 28, which says:
"As a rule, for a Christian to go to a worldly psychiatrist is an admission of defeat, it amounts to 'going down to Egypt for help.' Isaiah 31:1." [p. 27]
"Often when a Witness of Jehovah goes to a psychiatrist, the psychiatrist will try to persuade him that his troubles are caused by his religion, entirely overlooking the fact that the Christian witnesses of Jehovah are the best-oriented, happiest and most contented group of people on the face of the earth. They have the least need for psychiatrists. Also, more and more psychiatrists are resorting to hypnosis, which is a demonic form of worldly wisdom." [p. 27)
"... what is needed at such times is not worldly psychiatrists who may wholly ignore the change that the truth and God's holy spirit have made in one's life and who know nothing of their power to help one put on a new Christian personality. Rather, what is needed at such times is a mature Christian in whom one has confidence and who is vitally interested in one's welfare and who will not shrink back from administering needed reproof or counsel so that one may get healed." [p. 28]
Indeed, this sounds damning. But let us examine the entire article. Before the first statement above, the article starts with these words: "SHOULD a Christian consult a psychiatrist? That is a question that sincere Christians have asked time and again. The answer depends upon the circumstances and the psychiatrist. Serious cases of mental unbalance or breakdown of nerves may make it necessary to do so. If so, however, the psychiatrist should be one who respects the importance and power of religion in one's life." (Italics mine.) So, clearly this article is not taking a stand against consulting psychiatrists, nor any prohibition, but is indicating a need for caution, as well as saying that sometimes psychiatrists are indispensable. So what were the above quotes really saying, then? Let's find out.
When the article says, "as a rule," it is using a colloquialism that is used in multiple articles that same year for things that clearly were not rules, but used in the sense of "in the mean," or "generally speaking." Thus it was not a rule to be enforced among Jehovah's Witnesses.
To say "an admission of defeat" is not meant to say that the person believes that God's holy spirit has been defeated, but rather that the person's faith and reliance on Jehovah has been defeated, which, to some extent is true. This does not, however, preclude the idea that maybe Jehovah wants the person to see a psychiatrist to untangle their mind or balance their chemistry because this is not the day for miracles and we have never taught such. In fact, when I finally gave in to the need to see a psychiatrist myself, I indeed felt defeated. But now I am glad I did and did not stop until I got past it. It was Jehovah's will because not only did I find what I was looking for, I came out of it stronger in faith when that chapter I mentioned expressed ideas compatible with Bible principles that helped me and consequently my relationship with Jehovah was strengthened. I came out of it with a deeper understanding of how Jehovah's will is expressed.
Then when the article says, "it amounts to 'going down to Egypt' for help," the author was not intending to condemn consulting a psychiatrist. They were trying to communicate that the psychiatrist is worldly with unchristian ideas (just as I explained previously), as if a Jew going to an Egyptian for help. Unfortunately, quoting the scripture communicates condemnation, even though it is clear that the article is not meant to indicate such judgment. So given the statement opening the article, we must conclude a lighter meaning than what the isolated quote suggests. Though granted, some will take what they want from the article, even among Jehovah's people. So no doubt some ran with the latter part of the paragraph, oblivious to the actual intent, accidentally facilitating a culture of condemnation in some geographical areas where psychiatry may already be looked down on by some.
After making points we have already discussed previously and basically saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are the most well-rounded group of people in the world (which I agree), it then discusses the questions asked by psychiatrists and says, "Surely, regarding such matters, a Christian can make his own examination," citing 2 Corinthians 13:5 as support, which says, "Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are. Or do you not recognize that Jesus Christ is in union with you? Unless you are disapproved."
Let us examine that. The questions the psychiatrist asks are designed to dig out what may be causing the Christian problems. In other words, it is asking the Christian to be reflective and self-aware, instead of lazy-minded. Examine yourself. Get at the heart of your motivations and what is nagging at you. If you are not unapproved, the mercy through Christ will help you.
If, however, you have become disapproved by sinning, and your conscience is thereby striking you, causing mental turmoil, then get the help of the elders who can help you clear your conscience. (Jas 5:14-16) The questions asked in a disciplinary hearing of Jehovah's Witnesses are designed to help you do this. The article then states that clearing one's conscience and accepting discipline is generally more helpful than letting people grope about in the dark with dangerous pitfalls. (Mt 15:14) Some of the same questions get asked, but with more concern for spiritual health among true Christians.
Certainly, though, elders are most helpful when their questions feel less like an inquisition and focus more on trying to lovingly seek the heart and extent of the problem (The fewer people in the room, the better). There is really not much difference from what a psychiatrist does beyond the additional concern for spiritual health. But I would caution that the elder should not pretend to be a psychiatrist if they are not trained as such. Still, they may dig down to the heart of the matter with well-considered and considerate questions.
The remaining balance of the article encourages talking to fellow Christians. This is an important survival tactic that even psychiatrists encourage. Having a support system of family and friends whom you feel safe talking to about your problems is indispensable to mental health. It encourages both seeking out those who will be concerned with your personal needs and also to be that person for others, not thinking only of your own problems especially between marriage partners. (Php 2:4) The article counsels, "In fact, it might be said that at least ninety·nine times out of a hundred when a Christian asks, Should I consult a psychiatrist? he should be consulting some mature Christian, in keeping with the counsel of James (5:14·16)." Even a psychiatrist will tell you that. Note that there is still that 1% need to consult a psychiatrist.
And that is where the quote I started with comes in. It is not saying a psychiatrist is never needed, but rather a fellow Christian is usually needed instead of a psychiatrist. If your problem can be addressed by talking to a friend, then there is no need to see a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist is for when nothing else works. In other words, they are a last resort, not a first resort. And that is the message of the entire article.
1956
The September 8 issue of the Awake!, p. 19, in a short piece called "Psychoanalyzing the Psychoanalysts", in a single very long paragraph, it defines a psychoanalyst as "one who analyzes the psy'chē or soul … to help people by revealing to them their unconscious motives." This, of course, is grossly oversimplified. At this time, though, "psychoanalysis" was a reference to freudian psychology as it usually maintained Freud's antireligious stance.
However, the piece goes on to quote an unflattering opinion by a particular psychoanalyst in an unnamed book, in discussing psychoanalysts who gather together, saying that they are like children comparing marbles. But then suggests the quoter may simply have been jealous over his being rejected by the New York Society of Psychoanalysts and then says that Freud did not think a higher education was necessary or desirable for someone to be a good psychoanalyst. The point of this opinion piece seems lost on me and was obviously tossed in as filler.
The piece gives no stated stand and leaves the reader confused as to whether we are to have a negative or positive view of psychoanalysts, or a negative view of the author of the book, and a positive view of Freud, or a positive or negative view toward higher education for psychoanalysts. Of course, if we know the history of our stand and consider the title of the piece, and the quote about it being "easier to make a new idea enter the head of the Statue of Liberty than into the minds of many psychoanalysts," then we understand that the goal was likely to establish that psychoanalysts are difficult to read and maybe that they are prone to human jealousy. But the statements about the book author and Freud badly muddle the point.
1954
The October 22 Awake!, p. 24 says: "Without doubt psychologists ... have a lot to learn and they think they know more than they actually do, or they would not have let two chimpanzees make such monkeys out of them."
This quote that disgruntled former members use from the supplemental section, "Chimpanzees Make Monkeys Out of Psychologists", attached to the article, "The Concept of Psychoanalysis" simply talks about how psychologists were shown paintings that they incorrectly diagnosed as belonging to children years older than the chimpanzees that actually painted them. Different psychologists have diametrically opposed diagnoses of the same paintings. It was just a case in point to accurately demonstrate that "psychologists ... have a lot to learn and they think they know more than they actually do." It is not saying that psychologists know nothing, but that they think more of their skills and collective body of knowledge than they should.
The main article to which it is attached is an unbiased discussion of psychoanalysis in the outdated Freudian theories of the conscious, preconscious and unconscious divisions of the mind, the id, ego and superego personality aspects, and the life and death instincts and indicates that some of Freud's students broke away to develop their own theories of the mind. It really provides no point that I could define beyond what perhaps was meant in the supplemental.
1952
Disgruntled former members quote the article, "God's Word a Sure Guide" from the January 15 Watchtower, p.53, which says, "So we must shun the false guides of men and their false religions, babbling psychologists, wordy psychiatrists and polluted politicians, all of which have built up such tremendous reputations as colossal failures. Look at the messes they have made, know them by their rotten fruits, reject them for their fruits."
The "babbling psychologists" and "wordy psychiatrists" part was based on the testimonies of mental health professionals themselves that it quoted earlier, saying, "Doctor James Tucker Fisher, a leading psychiatrist, said in his book A Few Buttons Missing: the Case Book of a Psychiatrist: “If you were to take the sum total of all the authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene—if you were to combine them and refine them and cleave out the excess verbiage—if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount.” It is as Anthony Standen says in his book Science Is a Sacred Cow, page 151: "A social scientist prefers the more long-winded expression every time, because it gives an entirely spurious impression of scientificness to what he is doing." (p. 51)
The point is clearly that psychologists and psychiatrists, for all their word-making, are unable to do better than God's word, so turning to them for wisdom is pointless. There was no condemnation of the profession here, just practical sense. When you need wisdom, God's word has it in abundance, and mental health professionals do not. Though the article doesn't say it, it is referring only to generalized dependence on the mental health professions rather than the specialized help required in extreme cases, as consistently stated in other places. Since the article was about the reliable guidance in God's word, and not about psychiatrists or represent any change in our view of the profession, it simply remained on point and was not a declaration about the uselessness of psychiatry, but rather on relying on it for wisdom in daily life, simply establishing that human wisdom, in general, is unreliable.
"Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do."—Matthew 9:12
Clearly, then, we have not decried psychiatry as a profession or questioned its legitimacy in any of the articles cited by former members and have only consistently and mercilessly attacked parapsychology, hypnosis, Freudian psychology and psychiatric exploitation with sound reason. Throughout this time we have always and consistently maintained a need for mental health professionals, but also for caution, and only after exhausting every other avenue.
This kind of analysis is what results when you put loyalty above hearsay. And still our opponents will prefer hearsay, even though they have not once performed a detailed analysis of the things that corrupted them, preferring a lie over the truth. (Ro 1:25; 2Th 2:9-12) Will you be someone who favors truth? It takes courage to face the truth and feeble-mindedness to accept the lie without question.
If there are other quotes about psychiatry in our publications that you think need explaining, please post them below. I already have much of a second article going further back that was cut from this article if any members are concerned with such.
Links
The following links support claims made by Watchtower Society publications. If you already know these things, there is no need to go through these, but if you need convincing, please read. If you find anything objectionable in the following info dump, let us discuss it below. If you suspect you may be having mental difficulties, read through these articles to learn what you can do to help yourself. You might even test out Jehovah's Witnesses to see if their love actually does help. If, however, you are in immediate need of help for suicidal or violent thoughts, you can call 988 for local mental health crisis prevention if you are in the U.S., or contact your local hotline in your country if available. There is absolutely nothing wrong in seeking a mental health professional. Just be cautious.
Religion and Spirituality Is Good for Mental Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705681/
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/278730/#B2
https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/impact-spirituality.pdf [PDF]
Need for Caution
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_psychiatry
Negativity Erodes Mental Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000745/
https://www.verywellmind.com/focus-on-negative-moments-impacts-mental-health-5119174
https://www.marquemedical.com/damaging-effects-of-negativity/
Positivity Bolsters Mental Health
This is not toxic positivity, but positive thinking, positive interactions, giving and receiving compliments and avoiding toxic people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760272/
https://positivepsychology.com/positive-thinking/
Forgiveness Boosts Mental Health
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/01/ce-corner
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/forgiveness/art-20047692
The Need for a Non-psychiatric Support System
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5633215/
https://www.apa.org/topics/stress/manage-social-support
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0265407505049320
https://highlandspringsclinic.org/blog/the-benefits-and-importance-of-a-support-system/
https://www.verywellmind.com/social-support-for-psychological-health-4119970
Showing and Receiving Love Protects Against Mental Illness
I was unable to find anything but personal opinions about love being unable to cure mental illness, and while psychiatrists say that love is important to the healing process of strictly mental disorders, they say that mental illness should only be treated by a mental health professional, which is what should be expected, since it means their jobs. Of course, illnesses caused by physical defects in the brain cannot be cured by love any more than it can be cured by a mental health professional, but love surely helps.
https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/statistics/mental-health-statistics-relationships-and-community
https://meritagemed.com/improve-your-mental-health/
https://news.asu.edu/content/study-expressing-love-can-improve-your-health
Private Journaling Helps
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentID=4552&ContentTypeID=1
https://positivepsychology.com/benefits-of-journaling/
Gut Health and the Mind
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7438757/
https://thejournalofheadacheandpain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s10194-020-1078-9
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-06-gut-bacterial-metabolite-neural-cell.amp
Comments
Typos (by the way the spell/grammar corrector in Google Blogger works with red dots under what it thinks is incorrect):
"The article then asks, "Does the physician understand and respect the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses?*" (The footnote says, "* If an ill one has difficulty explaining his Biblebased stand to a physician or therapist, perhaps some mature Christian can assist him."
Should read:
The article then asks, "Does the physician understand and respect the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses?*" (The footnote says, "* If an ill one has difficulty explaining his Bible based stand to a physician or therapist, perhaps some mature Christian can assist him."
Long article. I gave it a cursory reading and may refer back to it and find more typos and let you know.