THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE GOVERNING BODY III
This article is a sequel the article “The Governing Body’s way to dictatorship.” In the days of C.T. Russel, the organization was democratic, in the days of J. F. Rutherford and N.H. Knorr, it was theocratic, and in the 21st century, the organization became dictatorial.
However, from 1971, when the Governing Body was formed, its members functioned as dictators in single issues while the organization as a whole was theocratic. This article will discuss the most important issues where the dictatorial power of the members of the Governing Body was seen. However, it has first been in the 21st century that the whole organization has become dictatorial.
The elder arrangement was implemented in the year 1972. In the same year, The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589, expressed the words that is the maxim of this article:
It would therefore be wrong in such matters to try to extract from someone else, from a body of elders or from the governing body of the Christian congregation, some rule or regulation that ‘draws the line’ on matters. Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.
This is the true Christian viewpoint. And it was followed by the Watchtower Society and its leaders for 30 years, from the year 1942, when N.H. Knorr became the president of the Watchtower Society.
I will now show how the members of the Governing Body have blatantly violated this fundamental Christian principle by making dictatorial rules.
1972-1975
A DECISION THAT CAUSED GREAT HARM AND POSSIBLE DEATHS TO HEMOPHILIACS
Hemophilia is a condition when the blood of a person does not clot normally. External wounds usually are not serious, but internal bleeding in joints, tissues, and muscles may be serious, particularly bleeding in vital organs, such as the brain. Internal bleeding can be very painful and it can also lead to death. Hemophiliacs especially lacks Factor VIII and sometimes Factor IX in the coagulations chain, and the treatment is particularly to give these persons infusions of Factor VIII or Factor IX.
When I was district overseer between 1972 and 1974, between the rounds of assemblies that we participated in, my wife and I worked at the branch office for 1 1/2 monthS in the winter and 3 1/2 months in the summer. In 1972, I was asked to answer a letter from a brother who was a hemophiliac who asked about the use of cryoprecipitate, which contains Factor VIII. I remember that I answered that accepting inoculations of cryoprecipitate would be a violation of the sanctity of blood. Cryoprecipitate, or Factor VIII, had not been discussed in the Watchtower literature, so my answer was based on information that the branch office had. I also remember that a few years after I wrote this letter, the view of the Governing Body changed, and the use of Cryoprecipitate and Factor VIII was viewed as a matter of conscience. I do not know whether the branch office informed the brother about the change of view.
As mentioned, I was aware of the prohibition of Cryoprecipitate and that later was reversed. But Raymond Franz gives a more detailed information of the decisions of the Governing Body regarding the use of Factor VIII in Crisis of Conscience, pages 120, 121:
For many years inquiries sent by hemophiliacs to the headquarters organization (or its Branch Offices) received the reply that to accept such blood fraction one time could be viewed as not objectionable, as, in effect, “medication.” But to do so more than once would constitute a “feeding” on such blood fraction and therefore be considered a violation of the Scriptural injunction against eating blood.
Years later, this ruling changed. Those staff members who worked at answering correspondence knew that in the past they had sent out letters to the contrary and that hemophiliacs who had taken their “one time” injection were still under the impression that to do so again would be counted as a violation of Scripture. They could bleed to death because of holding to such a stand.
The administration was not in favor of publishing the new position in print since the old position had never been put in print but only conveyed to the particular individuals inquiring. To publish something would require first explaining what the old position had been and then explaining that it was now obsolete. This did not seem desirable. So the staff workers made a diligent search through their files to try to find the names and addresses of all those persons who had written inquiries and another letter was sent to each advising of the change.
The staff workers felt better about this. Then they realized that many of the inquiries had come in by phone and that they had no record of such phone calls and absolutely no way of determining who such inquiring hemophiliacs were. Whether, in the interim between the old ruling and the new, some had died, they did not know; whether some whom they had not been able to contact would yet die because of holding to the old ruling, they did not know. They only knew that they had followed instructions, being loyally obedient to their superiors in the organization. This change in policy was made official at the June 11, 1975, session of the Governing Body. It was not until three years later, in 1978, however, that the change was finally put into print, though rather obscurely stated and, strangely, listed in with the issue of the use of serum injections to combat disease (whereas hemophilia is not a disease but a hereditary defect), in the June 15, 1978, issue of the Watchtower. It still was not acknowledged that this represented a change in the previous policy as to multiple use of blood fractions by hemophiliacs.
The situation outlined by Franz is not only strange, but it is very bad. This shows that the members of the Governing Body did not care about the health and well-being of the hemophiliacs. They only cared about their own position and that they would not lose face.
| The members of the Governing Body had no biblical right to make any decision regarding the medical treatment of individuals. When they did so, they functioned as dictators. |
First, the opinion of the Governing Body was that only eating blood was against God’s will and not any use of blood. I show in the article “Willingly and unrepentantly accepting blood” in the category “Disassociation” that there have been two different schools among the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding blood. One school held the correct view was that all uses of blood were prohibited, and the other school held the view that only eating blood was forbidden. In connection with Factors VIII and IX the Governing Body held the wrong view that only eating blood was forbidden.
Second, the view was that taking factor VIII or IX one time was the same as taking it as medicine and was acceptable, but taking it two times was the same as eating blood, which was forbidden. This is utter nonsense! But what is really bad is that hemophiliacs could suffer extreme pain or even die — not because of faithfulness to God’s law in the Bible — but because of the Governing Body’s idiosyncratic definition of the word “eat.” This situation was simply crazy, and that intelligent persons could make such a ruling is unbelievable.
Third, the change of policy in 1975 by saying that accepting both cryoprecipitate, Factor VIII and IX, was a matter of conscience was an admission that their previous prohibition was wrong. But the Governing Body did not want to publish this decision because it could destroy their credibility — even though a failure to publish it could lead to someone’s death
Fourth, as Franz wrote, the new ruling was “obscurely stated” in The Watchtower of June 15, 1978, page 31 — just see for yourself:
What, however, about accepting serum injections to fight against disease, such as are employed for diphtheria, tetanus, viral hepatitis, rabies, hemophilia and Rh incompatibility? This seems to fall into a ‘gray area.’ Some Christians believe that accepting a small amount of a blood derivative for such a purpose would not be a manifestation of disrespect for God’s law; their conscience would permit such.
Hemophilia is mentioned in the quotation, but as Franz notes, hemophilia is not a disease but a hereditary defect. So, it is not clear that Factors VIII or IX were included in the “gray area” that is mentioned.
Fifth, the original ruling could lead to bloodguilt on the part of the Governing Body. Hemophilia is a serious disorder, and in some situations, a person with the disease could bleed to death without Factors VIII or IX. In such a case, forbidding the use of these Factors more than one time would lead to bloodguilt if the person bled to death. Moreover, the failure to publish the reversal, so the good name of the Governing Body would not be tainted, shows a lack of love and care for the special group of Witnesses with this hereditary defect. That the leaders of the organization of true Christians should act in this way is again unbelievable. This clearly is “criminal negligence,” which is defined by the Governing Body itself and it would lead to bloodguilt if someone died because they did not know about the new ruling.[1]
1973 — 2025
DISFELLOWSHIPPING PERSONS WHO ARE USING TOBACCO
The use of tobacco clearly is an unclean habit. And the important question is how Christians shall view this use. In the year when J.F. Rutherford died and N.H. Knorr became the president of the Watchtower Society, The Watchtower of July 1, 1942, pages 205 and 206, wrote:
The use of tobacco is extremely filthy, regardless of the form in which it is used… To be sure, the Society has no power or authority or desire to say that a person who wishes to use tobacco may not do so. Nor can it say, “You may not witness for the Kingdom.”
These words represent a true Christian viewpoint. It was pointed out that the habit was filthy. But it was left to the individual Christian to decide if he or she would use tobacco. The policy that the leaders of the Watchtower Society would not meddle in the personal affairs of individual Christians continued for many years. In 1961, the book Questions in Connection With the Service of the Kingdom for judicial committees was published. It said that the rule was that men who used tobacco could not be appointed as full-time servants or servants in the congregation, with one exception. If there was no person available in a congregation, a man who used tobacco could be appointed as a ministerial servant or congregation servant (overseer). But he had to refrain from using tobacco in public.
Over the years, several articles about the dangers of using tobacco have appeared, and in The Watchtower of February 15, 1969, pages 126-129, there was an article regarding tobacco saying that “Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly discourage its use.” But still, persons who used tobacco were not punished in any way. The magazine had a question on page 129 regarding the attitude of Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the use of tobacco. The answer was:
The Bible does not comment directly on the view that God’s servants should have concerning the use of tobacco…Yet, from what we read in God’s Word, it is easy to see that the use of tobacco, whether one is smoking, chewing or snuffing it, is an unclean habit that goes contrary to Bible principles. So Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly discourage its use, and they view as spiritually immature any Christian who continue to use tobacco…
The quotation shows that tobacco is not mentioned in the Bible, but it may be said that the use of tobacco goes contrary to the principles of the Bible. Then, The Watchtower of June 1, 1973, pages 340-343, shows that persons who used tobacco would get a period of six months to quit their habit, and if they did not do that, they would be disfellowshipped. The article says:
22 What, then, of those who in the past were baptized while still using such addictive products as tobacco, other drugs, or who are on some treatment such as the “methadone program” and who continue in such practice? They may now be given a reasonable period of time, such as six months, in which to free themselves of the addiction. So doing, they will show their sincere desire to remain within Jehovah God’s clean congregation of dedicated servants… If persons already baptized are not willing to abandon their addiction to damaging and enslaving products, what then?… They should therefore be removed from the congregation due to such conduct unbecoming a Christian.—1 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 12:15, 16.
When The Watchtower of February 15, 1969, correctly shows that tobacco is not mentioned in the Bible, this shows that when The Watchtower of June 1, 1973, says that persons who use tobacco will be disfellowshipped, this is a human commandment that is not based on the Bible. However, tens of thousands of Witnesses were disfellowshipped from 1973 onward because they used tobacco. And this was a disaster for these Witnesses.[2]
| The members of the Governing Body admit that tobacco is not mentioned in the Bible. When they introduced the use of tobacco as a disfellowshipping offense, they violated that principle that ”Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.” This law is an expression of dictatorship! |
[1]. See the article in Awake! of October 22, 1970, page 27.
[2]. Se the article “The use of tobacco” in the category “Gross uncleanness with greediness.”
1973 — 2013
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST METHADONE
Witnesses who become drug abusers have not planned to become abusers. Young persons may, in a moment of carelessness, accept a tablet and later another one, and suddenly they are hooked. Different tablets and pills containing morphine have been used as a treatment for chronic pain for many decades, and fentanyl started to be used as a painkiller in the 1990s. In a great number of cases, persons who used fentanyl and morphine as painkillers became abusers of opioids.
HELPING DISFELLOWSHIPPED JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES WHO ARE DRUG ADDICTS
Jehovah’s Witnesses do their utmost to follow the principles of the Bibles. But particularly because of the enormous use of painkillers, a great number of Witnesses have become addicts. If the percentage of addicts among the Witnesses is the same as in the population at large, there are 300,000 disfellowshipped Witnesses in the world who are drug addicts. If the number of addicts among the Witnesses is one third of the number in the population, there would still be 100,000 disfellowshipped Witnesses who are drug addicts.
It is extremely difficult to quit the habit of drug addiction as the following quotation shows:
When people become addicted to heroin, they crave the drug so strongly that, even when they know what consequences they face as a result of their heroin use, they are unable to stay away from the drug. This makes relapse to heroin use incredibly likely after detox. Often, those struggling with heroin addiction experience multiple episodes of relapse on their road to recovery.[1]
There are five different forms of help that an addict needs in order to quit the bad habit:
- The addicted person must have a strong desire to quit the drug abuse.
- Different therapists overseeing the recovery.
- The medicine methadone can help.
- Family members support the abuser continually.
- Friends support the abuser continually.
Because disfellowshipped persons must be totally isolated, the Governing Body has forbidden points 4) and 5). For 40 years, from 1973 to 2013, the use of methadone was forbidden. This means that the members of the Governing Body have actively counteracted addicts who have had a desire to quit their habit. And they are responsible for the too early death of a great number of persons, probabably several thousand individuals.[2]
I will now discuss the prohibition against methadone.
THE 40-YEAR PROHIBITION AGAINST METHADONE
The treatment of drug addicts with methadone started in the early 1960s, and methadone was not mentioned in the Watchtower literature for many years. However, The Watchtower of June 1, 1973, page 336, says:
But what of persons who may be on some government-sponsored program where controlled doses of a product (such as that known as methadone) are given in substitution for a more dangerous drug, like heroin? Persons on such government programs may say they are doing nothing ‘illegal’; that they do not experience the hallucinations so characteristic of drug addiction; that they are able to function as a ‘working part of society.’ What if they seek to become recognized, baptized members of the worldwide congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses? Should they be accepted for baptism?
These questions have come up for prayerful consideration. From the Bible’s viewpoint it appears clear that those on such programs do not Scripturally qualify, since they may rightly be considered as still addicted to drugs.
This means that persons using methadone would be disfellowshipped, and disfellowshipped ones who used methadone could not be reinstated. No change in the view of the members of the Governing Body were published. A letter from the Norwegian branch office to all bodies of elders of August 5, 2003 upheld the prohibition against the use of methadone in government-sponsored programs, and we read:
The question is whether such a person [who is using methadone] can be on the theocratic ministry school, be an unbaptized publisher or be reinstated if he has been disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself. The answer is no.
However, there was a strange difference that was mentioned in the letter:
But what about a person who uses methadone as a pain reliever or a sedative that is prescribed by a doctor? A person who, under the guidance of a doctor, accepts a narcotic substance as a pain reliever for a medical problem, cannot be said to be one who wants to become intoxicated…Therefore, we can view such use of methadone in the same way as when a cancer patient gets morphine as a pain reliever.
The words of the Governing Body show the incompetence of their members. If methadone can be used for pain relief and the person will not become high (intoxicated). Then the person who uses methadone as a medicine for the recovery of drug abuse neither will become high (intoxicated). This is confirmed by Norwegian authorities because they allow users of methadone to drive a car, but a person who has drunk a small bottle of beer is not allowed to drive a car. An article from The National Institute on Drug Abuse in the USS says that “treatment doses [of methadone] do not produce euphoria.”[3] So, the members of the Governing Body did not know what they were dealing with and the consequence of their decision.
The incompetence of the members of the Governing Body in connection with drug abuse is also seen in the following quotation from the article in The Watchtower of June 1, 1973, page 337:
10 There is no denying the extreme difficulty experienced in overcoming heroin and other “hard”-drug addiction, or that only a very small minority successfully do so. The very fact that some persons have done it, however, shows it can be done. The fact that persons of the world have been able to do it gives all the more reason for believing that those wanting to become true disciples of God’s Son should also be able to do so. Rather than exchange enslavement to one drug for enslavement to another, such as methadone, they should face up to the challenge and trust in God’s help to overcome that slavery.
The incompetence is seen in three ways:
First, the claim that those who want to become true disciples of God’s Son will be able to quit their drug abuse shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of drug abuse. The will of the drug abuser is controlled by the disorder of the brain and the body’s craving for drugs. A firm decision to quit the drug abuse is necessary. But this decision is of little value if there is no support system that the drug abuser can rely on.
Second, the medicine that really can help the drug abuser, namely methadone, is forbidden. And as I mentioned above, the help from family and friends is forbidden as well.
Third, the words about the enslavement from one drug to another show the lack of basic knowledge of drugs. Heroin and other hard drugs make a person high (intoxicated). But methadone is a medicine that does not make the user high (intoxicated), and it has a very important role in the recovering from addiction.
The prohibitions in the letter from 2003, which is quoted above, were valid for ten more years. However, now the situation has changed. A letter from the Norwegian branch office to all bodies of elders of February 6, 2013, said that the 2003 letter forbidding the use of methadone should be deleted. But no new letter with instructions regarding the use of methadone was sent to the bodies of elders. This means that the prohibition against the use of methadone was upheld for 40 years.
In 2013, there was no change in the composition of methadone or in the way the treatment of drug addicts was administered. So, when the Governing Body now allowed the use of methadone, this was, in reality, an admission that the prohibition that had lasted for 40 years was wrong. How would the Governing Body present its new decision? They did not present it at all, and this was clearly a part of a cover-up in order to save face.
This means that neither drug addicts nor their families who wanted to help them were aware of the change of view that the drug methadone now could be used. In order to be informed about the new decision of the Governing Body, one had to write to the branch office or use the telephone. But because this prohibition had lasted for 40 years, and nothing had been said in The Watchtower, there would be no reason for most Witnesses to contact the branch office to ask whether the prohibition was still standing.
This resembles the situation when the members of the Governing Body forbade the use of Factor VIII and Factor IX for hemiphiliacs, and then changed their mind and allowed the use. This was neither published so the Governing Body should not lose face.
| Forbidding necessary help to drug addicts who want to quit their habit is the greatest black mark or stain on the dictators, the members of the Governing Body.
Because of the dictatorial law forbidding family and friends to help drug addicts, and the 40-year prohibition against methadone, thousands of disfellowshipped Witnesses who wanted to quit their habit have died too early. There is a huge load of bloodguilt on the shoulders of the members of the Governing Body. |
1974 — 1978
DISSOLVING MARRIAGES CONTRARY TO THE WORDS OF JESUS
Question from Readers in The Watchtower of December 15, 1969, page 765, discussed some sexual questions. The article quoted the words “the natural use of the female” in Romans 1:27, and it said that the view that “anything done between husband and wife is permissible” is wrong. But the article did not discuss what was not permissible. Some elders who read this may have been sensitive to this issue and had looked for wrong actions among the Witnesses of their congregation. Raymond Franz refers to an example of this. In Crisis of Conscience, page 47, we read:
A matter, not among those just mentioned, but which brought considerable discussion involved a Witness couple in California. Someone had seen in their bedroom certain literature and photographs dealing with unusual sex practices. (I do not recall that we learned just how or why the Witness individual reporting this happened to have access to the couple’s bedroom.) Investigation and interrogation by the local elders confirmed that the couple did engage in sexual relations other than simple genital copulation. Correspondence from the elders came in to Brooklyn and the Governing Body was called upon to rule as to what action if any should be taken toward the couple. Until the correspondence was read to us that morning, none of us aside from the president had had any opportunity to think about the subject. Yet within a couple of hours the decision was reached that the couple was subject to disfellowshiping. This was thereafter set out as a formal published policy, applicable to any persons engaging willfully in similar practices.
In his account of the meetings of the Governing Body, Franz tells that a number of times the Governing Body members did not know what they should discuss before the meeting started. In connection with the mentioned unusual sex practices the members of the Governing Body came to a conclusion in a short time without having time to search the Bible and meditate on the issue. As a result of this decision, The Watchtower of 1972, pages 734-736 contained an article where it was stated that oral or anal sex were disfellowshipping offenses:
We believe that, aside from those who have been indoctrinated with the view that ‘in marriage anything goes,’ the vast majority of persons would normally reject as repugnant the practice of oral copulation, as also anal copulation. If these forms of intercourse are not “contrary to nature,” then what is?…
It is not our purpose to attempt to draw a precise line as to where what is “natural” ends and what is “unnatural” begins. But we believe that, by meditating on Bible principles, a Christian should at least be able to discern what is grossly [the author’s italics] unnatural. In other areas, the Christian’s individual conscience will have to guide, and this includes questions regarding caresses and ‘love play’ prior to intercourse…
It is certainly not the responsibility of elders or any others in a Christian congregation to search into the private lives of married couples. Nevertheless, if future cases of gross unnatural conduct, such as the practice of oral or anal copulation, are brought to their attention, the elders should act to try to correct the situation before further harm results, as they would do with any other serious wrong. Their concern is, of course, to try to help those who go astray and are ‘caught in the snare of the Devil.’ (2 Tim. 2:26) But if persons willfully show disrespect for Jehovah God’s marital arrangements, then it becomes necessary to remove them from the congregation as dangerous “leaven” that could contaminate others.—1 Cor. 5:6, 11-13.
We note that the new view of the members of the Governing Body regarding how sexual relations inside marriage should not occur is called “Jehovah God’s marital arrangements.” Two years after this decision of the Governing Body, another decision was made. A new meaning of the word porneia, whose meaning is “illicit sexual intercourse,” was introduced. The decision of the Governing Bodywas that oral and anal copulation and other lewd practices by married couples were included in the meaning of porneia. This meant that not only were the mentioned actions disfellowshipping offenses, but they could also terminate the marriage. The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, page 703, says:
As to Jesus’ statements about divorce, they do not specify with whom the “fornication” or por·nei’a is practiced. They leave the matter open. That por·nei’a can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sexual relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. This makes him guilty of por·nei’a, for the related Greek verb porneu’o means “to prostitute, debauch.”
Hence, circumstances could arise that would make lewd practices of a married person toward that one’s marriage mate a Scriptural basis for divorce.[4]
The new view of sexual relations created immense problems. A great number of Witnesses were disfellowshipped, and a great number of marriages were dissolved contrary to the words of Jesus. A great number of letters came to the Watchtower Society. On page 48 in Crisis of Conscience, Franz writes:
The Governing Body’s decision in 1972 resulted in a sizeable number of “judicial hearings” as elders followed up on reports or confessions of the sexual practices involved. Women experienced painful embarrassment in such hearings as they responded to the elders’ questions about the intimacies of their marital relations. Many marriages where one of the mates was not a Witness underwent a turbulent period, with the non-Witness mate objecting strenuously to what he or she considered an unwarranted invasion of bedroom privacy. Some marriages broke up with resulting divorce.
An unprecedented volume of mail came in over a period of five years, most of it questioning the Scriptural basis for the Governing Body members inserting themselves into the private lives of others in such a way, and expressing inability to see the validity of the arguments advanced in print to support the stand taken. (The principal portion of Scripture relied upon was Romans, chapter one, verses 24-27, dealing with homosexuality, and those writing to the Society pointed out that they could not see how it could rightly be applied to heterosexual relations between man and wife.) Other letters, often from wives, simply expressed confusion and anguish over their uncertainty as to the properness of their “sexual foreplay.”
There was a strong pressure on the members of the Governing Body to change their decision, and this happened in 1978. The Watchtower of February 1978, page 31 wrote:
A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshipping action with such matters as the sole basis.
The most important portion of the reversal was the words “In view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction.” This is an admission that the decisions of 1972 that oral and anal copulation would lead to disfellowshippen was not based on the Bible. And it is an admission that de decision of 1974 that oral and anal copulation and other lewd practices inside marriage were porneia (“illicit sexual intercourse”) and could lead to disfellowshipping and the termination of the marriage were not based on the Bible. This means that because of the unbiblical decisions of the Governing Body, thousands, or perhaps even tens of thousands of lives were ruined and men, women, and children were suffering.
| The dictatorial laws of porneia (illicit sexual intercourse) inside marriage caused thousands of marriages to be dissolved contrary to the biblical laws of divorce. Thousands of Witnesses were disfellowshipped because of this unbiblical law, and men, women, and children were suffering. |
[1]. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/methadone-addiction/pros-cons.
[2]. A detailed discussion of this issue is found in the article “The 11 disfellowshipping offenses 3 (II) Drunkenness and drug intoxication” in the category “The eleven disfellowshipping offenses.”
[3]. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/medications-to-treat-opioid-addiction/how-do-medications-to-treat-opioid-addiction-work.
[4]. See the article “Illicit sexual intercourse ( porneia)” in the category “The eleven disfellowshipping offenses.”
(1961[1]) 1974 — 2025
NEW LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH SECULAR WORK
The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, page 574, says regarding secular work:
As to other forms of activity or work the Society has no specific recommendation to make. To draw up rules for all the possible situations relative to secular work would embark us upon the compilation of a voluminous, Talmudlike set of regulations, seeking to make all the fine distinctions as to when and when not certain work becomes objectionable… So let each one accept his own responsibility and answer to his own conscience, not criticizing others or being criticized by them, when individual consciences allow different decisions on the same matter.
The point here is that the Watchtower Society will not give any advise regarding secular work and different activities; that would require a Talmudlike set of regulations. Each one must follow his or her conscience. This stance included works in connection with gambling, and The Watchtower of February 1, 1954, page 94, showed that being employed in a gambling enterprise was a matter of conscience:
Can a Christian be employed in a gambling enterprise that is legally recognized and allowed? He may think that he can do so if he refrains from gambling himself or allowing his spiritual brothers to gamble through his services. One may be able to conscientiously do this, while another would not be able to do so in good conscience.
However, in 1961, there was a reversal of this stance. The book for judicial committees, Questions in Connection with the Service of the Kingdom, 1961, page 60. Says regarding gambling:
Selling lottery tickets or having a gambling enterprise for betting in connection with money is a form of extortion. The Bible shows that extortioners must be disfellowshipped from the congregation.
In addition to gambling, a Witness could also be disfellowshipped if he produced idolatrous objects or his work supported the armed forces or political organizations. From 1974 onward, there was a full-scale attempt by the Governing Body to decide which kinds of secular work Witnesses could have. This is seen in an article in Kingdom Ministry of February 1974, pages 5 and 6. The Watchtower of July 1, 1973, made the use of tobacco a disfellowshipping offense, and Kingdom Ministry of February 1974 showed how the congregation should deal with those whose work would promote the use of tobacco.
Since then [the two mentioned publications] a number of questions have been raised concerning the growing, selling and distributing of tobacco and tobacco products in connection with one’s employment. There are some types of employment that are quite clearly in open conflict with the Bible standards. Thus, Jehovah’s witnesses have long refused to recognize as approved members of the congregation persons who make their living at gambling, or by producing idolatrous objects, or who do work that is directly contrary to the ways of peace described at Isaiah 2:4. When one’s work is clearly contrary to Bible standards, it can rightly result in one’s being rejected by the congregation, disfellowshipped. The Bible itself sets the standard or rule that is the basis for such action.
The Watchtower has presented a clear-cut statement showing the damaging effects of tobacco on the body and rightly categorizing it as a harmfully addictive drug. Various governmental authorities have recognized the harmful effects of tobacco but up to now have not outlawed the use of tobacco or its production. The legality of tobacco does not alter the basic wrong involved in producing or selling for gain a product that is harmful to one’s neighbors. To illustrate, a country might declare marijuana legal (even as some states may have legal prostitution), yet the person who made his living from the production or sale of marijuana would still clearly not be a suitable member of God’s congregation.
Therefore, a person who owns a tobacco store, or one who has accepted employment in a factory devoted to producing tobacco products, or a salesman whose business is selling tobacco, or a farmer who controls the raising of crops on his farm and who chooses to raise tobacco should recognize that he has a responsibility for what he is doing. How can his Christian conscience allow him to bring harm to his neighbor when he is in a position to exercise control over what is being done? The brothers should be able to weigh the seriousness of the matter and also weigh the heaviness of the responsibility that individuals have in matters of employment where a wrong practice comes into the picture. There should be no doubt as to the gross wrong on the part of those who gain their principal source of income from promoting the use of tobacco at the expense of the well-being of their fellowman. Such a course is an open contradiction of the basic command to love one’s neighbor as oneself.—Matt. 22:39.
After the quotation above, there is a discussion of several different situations, such as when a brother is a partner with a non-Witness, regarding franchise arrangements, when contracts of producing or selling tobacco have been made, and several other situations.
| The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, would not give any advice regarding what kind of work Christians could have — that would be a matter of the conscience of each one. The magazine also said that such advice from the Society would require “a voluminous, Talmudlike set of regulations.”
The Kingdom Ministry of February 1974 has four pages with instructions regarding which occupation Christians can have, and this is an excellent example of “a voluminous, Talmudlike set of regulations.” |
The next focus on secular work with rules made by the Governing Body is found in the Kingdom Ministry of September 1976, pages 3-6. Under the heading “The major questions” we find the following:
The principal question is: “Does the work or activity to be performed in itself constitute an act condemned by God’s Word? Or, if it does not, is it nevertheless so directly linked to such condemned practices that it would make those doing such work actual accomplices or promoters of the wrong practice?” In such cases Christian conscience should surely cause them to reject such employment.
The first question is relatively clear. But the second and thirt are problematic because the expressions “directly linked” and “accomplices or promoters” are ambiguous and must be interpreted, and the interpretation of the Governing Body is very strict. One example given of a condemned practice is working “as a cashier in a gambling establishment.” However, the quotation of The Watchtower of 1954 above shows that this was no “condemned practice” in that year. But 22 years later, the Governing Body had defined this as a “condemned practice.”
The change of viewpoint by the members of the Governing Body shows that while the Bible is appealed to, to a great extent, “condemned practices” are basically defined by the Governing Body or by the elders. This means that persons may be disfellowshipped for actions that previously were not considered wrong. Not only the changing views of the members of the Governing Body may lead to disfellowshipping but also the viewpoints of the elders who make up a judicial committee. The following quotation shows that in 1976 the elders were given the power over life and death:
Where a brother engages in employment that clearly violates God’s law, the congregation and its elders rightly become concerned in the matter. Where work or a product thereof is condemned in the Scriptures, or is such as to make one an accomplice or promoter in wrongdoing, the elders should first endeavor to help the person see the wrongness of his course. In such cases where the connection is definite and evident, it should be possible to make what the Bible says clear to him and enable him to see why it does indeed apply to him. It may however, take a number of discussions, perhaps over a period of some weeks, to help him see the point and give prayerful consideration to what has been brought to his attention. If it is definitely established that his employment violates Christian principles and he, nevertheless, insists on continuing in it, he may be disfellowshiped from the congregation.
No work and no products are condemned in the Scriptures, so the basis of the new disfellowshipping power given to the elders have no basis in the Bible. It is the members of the Governing Body who falsely claim that some works and products are condemned in the Scriptures. A person can be disfellowshipped if “his employment violates Christian principles.” But “the Christian principles” are the manmade rules and laws of the Governing Body.
In one area, however, the article gave some very good advice. We read:
It seems evident from the Scriptures that the payment of money by a Christian to a person or organization of the world for goods or services or, vice versa, the receipt of money by a Christian from such person or organization does not automatically imply that the Christian supports or condones any wrongdoing in which such person or organization may engage. As seen earlier, Christians could buy meat that proceeded from pagan temples. The pagan temples benefited monetarily. This was not by direct contribution but indirectly through the sale of meat.
The problem with this very good advice is that it neither have been followed by the Governing Body nor by the elders, as I will show below. Raymond Franz in his book Crisis of Conscience, page 114, refers to one such example:
Consider this case that came up for discussion and decision by the Governing Body. One of Jehovah’s Witnesses, driving a truck for the Coca-Cola Company, had as his route a large military base where numerous deliveries were made. The question: Could he do this and remain a member in good standing or is this a disfellowshipping offense? (The crucial factor here being that military property and personnel were involved.)
Again, what scriptures discuss such matters—in a way that can be clearly and reasonably seen, in a way that obviates the need for involved reasonings and interpretations? None were brought forward, yet the majority of the Body decided that this work was not acceptable and that the man would have to obtain another route to remain in good standing. A similar case came up involving a Witness musician who played in a “combo” at an officers’ club on a military base. This, too, was ruled unacceptable by the majority of the Body. The Scriptures being silent, human reasoning supplied the answer.
The comments of Franz are that the issue is not mentioned in the Bible, yet the members of theGoverning Body made a decision regarding it with bad effects for the brother. We note that the truckdriver was not even paid by the military, and his delivery at the military base was just one of many deliveries.
Moreover, the extreme sensitivity of the members of the Governing Body regarding the armed forces is not based on biblical principles. Because Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be ambassadors to the nations of the world, they are neutral as to the pursuits of these nations. This means that they accept the rights of a nation to have a judicial system, a police force, and armed forces.
What Christians do not accept is that the soldiers of the armed forces engage in wars and kill people. Both because of this and because they are ambassadors, they will not be a part of the armed forces. But there are no biblical principles forbidding a Witness to work in a factory that produces engines for military vehicles or other items that the military needs. So, to decide that delivering Coca Cola to a military base is a disfellowshipping offense is completely absurd. We should also keep in mind that soldiers are used for many non-combatant purposes, such as police duties and helping health workers with vaccination.
Franz also refers to some examples from the book for branch committees Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence that are interesting. Under the subheading “Work that is not itself unscriptural but that links one with a wrong practice or makes one a promoter of it” we find the following examples:
EXAMPLE: Two women work as maids on a military base. One is employed in a home by a family, the husband of which is in the military. The other is a maid employed to clean the barracks.
Comments: The first woman concludes that she could accept such work for the family and not be in conflict with Isaiah 2:4 [which speaks of beating one’s swords into plowshares and not learning war anymore]. She reasons that, despite the location of her work and the fact that the “breadwinner” of the family is in the military, she is providing a common service for individuals in a home and is not employed by an organization in conflict with the Scriptures. (2 Ki. 5:2, 3; 5:15-19; Phil. 4:22) She continues to be a member of the congregation, though if she sought the privilege of pioneer service consideration might have to be given to how her employment is affecting others and whether she is viewed as a good example.
The other woman, by her regular work, is performing a needed service in the accomplishment of the overall objectives of an organization the purpose of which is out of harmony with Isaiah 2:4. She is paid by the military, works on military property and is doing work regularly that makes her a part of that organization and its objectives. She is in conflict with Isaiah 2:4.
Thus, the first woman who works domestically for a military man in his household on the base can retain her standing in the congregation; the second, who cleans barracks, perhaps on the same base, cannot. As the rest of the manual and as all Watch Tower publications make clear, anyone “in conflict with Isaiah 2:4” is either to be disfellowshiped or pronounced “disassociated.” The first woman might be paid by an officer, even a general, who orders the men in the barracks into combat. Her pay comes from him, true, but the money comes from his military salary. Still, her work does not make her “unclean.” The second woman who cleans barracks, because her pay comes from the military as an organization and because she is somehow viewed as contributing to the “overall objectives” of the military, is counted as bloodguilty and worthy of being cut off from the congregation.[2]
It is quite a dramatic claim that a woman who cleans the barracks on a military base is guilty of supporting an organization that has bloodguilt and that a woman who works in the home of a military man does not support that organization. Neither of the women has killed anyone, and they have no plans to do that. The distinction that the Governing Body has created here is artificial, and it contradicts the quotation in green above from the Kingdom Ministry of February 1976:
It seems evident from the Scriptures that the payment of money by a Christian to a person or organization of the world for goods or services or, vice versa, the receipt of money by a Christian from such person or organization does not automatically imply that the Christian supports or condones any wrongdoing in which such person or organization may engage.
First, when the person himself or herself kills somebody or condones killing somebody, will the person have bloodguilt.
Moreover, because Jehovah’s Witnesses as ambassadors accept that a country has the right to have a military force, it must be a matter of conscience for the individual Christian if he or she will do some work for the military. This accords with the words of The Watchtowers of 1951 and 1954 that the Watchtower Society will not recommend any kind of secular work, but that each one must make a personal decision based on his or her conscience.
I will also quote another example from Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence:
EXAMPLE: A brother owning a plumbing business receives a call to do emergency repairs on a broken water pipe in the basement of a local church. Some time later a representative of the church contacts another brother, a builder, about putting a new roof and addition on the church.
Comments: The first brother concludes that, as a human service, his conscience would permit him to care for the emergency situation, though advising the church to seek another plumber for any regular work. Likely few would be critical of his helping anyone during an emergency or view him as reprehensible.
The second brother realizes that, even though he has put roofs and additions on many homes and businesses, for him to contract to do so in the case of the church would be lending considerable support to the advancement of false worship. It would not be just an incidental contact, such as a postman’s delivering mail, or an act of humanitarian aid in a desperate situation. It would be a major undertaking that would involve lengthy work on a building used exclusively for the advancement of false worship, aiding in the perpetuation of Babylon the Great. (2 Cor. 6:14-18) As a Christian he could not do that.
The words “As a Christian he could not do that” means that he will be disfellowshipped if he does the kind of work that is mentioned. In my view, the reasoning is flawed. The words of Kingdom Ministry of September 1976 can also be applied here. A Christian does not “support or condone” the actions of an organization that is paying him to do a particular kind of work.
Moreover, I cannot see a principal difference between emergency work on a Church building and a planned work on the same building. If working on a Church building is the same as supporting the advancement of false worship, then emergency work would also be a support of the advancement of false worship.
For example, if there is a war and the soldiers are shooting at an enemy, and there is a broken water pipe that would cause a flooding and destruction of all the ammunition the soldiers use for shooting, would it be right for a Christian plumber to stop the flooding and save the ammunition because there is an emergency? If he saves the ammunition, he has a direct responsibility for the killing of human beings, and a Christian cannot be guilty of this with the excuse that there is an emergency.
It is similar to a Church building. If a bigger work on the building is wrong, then a smaller work is wrong as well, even if there is an emergency. I assume that most Witnesses would not feel good if they worked on a church building because of what is going on in this building.
However, we may take Afganistan as an example where millions of people do not have work, and millions may starve. A Christian with a wife and children is a carpenter without any work to do and has no income. One day he is offered the job of repairing a part of a mosque that would give him work for several weeks. Should he refuse to accept this offer because the building is a mosque? According to the reasoning of the Governing Body that would have been necessary in order not to support or condone false religion. But in my view, the reasoning of the members of the Governing Body is wrong, and just as the Pharisees “they bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders” (Matthew 23:4) of the Witnesses. Only when a Witness directly participates in false worship is he a promoter of a wrong practice, not when he works on a church building or on a mosque.
Not only has the Governing Body forbidden certain kinds of jobs. But they also have made an arrangement so they do not take the responsibility for throwing those who do those jobs out of the congregation. If a Witness cleans the barracks of the soldiers in a military camp or continue to do work for a religious organization, two elders will speak with the Witness and say: “You have six months to change your work. If you have not changed your work after six months, we will view you as one who voluntarily has disassociated herself from the congregation because she does not want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses any more. This is a manipulation of the truth. The person is thrown out of the congregation and will not be allowed to be there. But the elders say that he or she chose to leave the congregation by his or her own will.
The conclusion is that the words of the Watchtower of 1951 and 1954 are true. If a Christian has a kind of occupation where he offers his services to all kinds of people, there is no law or principle in the Bible showing that doing work for a religious denomination or for the armed forces is forbidden. Only when a Christian directly participates in religious practices that violate the true worship of God or participates in military actions where people are killed is he guilty of wrongdoing in the eyes of God.
| No Christian has the right to make rules that others must follow. The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, wrote:
“Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.” By making a great number of rules in connection with the kind of secular work Witnesses cannot have, the members of the Governing Body have violated this fundamental principle. This shows that they function as dictators. |
1981 — 2025
THOSE WHO RESIGN FROM JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES MUST BE SHUNNED AND TOTALLY ISOLATED
Until the year 1981, a person who wanted to leave Jehovah’s Witnesses and no longer be counted as a Witness could do that without being punished for it. However, that was changed. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 23, said:
14 One who has been a true Christian might renounce the way of the truth, stating that he no longer considers himself to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses or wants to be known as one. When this rare event occurs, the person is renouncing his standing as a Christian, deliberately disassociating himself from the congregation. The apostle John wrote: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.”—1 John 2:19.
15 Or, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of an organization whose objective is contrary to the Bible, and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4.) So if one who was a Christian chose to join those who are disapproved of God, it would be fitting for the congregation to acknowledge by a brief announcement that he had disassociated himself and is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
16 Persons who make themselves “not of our sort” by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing.
This new policy meant that resigning from Jehovah’s Witnesses was no longer possible. A person who expressed by his word or in writing that he did not want to be a Witness no longer would, in reality, be disfellowshipped. The decision that was published in 1981 was reiterated in The Watchtower of July 15, 1985, page 30:
Did 2 John 10, which says not to receive into one’s home or to greet certain ones, refer only to those who had promoted false doctrine?
In context this counsel concerned the “many deceivers” who had gone forth, “persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” (2 John 7) The apostle John offered directions on how Christians back there should treat one who denied that Jesus had existed or that he was the Christ and Ransomer. John directed: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 10, 11) But the Bible elsewhere shows that this had a wider application…
Aid to Bible Understanding shows that the word “apostasy” comes from a Greek word that literally means “ ‘a standing away from’ but has the sense of ‘desertion, abandonment or rebellion.’” The Aid book adds: “Among the varied causes of apostasy set forth in apostolic warnings were: lack of faith (Heb. 3:12), lack of endurance in the face of persecution (Heb. 10:32-39), abandonment of right moral standards (2 Pet. 2:15-22), the heeding of the ‘counterfeit words’ of false teachers and ‘misleading inspired utterances’ (1 Tim. 4:1-3) Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the ‘antichrist.’ (1 John 2:18,19)”
A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description. By deliberately repudiating God’s congregation and by renouncing the Christian way, he would have made himself an apostate.
The quotation above shows that the view of the members of the Governing Body is that a person who wants to resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses is just as wicked as the antichrists mentioned in the first and second letters of John.
The quotation also shows how the members of the Governing Body are misusing the Bible. The quotation says: “But the Bible elsewhere shows that this [the treatment of the antichrists] had a wider application.” Such expressions are typical for the members of the Governing Body. They often say that the Bible says this or that but there is no reference to any scripture. The reason is that the Bible does not say anything about the subject. In this case, this is clear. The quotation says: “A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation [by saying that he no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses] would have matched that description [of the antichrists].”(the author’s italics) It is not the Bible that says that those resigning have matched the description of the antichrists but the members of the Governing Body.
| The members of the Governing Body often use the expression “the Bible shows,” “the Bible elsewhere shows,” and “the thoughts of God are.” But the truth is that the decisions of the Governing Body are not based on God’s thoughts or on the Bible but on the thoughts of the members of the Governing Body that they falsely ascribe to God. This is a basic part of their function as dictators. |
[1]. The reason why the year 1961 is written inside a parenthesis, is that, as far as I know, in this year the stance that The Watchtower Society did not give any advice regarding secular work was reversed. But the full scale reversal when the Governing Body made rules for many kinds of secular work with threats for those who did not follow the rules of being disfellowshipped, was the year 1974.
[2]. This example is also found in the newer edition of this book entitled Correspondance Guidelines (2007). This book list 14 types or work that the Governing Body has forbidden.
1983 — 2025
ORAL AND ANAL SEX ARE AGIAN DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES
We would think that the members of the Governing Body had learned something from all the misery they had created by their decision of porneia-inside marriage, and all the marriages that wrongly were dissolved and all the Witnesses that wrongly were disfellowshipped. But not at all! In 1983, five years after the reversal of 1978, the dictators decided to make rules for the sexual relationship of married couples again, as I will show below:
The article in The Watchtower of February 15, 1978, page 31, showed that “in view of the absence of Scriptural instruction,” only the couples themselves should make decisions about marital intimacies, and neither the elders nor the Governing Body had any right to intervene. But the members of the Governing Body did not care about that. The Watchtower of March 15, 1983, page 31, was a reversal of the reversal in 1978 that was a reversal of decision of porneia-inside-marriage of 1974. We read:
How about sexual activity between married couples within the marriage bond? It is not for the elders to pry into the intimate lives of married Christians. However, the Bible certainly enters into their lives. Those who would “keep walking by spirit” should not ignore the Scriptural indications of God’s thinking.
We may compare the two quotations from 1978 and 1983. The first quotation says correctly that there is an “absence of clear scriptural instruction” regarding marital intimacies, i.e., how the sexual relations between a married couple should occur. But the second quotation speaks about “the Scriptural indication of God’s thinking” in connection with “marital intimacies.” But because the Scriptures are silent on marital intimacies, “the Scriptural indication of God’s thinking” is, in reality, “the Governing Body’s thinking of marital intimacies.”
So, what is “God’s thinking” (= the thinking of the members of the Governing Body)? The article answers:
Thus, a mate’s enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage…
As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation.
The quoted words indicate a reversal of the reversal of the decision of 1978. As the text shows, the expression “perverted sex relations” includes oral and anal sex.” But the words “such as” at the beginning of the quotation indicate that the elders may define other forms of sexual relations between a man and his wife as “perverted.” The view here presented is that oral and anal sex and other “perverted” actions cannot be defined as porneia, as the view was between 1974 and 1978. But these actions are disfellowshipping offenses. So, the Governing Body in 1983 overruled the true words in The Watchtower of 1978 that in connection with sexual relations inside marriage there is “absence of Scriptural direction.” The Governing Body now claim that they know “God’s thinking” on this. But in reality, they function as dictators.
| 1974-1978 | The Governing Body made rules for the sexual lives of married couples. |
| 1978-1983 | The Governing Body’s rules for the sexual life of married couples were abolished because of the absence of Scriptural direction. |
| 1983-2025 | The Governing Body again made rules for the sexual lives of married couples. |
| In order to mask the fact that the members of the Governing Body are dictators and make laws and rules that are not based on the Bible, they say that these laws and rules are “the Scriptural indication of God’s thinking. |
We have so far discussed decisions of the Governing Body that have had a disastrous effect on the lives of the Witnesses. In what follows, I will also discuss decisions regarding the interpretation of the Scriptures that can have a detrimental effect on the faith of the Witnesses and their trust in Jehovah.
1988 – 2025
RESURRECTION — A REJECTION OF WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
In the spring of 1965, The Watchtower had 12 excellent articles on the resurrection.[1] These articles discussed all the different sides of the resurrection that are found both in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures. The basis for the articles was the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. He bought all Adam’s descendants by his death, and every descendant of Adam will get a full chance to accept or reject the sacrifice of Jesus. Those who had not received this chance before their death, will get this change by a resurrection from the dead. These articles are excellent examples of interactive teaching because they are written in a way that the readers can check all the basic conclusions with the Bible.
Jesus speaks about the resurrection on the last day several times, and he mentions the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, Chorasin, Bethsaida and Capernaum and the whole wicked generation in his days. According to the 1965-articles, the people of these cities will be resurrected even though they acted in a wicked way. The Watchtower of January 15, 1987 compared the actions of the inhabitants of Chorazin and Bethsaida and Sodom and Gomorrah and said:
Jesus goes on to single out for reproach the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, where he has performed most of his powerful works. If he had done them in the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon, Jesus says, these cities would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. Condemning Capernaum, which apparently has been his home base during his ministry, Jesus declares: “It will be more endurable for the land of Sodom on Judgment Day than for you.”
What does Jesus mean by this? Evidently he is showing that, during Judgment Day when proud ones in Capernaum are resurrected, it will be more difficult for them to admit their mistakes and accept Christ than it will be for the resurrected ancient Sodomites to repent humbly and learn righteousness.
The explanation of this article is logical, and it accords with what the text literally says. However, in The Watchtower of June 1, 1988, the question was raised: “Will those whom Jehovah destroyed by fire in Sodom and Gomorrah be resurrected?” The article expressed the opposite concludion of the Watchtower of January 15, 1987 :
A recent review of this suggests that these verses need not be taken as statements about the future for the people of Sodom/Gomorrah…
A reexamination of Matthew 11:20-24, though, has brought into question whether Jesus was there discussing eternal judgment and resurrection. His point was how unresponsive the people in Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were and how unlikely it was that they would reform even in the Judgment Day. Saying that it would be “more endurable” for Tyre/Sidon and Sodom/Gomorrah “on Judgment Day” was a form of hyperbole (exaggeration to emphasize a point) that Jesus need not have intended to be taken literally, any more than other graphic hyperboles that he used.
These comments are, in reality, a rejection of the full inspiration of the Bible. The basic approach to the text of the Bible that I have learned through The Watchtower literature is as follows: We must take the text of the Bible in its literal meaning, if the context does not explicitly say otherwise, and we cannot make any exceptions to what is written if the context does not clearly show that there are exceptions. This is grossly violated by the quotation above because the quotation says that the meaning of the text is the very opposite of what the text literally says.
The sentences below that are marked in brown show without any doubt that the basic conclusions of the article are wrong — the inhabitants of Nineveh, Capernaum, Sodom and the wicked generation who lived in the days of Jesus will get a resurrection:
Matthew 12:41, 42:
41 Men of Nin’e·veh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at what Jo’nah preached. But look! something more than Jo’nah is here. 42The queen of the south will be raised up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Sol’o·mon. But look! something more than Sol’o·mon is here.
Matthew 11:24:
23 And you, Ca·per’na·um, will you perhaps be exalted to heaven? Down to the Grave you will come; because if the powerful works that took place in you had taken place in Sod’om, it would have remained until this very day.24But I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sod’om on Judgment Day than for you.”
Jesus said that the men of Nineveh and the queen of the south would get a resurrection together with “this generation” (“this adulterous and wicked generation,” 12:39). This shows that the persons who did not accept that the powerful works Jesus showed that he was God’s servant, including the inhabitants of Chorazin and Bethsaida, will get a resurrection. And these persons were wicked and adulterous, according to Jesus. Thus, when The Watchtower says that Jesus did not speak about the resurrection, this claim is clearly wrong.
And what about the inhabitants of Sodom? The clause. “it (Sodom) would have remained until this very day” can only be understood in one way, as The Watchtower of 1 March 1965, page 139 says:
As in the case of Tyre and Sidon, Jesus showed that Sodom, bad as it was, had not got to the state of being unable to repent. That is why Jesus said that, if his powerful works that had taken place in Capernaum had taken place in Sodom, “it would have remained” until Jesus’ day. And in that connection Jesus said that Capernaum, which had been exalted in a spiritual way to heaven, would be abased down to Ha’des, not to Gehenna. Heaven for height and Ha’des or Sheol for depth; and by using this contrast Jesus meant that Capernaum would undergo the deepest abasement. Though highly favored by Jesus, that city does not exist today any more than Sodom does. But if Sodom had had Capernaum’s opportunity Sodom would have had ten or more righteous persons in it and it would have continued over nineteen hundred years longer till Jesus’ day and then some. So the spiritual recovery of the dead people of Sodom is not hopeless. (Gen. 18:22-32) Ezekiel 16:46-61 speaks hopefully of people compared to ancient Sodomites.
The requirement that Sodom “would have remained until this very day” was that the city had ten or more righteous persons. The words of Jesus show that there were at least ten righteous persons in Sodom. To claim that these ten or more are eternally annihilated, as does The Watchtower of June 1, 1988, is a rejection both of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, that he bought all Adam’s descendants, and a rejection of God’s righteousness.[2]
The Watchtower of May 2024, expressed a new view of the resurrection, indicating that some who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah possibly would get a resurrection. But the article does not accept that all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah will get a resurrection,which Jesus said. Jesus also said that the inhabitants of Korazian, Kapernaum, and Bethsaida and the whole wicked generation that lived in his days will get a resurrection. But the magazine does not say that, and the members of the Governing Body do not believe that.
| The Watchtower of 1988 questions the inspiration of the text of the Bible by saying that the meaning of the words of Jesus is the opposite of what the text literally says. The reducing of the number of persons who will get a resurrection is also a devaluation of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. Here we see the bad effect of the decisions of the dictators. |
1996 — 2025
THE REJECTION OF THE POSITION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AS AMBASSADORS
Paul shows that Christians were ambassadors for God’s Kingdom. In 2 Corinthians 5:20 (NWT13) we read:
Therefore, we are ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us. As substitutes for Christ, we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”
The history of early Christianity shows that the Christians refused to become soldiers, and that they were neutral to all the pursuits of the Roman Empire.
HOW THE POSITION OF BEING AMBASSADORS WERE PRACTICED AND ABANDONED
Because of the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:20, young Witnesses who were called to do military service did the same as an ambassador of a foreign country would do: They refused to do military service. In some countries, like Norway and Denmark, the Witnesses who refused military service were offered to do alternative civil service instead. But again, they did the same as an ambassador would have done: They refused to do alternative civil service. There was nothing wrong with the civil service in itself. But the point is that like an ambassador, who does not accept that the nation to which he is an ambassador has the right to put him under compulsory service, the Witnesses did not accept that any nation had the right to put them under compulsory service — they would be neutral to the pursuits of the nations of the world.
The book Let God Be True, which was designed for Bible study, was published in 1946. This book has a detailed description of the real issue. On pages 227-230 we read:
Since Jehovah’s government, standing forever, is the greatest of all governments, it follows that his ministers or ambassadors should have the same rights and exemptions as the ministers of this world have. An ambassador of a foreign power is by the laws of this world exempt from payment of tax and the giving of allegiance to the government of the land where he is domiciled. He is relieved of rendering political obligations of any sort. The nation wherein he resides is without authority to impose any regulation that burdens or abridges the performance of his duty as such…
The time, energy and life of the witness of Jehovah are dedicated exclusively to the service of Almighty God. He has entered into a covenant or contract with Almighty God to perform faithfully his God-given preaching activity as long as he lives, and never to turn away therefrom. His turning aside from that assigned duty, to engage in serving another master, to perform other work assigned by the civil state, or his refraining from preaching because of compliance with arbitrary commands to stop, is in the eyes of Jehovah covenant-breaking…
EXEMPTION
The preaching activity of Jehovah’s witnesses as ministers entitles them to claim exemption from performing military training and service in the armed forces of the nations wherein they dwell. The exempt status of Jehovah’s witnesses also relieves them of the performance of governmental work required of conscientious objectors to both combatant and noncombatant military service, because Jehovah’s witnesses are ministers of the gospel and are not religious, political or academic pacifists. They claim neutrality and the rights of neutrals because of their status as ambassadors of the kingdom of Almighty God. This is exactly the same position taken by Christ Jesus and his apostles. (John 18 : 36) Additionally, that position was assumed at Rome by early Christians, who were thrown to the lions by the authoritarian rulers…
For another reason each minister of Almighty God as a follower of Christ Jesus claims his exemption from military training and service: He is in the army of Christ Jesus, serving as a soldier of Jehovah’s appointed Commander, Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 2 : 3, 4) Inasmuch as the war weapons of the soldier of Christ Jesus are not carnal, he is not authorized by his Commander to engage in carnal warfare of this world. (2 Corinthians 10 :3,4 ; Ephesians 6 : 11-18) Furthermore, being enlisted in the army of Christ Jesus, he cannot desert the forces of Jehovah to assume the obligations of a soldier in any army of this world without being guilty of desertion and suffering the punishment meted out to deserters by Almighty God.
The following points are expressed in the quotation: Jehovah’s Witnesses are ambassadors for God’s Kingdom, and therefore, they are neutral to the pursuits of the nations. Because they are ambassadors, they refuse military service and other compulsory service. Each Witness is a part of the army of Jesus, and to use time for any form of compulsory service would be the same as desertion from this army.
I studied the book Let God Be True when I became a Witness in 1961, and almost all interested persons who became Witnesses studied the same book. This means that the Witnesses knew that they were ambassadors and would be neutral to all pursuits of the nation where they lived. And this continued for 50 years after World War II. The result of this was that thousands of young Witnesses who refused both military service and alternative civil service, had to serve jail sentences of 16-18 months or several years. However, in the year 1996, there was a reversal of the position of being ambassadors and being neutral to the pursuits of the world. The Watchtower of May 1, 1996, page 16 says:
16 However, there are lands where the State, while not allowing exemption for ministers of religion, nevertheless acknowledges that some individuals may object to military service. Many of these lands make provision for such conscientious individuals not to be forced into military service. In some places a required civilian service, such as useful work in the community, is regarded as nonmilitary national service. Could a dedicated Christian undertake such service? Here again, a dedicated, baptized Christian would have to make his own decision on the basis of his Bible-trained conscience.
This new position was a clear compromise because from now on, Jehovah’s Witnesses could not rightly claim to be ambassadors for God’s Kingdom. The Watchtower Society are still claiming that the Witnesses are ambassadors, but on the mentioned background, this is a hollow claim without any substance.
A detailed discussion of this issue is found in the article “We cannot trust the views and decisions of the Governing Body” in the category “the Governing Body.” In this context, I will show how the compromise of abandoning the position of ambassadors was the result of a long process inside the Governing Body and that the final decision was not based on the Bible.
THE DEVELOPMENT INSIDE THE GOVERNING BODY THAT LED TO THE ABANDONING OF THE POSITION AS AMBASSADORS
Raymond Franz has a long discussion about military service and alternative civil service in his book Crisis of Conscience. He tells that in November 1978, a letter arrived from a Witness in Belgium who questioned the policy of refusing alternative service. On page 125, Franz shows the reaction of the members of the Governing Body to this letter:
This led to the alternative service issue being dealt with by the Governing Body in a number of lengthy and intense discussions, first on January 28, 1978, then on March 1, and again on September 26, October 11, October 18 and November 15. A worldwide survey was made and letters were received from some 90 branch offices.
As documentation shows, many Branch office committees, including those from several major countries, indicated that the Witness men affected did not understand either the logic or the Scripturalness of the organization’s position. In a number of cases the Branch committees themselves raised questions as to the rightness of the policy and presented Scriptural reasons for allowing the matter to be one of conscience.
The whole situation outlined by Franz is strange, particularly because the information given in the Bible study book Let God Be True (1946) is crystal clear: Because Jehovah’s Witnesses are ambassadors for God’s Kingdom they are neutral to all the pursuits of the nations. And as ambassadors, they do not accept that any nation can put them under compulsory service. Franz was one of those who strongest argued for a change, and because of this, it is strange that he himself did not understand what the issue was all about. On page 124 in Crisis of Conscience, he writes:
The official position of the Watch Tower Society, developed in the early 1940s during the Second World War, was that if one of Jehovah’s Witnesses accepted such alternative service he had “compromised,” had broken integrity with God. The reasoning behind this was that because this service was a “substitute” it therefore took the place of what it substituted for and (so the reasoning apparently went) came to stand for the same thing. Since it was offered in place of military service and since military service involved (potentially at least) the shedding of blood, then anyone accepting the substitute became “bloodguilty.” This remarkable policy developed before the Governing Body became a genuine reality and was evidently decided upon by Fred Franz and Nathan Knorr during the period when they produced all major policy decisions. Failure to adhere to this policy would mean being viewed automatically as “disassociated” and being treated the same as if disfellowshiped.
This is a completely wrong description of the situation. Alternative civil service has never been viewed as “the same” as military service, and that it could lead to bloodguilt if it was accepted. But as I have stressed above, the Witnesses did not accept that any state could put them under compulsory service, military service or alternative civil service because they were ambassadors. So, it was their position as ambassadors that casued them to refuse alternative civil tjeneste, just as the book Let God be true shows.
On page 135 he says that “I personally had already presented to the Body some fourteen pages of historical, Scriptural and lexical evidence pointing in the same direction [of changing the present policy].” This shows again his lack of understanding of the real issue. No historical or lexical evidence has anything to do with the issue. There is only the Scriptural evidence that counts, and that is the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:20 that each Christian is an ambassador for God’s Kingdom. If this scripture is taken at face value, there is no room for alternative civil service instead of military service.
In footnote 12 on page 124, Franz writes: “As late as November 1, 1990 Watchtower, this [alterantive civil service ] was alluded to as a “compromising substitute” for “an unscriptural service.” But his misunderstanding of the real issue caused him to fail to understand the argument of The Watchtower of May 1, 1990. Romans chapter 13 is discussed, including the paying of taxes (verse 7). And the words of Jesus, “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar” are quoted. Then the magazine on page 12 says:
Hence, when Christians are ordered by governments to share in community works, they quite properly comply as long as those works do not amount to a compromising substitute for some unscriptural service or otherwise violate Scriptural principles, such as that found at Isaiah 2:4.
The point here is that just as the authorities have the right to order the inhabitants to pay taxes, they have also the right to order “community service,” which can be viewed as a tax. But “community service” as a compulsory service that is an alternative to compulsory military service would be an unscriptural compromise. The important thing to notice is that Franz’ memorandum of 14 pages would lead the members of the Governing Body in a wrong direction because the real issue became clouded and was not mentioned at all.
Let us then look at the description of the proceedings of the Governing Body regarding alternative civil service. In Crisis of Conscience, page 135, we read:
At the October 11, 1978, meeting, of thirteen members present, nine voted in favor of changing the traditional policy so that the decision to accept or reject alternative service would be left to the conscience of the individual; four did not vote for this. The result? Since there were then sixteen members in the Body (though not all were present) and since nine was not two-thirds of sixteen, no change was made.
On October 18 there was discussion on the subject but no vote taken. On November 15, all sixteen members were present and eleven voted for changing the policy so that the Witness who conscientiously felt he could accept such service would not be automatically categorized as unfaithful to God and disassociated from the congregation. This was a two-thirds majority. Was the change made? No, for after a brief intermission, Governing Body member Lloyd Barry, who had voted with the majority in favor of a change, announced that he had changed his mind and would vote for continuance of the traditional policy. That destroyed the two-thirds majority. A subsequent vote taken, with fifteen members present, showed nine favoring a change, five against and one abstention.
Six sessions of the Governing Body had discussed the issue and, when votes were taken, in every case a majority of the Governing Body members had favored removal of the existing policy. The one vote with the two-thirds majority lasted less than one hour and the policy remained in force. As a result Witness men were still expected to risk imprisonment rather than accept alternative service—even though, as the letters coming in from the survey showed, they might conscientiously feel such acceptance was proper in God’s sight.
Incredible as it may seem, this was the position taken, and most members of the Body appeared to accept it all as nothing to be disturbed about. They were, after all, simply following the rules in force. A year later, on September 15, 1979, another vote was taken and it was evenly divided, half for a change, half against.
It seems to me that Franz, who so strongly favored a change, led the members of the Governing Body in a wrong direction because he did not understand the real issue. That so many were in favor of a change, shows in my view the lack of balance and understanding of these members of the Governing Body. The words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:20 and the comments on these words by the book Let God Be True should have prevented all these discussions. Franz criticizes Lloyd Barry for his stance, but the memorandum of Barry that Franz criticizes really accords with 2 Corinthians 5:20. In his book In Search for Christian Freedom, pages 263. 264, Franz quotes the memorandum written by Barry:
Those who have studied out the matter on the basis of the Bible and who have been through the experience, have no question about maintaining a stand of “no compromise”—unless someone comes along and tries to plant such a question. A change of viewpoint sponsored by the Governing Body would be very upsetting for these countries and brothers, where they have fought for so long in behalf of their uncompromising stand…
In this, the issue is not taxation, employment, etc., but COMPROMISE. We are agreed that we should not take up arms for the military. Then we should be agreed, too, that if the military or any other agency asks us to do something as a substitute therefore, we do not accept the alternative. That is our action. Then, if we are handed over to a court, and a judge sentences us, that is his action. We accept the sentence. We have not compromised. We are integrity keepers. It is as simple as all that.—Job 27:5.
Whether Barry, in the discussion of his memorandum, mentioned 2 Corinthians 5:20 or not we do not know. But his words both accords with the words of this scripture and with the words of Let God Be True. This shows that Barry in contrast with Franz understood what the real issue was. The view of alternative civil service was not changed in 1977 and 1978, and the conclusion of Franz regarding this is found in Crisis of Conscience, pages 135, 136:
For another 16 years the policy remained in effect, until the May 1, 1996 Watchtower abruptly decreed that acceptance of alternative service was now a matter of conscience. During those 16 years, thousands of Witnesses, mainly young men, spent time in prison for refusing to accept assignments to perform various forms of community service as an alternative to military service. As late as 1988, a report by Amnesty International stated that in France, “More than 500 conscientious objectors to military service, the vast majority of them Jehovah’s Witnesses, were imprisoned during the year.” For the same year, in Italy, “Approximately 1,000 conscientious objectors, mostly Jehovah’s Witnesses, were reported to be imprisoned in 10 military prisons for refusing to perform military service or the alternative civilian service.”
That is just a partial picture. If that one Governing Body member had not changed his vote in 1978, virtually none of these men would have gone to prison—for the branch office committees’ reports give clear evidence that it was not the personal, individual consciences of these young men that produced the imprisonment. It was the compulsion to adhere to an organizationally imposed policy. The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance. One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate with family and friends, or to contribute to their own economy and the economy of those related to them, or pursue other worthwhile activities in ways not possible within prison walls. It represents an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural position, imposed by organizational authority.
Franz hailed the change of 1996, and he expressed regrets that it took 50 years to change the policy. But the real truth is the very opposite. It took 50 years to reach the compromise by which the status of ambassadors for God’s Kingdom was abolished. And this is one of the decisions of the Governing Body justifying the words that the members of the Governing Body are dictators, and all Witnesses must follow what their laws are at any particular moment.
| In 1978, Lloyd Barry called the acceptance of alternative civil service that was decided by the Governing Body in 1996 “a COMPROMISE”. This was a true characterization because the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses as ambassadors of God’s Kingdom was now compromised and abolished. |
(1989) 2000 — 2025
PROHITITION AGAINT STORING ONE’S OWN BLOOD IN ORDER TO GET IT INFUSED LATER
The Watchtower of March 1, 1989, page 30 and book How to Remain in God’s Love? states that storing one’s own blood for later infusion is prohibited. The issue was discussed in The Watchtower of October 15, 2000, page 31:
Occasionally, a doctor will urge a patient to deposit his own blood weeks before surgery (preoperative autologous blood donation, or PAD) so that if the need arises, he could transfuse the patient with his own stored blood. However, such collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out—returned to God, as it were. Granted, the Mosaic Law is not in force now. Nevertheless, Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the principles God included in it, and they are determined to ‘abstain from blood.’ Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’ That practice conflicts with God’s law.
Other procedures or tests involving an individual’s own blood are not so clearly in conflict with God’s stated principles. For instance, many Christians have allowed some of their blood to be withdrawn for testing or analysis, after which the sample is discarded. Other more complex procedures involving one’s blood may also be recommended.
For example, during certain surgical procedures, some blood may be diverted from the body in a process called hemodilution. The blood remaining in the patient is diluted. Later, his blood in the external circuit is directed back into him, thus bringing his blood count closer to normal. Similarly, blood that flows into a wound may be captured and filtered so that the red cells can be returned to the patient; this is called cell salvage. In a different process, blood may be directed to a machine that temporarily carries on a function normally handled by body organs (for example, the heart, lungs, or kidneys). The blood from the machine is then returned to the patient. In other procedures, blood is diverted to a separator (centrifuge) so that damaging or defective portions of it can be eliminated. Or the goal may be to isolate some of a blood component and apply that elsewhere on the body. There are also tests in which a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or to mix it with medicine, whereupon it is put back into the patient.
The details may vary, and new procedures, treatments, and tests will certainly be developed. It is not our place to analyze each variation and render a decision. A Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy. Ahead of time, he should obtain from the doctor or technician the facts about what might be done with his blood during the procedure. Then he must decide according to what his conscience permits. (italics of the author)
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF
If some of my blood will be diverted outside my body and the flow might even be interrupted for a time, will my conscience allow me to view this blood as still part of me, thus not requiring that it be ‘poured out on the ground’?
Would my Bible-trained conscience be troubled if during a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure some of my own blood was withdrawn, modified, and directed back into (or onto) my body?
We should note that the reason given for not storing one’s own blood is different from the reason given for not taking full blood, red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma into the body. The mentioned blood components are prohibited because taking them into the body is the same as eating them, which is forbidden, is the argument — an argument that is wrong. But the prohibition against storing one’s blood is based on the commandment in the law of Moses that blood must be poured out on the ground, that is, blood of a dead creature must not be used for any purpose.
However, the blood was poured out on the ground when a creature was dead. This was a token indicating respect for the lifegiver. When the blood was poured out, the life of the creature was symbolically returned to God. But when a person stored his own blood with an operation in view, the person is not dead, and his life should not be returned to God. Also, the blood that is transfused into the veins of the person is not the blood of another human being, but it is his own blood.
An article in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980, page 31, discussing transplantation and whether taking a transplant is the same as eating another person’s flesh, thus being a cannibal, says:
It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food.
In a similar way, it is the blood of a dead creature and not a living one that should not be stored. Because the person who is storing his blood is not dead, the prohibition against storing the blood of a dead creature cannot be used to show that storing a living creature’s own blood is wrong. There is no law in the Bible showing that the storing of one’s own blood is against God’s law. This is a decision that the dictators have made.
We must therefore conclude that the decision — or rather the order — of the Governing Body that one’s own blood must not be stored has no biblical basis. So, whether to store one’s blood or not is a matter of conscience; each one has the right to decide.
| Blood from dead creatures must not be stored but must be poured out on the ground. The commandment for doing this cannot be used as a prohibition against storing one’s own blood for a future operation because the commandment only relates to the blood of dead creatures, and it is a part of the law of Moses that no longer is valid. |
In order to drive home the points above, I will compare the situation of blood storage with other procedures mentioned in the Question from readers and are allowed. Please consider the following examples:
- When a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or mix it with medicine, it can be stored for several minutes before it is returned to the patient.
- When blood flows into a wound, and it is captured, filtered, and the red cells are returned to the patient, the red cells can be stored in the process for half an hour, an hour or more.
- When blood is withdrawn for testing and analysis, the blood can be stored for several days if it is sent to a laboratory specializing in particular tests. After that, it will be discarded.
- When blood is withdrawn from the patient with the purpose of returning it to the patient during an operation, the blood can be stored for one or two or for several weeks.
In all these cases, it is the blood of the patient that is withdrawn from him and later returned to him or discarded. The basic difference between the four examples is the time, i.e., how long the blood is stored. It does not make sense to claim that a person’s blood that is withdrawn and stored for three days before it is processed at a laboratory is a matter of conscience, but a person’s blood that is withdrawn and stored for seven days or two weeks before it is returned to him during an operation is forbidden.
Today, there are many alternatives to blood transfusion, and it almost never happens that a Witness dies because he or she refuse a transfusion. However, there is one area where the prohibition against storing one’s own blood for an operation can have disastrous consequences. One reason why a doctor asks a Witness to store his or her blood for use in an operation is that the operation is big. I have been told by surgeons that if all the sick tissue is removed, the blood loss may be so severe that even all the alternatives to blood transfusion cannot save the life of the patient. This means that a Witness who refuses blood transfusion and do not have his own blood stored often will get an inferior treatment. If there is severe bleeding, the surgeon may only remove the great part of the sick issue but not all of it. If the sick tissue, for example, is cancerous, the tissue that is not removed may soon start to grow and the life of the patient will be shortened. So, the lives of a great number of Witnesses may have been shortened because of the Governing Body’s prohibition against storing one’s own blood.
| The dictators, the members of the Governing Body, are responsible for the shortening of the lives of a great number Jehovah’s Witnesses because of their ban on storing one’s own blood for its use in a future operation. |
[1]. The Watchtower of 1965: “Worship the God of Resurrection”;“Death and Hades to Give Up the Dead,” “Part II”; “The Dead Who Are in Line for Resurrection,” Part II”; “For Whom There Are Resurrection Hopes,” Part II”; “Who Will be Resurrected from the Dead?”, “Part II”; “Who Will be Resurrected—Why?”; “Our Own Twentieth-Century Generation and the Resurrection”; Earthly Opportunity Opened Up by Resurrection.” in The Watchtower of January 1, January 15, February 1, February 15, March 1, and March 15, 1965.
[2]. For a detailed discussion of the application of the ransom sacrifice and God’s righteousness in connection with the resurrection, see my book The Atonement Between God and Man.
THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a power struggle inside the Governing Body between Lloyd Barry and Theodore Jaracz. Barry was a more balanced person, while Jaracz was a hardliner who wanted to make laws and rules for everything. In 1999, Barry suddenly died, and to his death in 2010, Jaracz was the leader of the Governing Body, and he had the final say when new members of the Governing Body should be appointed. The personality of Jaracz as a person who wanted to make many extra-biblical laws formed the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 21st century. Under the leadership of Jaracz, the organization became more and more militant and legalistic.[1]
THIRTY-SEVEN NEW DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES INTRODUCED
The legalistic nature of the organization is seen in the increase of disfellowshipping offenses. After the death of Barry, the number of disfellowshipping offenses doubled. In 1991, the book “Pay Attention To Yourselves And To All Your Flock” was published, and in this book, I count 20 disfellowshipping offenses. In 2019, the book “Shepherd The Flock Of God” was published, and in this book, I count 46 disfellowshipping offenses. And two other disfellowshipping offenses are mentioned elsewhere. Included in these are four situations where a person is said to be “disassociating himself” from the organization. But “disassociating” is really a euphemism for disfellowshipping. The book Shepherd the Flock of God that was published in 2010, has the same 46 disfellowshipping offenses as the book with the same name that was published in 2019, except for two differences. This shows that the addition of the 35 new disfellowshipping offenses occurred while Jaracz was alive.
THE CRUSADE AGAINST HIGHER EDUCATION
In addition to new disfellowshipping offenses, a number of new rules were introduced as well. Barry was university educated, and he had a balanced view of higher education. This is seen in two articles about education that he wrote in The Watchtower in 1992. Jaracz only had primary school, and he had a negative view both of higher education and of persons with higher education. In 2005, on Jaracz’ watch, a campaign against higher education was started, and it continues to this day. This has been a disaster for tens of thousands of young brothers and sisters who have been pressured not to pursue higher education.[2]
NEW AND WRONG UNDERSTANDINGS OF BIBLICAL TEXTS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED
In the 21st century the members of the Governing Body have directed the focus on themselves by claiming that they are “the faithful and discreet slave.” They have also claimed to be wiser than previous members of the Governing Body. In The Watchtower of March 15, 2015, page 7, we read:
Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet.
Because of this, they claim that they understand things that have not been understood before, and they have presented a great number of what they call “clarified beliefs.” During the 120 years between 1870 and 1989, 107 “clarified beliefs” were presented, according the Online Watchtower Index. But during the 31 years between 1990 and 2020, 94 different “clarified beliefs were presented” During the eight years from 2013 to 2020, the members of the Governing Body have been particularly busy because I count 46 “clarified beliefs” in these 8 years.
I have divided the “clarified beliefs” into three groups:
- Trivial matters: 22
- Important matters: 15
- Prophecies: 57
The Governing Body uses all these “clarified beliefs” as evidence that holy spirit has helped them to get an understanding of truths not previously understood. However, in my view, most of the important matters and the prophecies are clouded and not clarified, which means that they are wrong. A detailed discussion of the “clarified beliefs” is found in the article “Analysis of evidence used to show that the Governing Body is ‘the faithful and discreet slave’” But below I discuss one example of “clouding” rather than “clarifying.” Because the members of the Governing Body cannot understand Hebrew, they have given a new interpretation of a prophecy in the book of Daniel that is completely wrong.
EXCURSUSA WRONG APPLICATION OF THE PROPHECY IN DANIEL 11:25, 26The following example shows that the claim of the members of the present Governing Body that they are wiser than previous members of the Governing Body is utterly false. It is obvious that because none of them understand the original languages of the bible, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, they are not able interpret and explain the text of the Bible for others, as they claim they can. The “clarified belief” in connection with Daniel 11:25, 26 shows that their lack of understanding of Hebrew has caused them to make an enormous blunder. (The definition of “blunder” is: “to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness.”) Daniel 11:25, 26 says:
The Watchtower of May 2020 discusses prophecies in the book of Daniel. But sad to say, I find several errors in this article, and I will discuss one of the serious errors that is found on page 13:
Verse 11:26 speaks about “the king of the north,” which is applied to the German Empire in World War I. The quotation says that as a fulfillment of 11:26 “the German army was “swept away”— the German Empire was defeated in World war I. The problem, however, is that the Hebrew text of prophecy in 11:26 says the very opposite of what the members of the Governing Body claim that it says. The conclusion of the Governing Body that is stated in the article is based on a wrong translation of the verse. But because the members of the Governing Body do not understand Hebrew and so cannot base their interpretation on an analysis of the Hebrew text, they have made this grave error. Here is a literal translation of Daniel 11:26 above and the translation of NWT13 below:
The important differences in the translations relate to the destiny of the army of the king of the north. My translation shows that this army will be victorious, while NWT13 shows that this army will be defeated. Why do I say that the rendering of NWT13 is wrong? This is because the Hebrew verb shatap (“overflow”) is Qal imperfect 3rd person singular masculine. The Qal stem is active and not passive, and this is the crucial point. To translate this active verb with an English passive verb is indisputably wrong! I will illustrate that. A clause can be analyzed in two ways, either grammatically as predicate, subject, object, and adverbial, or semantically as agent (the actor) and patient (the one who is acted upon). I will apply this to the two clauses below:
In the active clause above, “defeated” is the predicate, “Napoleon” is the subject, and “the British-led coalition” is the object. The subject is the agent and the object is that patient. In the clause below, the passive expression “was defeated” is the predicate and “Napoleon” is the subject. There is no object but “the British-led coalition” is the adverbial. The adverbial is the agent, and the subject is the patient. We cannot translate an active clause with a passive clause because the agent and patient change their positions in an active and passive clause. In other words, the one who is acted upon is different in an active and a passive clause. In the rendering in NWT13 of Daniel 11:26, the king of the north (supposed to be the German Empire) is acted upon and is defeated. In my translation, the king of the north (supposed to be the German Empire) acts upon someone who is not identified and is defeating this unidentified patient. But why does the NIV and other translations have a passive rendering like NWT13 in 11:26, if such a rendering is wrong? As for the NIV, the reason for the passive rendering evidently is the belief that Daniel contains history in prophetic disguise and that a large portion of Daniel chapter 11 describes the history of the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. According to this view, 11:26 refers to the Egyptian king Ptolemy VI Philometor. His army was defeated, and a passive translation was needed to express this defeat.[3] The members of the Governing Body, who oversaw the translation of NWT13, and the translators believe that the book of Daniel contains real prophecies. So, this could not be the reason for their translation. Whether the Governing Body chose the passive rendering to fit their new interpretation of Daniel 11:26, I do not know. But in any case, their translation is erroneous. The members of the Governing Body have expanded this error by applying the king of the north in 11:26 to the German Empire in World war I. If this application is correct, this is a false prophecy because correctly translated, verse 26 would mean that the German Empire would be the victor of World war I. The Governing Body claims that “evidence of holy spirit” is proof that theeleven members of the Governing Body are “the faithful and discreet slave.” “The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood.” All the “clarified beliefs” that are listed in the Publications Index prove this. After I have analyzed all the “clarified beliefs,” my conclusion is that almost all of them are “clouded beliefs,” beliefs that are erronous. So, it is quite ironic that the list of “clarified beliefs” proves the very opposite of what the Governing Body claims it does. This list shows that in many, or even in most cases, the members of the Governing Body have been led by their imperfect human reasoning and not by the spirit of God. ————————— A number of Bible translations use a passive English verb to translate the active Hebrew verb shatap (“overflow”) But the following eight translations use an active English verb: 26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yea, they that eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yes, they who eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yea, they that eat of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow, and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yea, those who feed from the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yes, they that feed of the portion of his provisions shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yes, they who eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 26 and those eating his portion of food destroy him, and his force overfloweth, and fallen have many wounded. Commentary of the Old Testment in Ten Volumes by C.F Keil and F. Delitzsch contains translations with grammatical and syntactical comments of the text of the whole Hebrew Scriptures. Volume 9, page 453, comments on 11:26. Regarding the verb, the text refers to the commenator, and we read:
The correct meaning according to Keil and Delitzsch is:
|
THE BELIEF IN THE FULL INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
When I was preaching the good news about the Kingdom from door to door, sometimes I met a person who said that he believed that the whole Bible is inspired by God. I often asked the person: “Do you believe that Adam was the first human who was created about 6,000 years ago, as Luke 3:23-38 shows. When the person says No, which happened in most cases, I concluded that he did not believe in the full inspiration of God.
If you ask a member of the Governing Body if he believes in the full inspiration of the Bible, he certainly will say Yes. Then I ask: “Do you believe that the Song of Solomon is a prophetic drama where the different persons foreshadow persons today? Then he will say No, and the same answer he will give to a great number of other accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures. Then I conclude that he does not believe in the full inspiration of the Bible because he believes that a great part of the Bible is just “filling material” with no meaning for us. This new view of the Bible was expressed in The Watchtower of June 15, 2015, and it is clearly seen in the book Pure Worship of Jehovah — Restored at Last” (2018).[4]
THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE GIVEN THEMSELVES DICTATORIAL POWER
Since 1971, when the Governing Body was formed, its members have had the absolute power over the doctrines. Everything that they write must be accepted as the truth that comes from God. However, in 2013, their position as those who are appointed by God as the interpreters of the Bible was stressed and enhanced, because The Watchtower of July 15, 2013, page 22, said that these men, and not all the anointed Christians, were “The faithful and discreet slave.”
However, their power basis was not yet complete. The Watchtower of February 15, 2009, page 26 says:
9 Moreover, Jesus Christ has appointed the faithful and discreet slave “over all his belongings”—all Kingdom interests on earth. (Matt. 24:47) Included among these belongings are the facilities at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses, at branch offices in various lands, and at Assembly Halls and Kingdom Halls worldwide. Included too is the work of Kingdom-preaching and disciple-making. Would anyone assign someone he did not trust to keep and use his valuable things?
In 2013, the Governing Body did not yet have the power over “all kingdom interests on earth.” What was lacking was the properties and the money of all the congregations. The Kingdom Halls were owned by the congregation members, and not the Governing Body, had the power over the money of the congregation. As I show under the heading “The new view of soliciting money” in my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition, pages 141-151, it seems that the members of the Governing Body already from 2009 on made plans for gradually to come in the position that they could take over the ownership of each Kingdom Hall. When this goal was reached, they also introduced a system where all the money of each congregation, except expenses for three months, should be donated to the branch office.[5]
This means that from now on, the members of the Governing Body had all power over the doctrines, the properties, and the money. It is quite ironic that now, when the members of the Governing Body had all power over “all kingdom interests on earth,” the view of the meaning of the words “over all his belongings” has changed. The belief is now that this is something the anointed ones get by their heavenly resurrection. But the Kingdom Halls and the money of the congregations are not excluded from “all his belongings.”
CONCLUSION
The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589, expressed the words that have been the maxim of this study:
It would therefore be wrong in such matters to try to extract from someone else, from a body of elders or from the governing body of the Christian congregation, some rule or regulation that ‘draws the line’ on matters. Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.
This is the true Christian viewpoint. Only the Bible is the authority that the people of God can rely on. And humans have no right to add laws and rules to what the Bible says. This study has shown that the members of the Governing Body have blatantly violated the words in the quotation, and in the 21st century, they have given themselves unlimited power and they have functioned as dictators.
[1]. See the article “The power struggle inside the Governing Body in the 1980s and 1990s” in the category “The Governing Body.”
[2]. See chapter 4, “The extreme view of higher education” in my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition.
[3]. A discussion of how the NIV manipulated the text of Daniel 11:26 is found in my book When Was the Book of Daniel Written? A Philological, Linguistic, and Historical Approach, pages 214-216.
[4]. This new view of rejecting the full inspiration of the Bible is discussed in detail in chapter 7 entitled “The Governing Body’s new view of the Bible” in my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition.
[5]. A discussion of this is found in the article “The dictatorship of the Governing Body I — The Governing Body’s way to dictatorship.”
