ADDED FEBRUARY 6, 2026: POSTSCRIPT:
CLANDESTINE CLARIFICATION OF BELIEFS TO SAVE FACE
God has given humans the beautiful gift of a strong sexual desire. The purpose is that a man and a woman shall fall in love with each other, marry, and form a family. Inside this union, their sexual relationship should be a beautiful expression of their love for one another.
No other person has the right to intervene in the intimate relationship of husband and wife. But the members of the Governing Body have ignored this. They have intervened in the sexual relations of married couples and have claimed that some ways of sexual relations performed by couples are lewd.
By this intervention, a part of the beautiful sexual relationship between husband and wife has been made filthy.
In The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, page 574, we find the following question:
What should be the position of Christians regarding work in defense plants, serving on juries, selling Christmas cards or trees, etc?—Composite question based on many inquiries.
The answer was:
As to other forms of activity [than preaching the good news] 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….
The Society’s silence on these matters is not to be viewed as giving consent, nor is it to be viewed as a condemnation we do not wish to openly express. It means that we think it is the individual’s responsibility to choose, not ours. It is his conscience that must be at ease for his course, not ours. He knows all of the circumstances, not we.
This is an excellent answer to the question, an answer that resembles the way Jesus answered questions when he was on earth.
The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589, expressed the following maxim corresponding to the answer in the Watchtower of September 15, 1951:
Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.
However, after the Governing Body was formed in 1971, the situation was turned upside down, and today there is a “Talmudlike set of regulations” that all Jehovah’s Witnesses must follow.
This is also the situation with the beautiful gift of sexual relations that Jehovah has given us. The Governing Body has made a set of rules that defines different sides of the human sexual desire as filthy.
In three articles, I will focus on three areas:
1) Placing a huge load of guilt on the shoulders of young men by portraying masturbation as self-abuse.
2) Introducing the concept of “lewd actions” into the sexual lives of married couples.
3) Introducing actions that represent gross uncleanness and uncleanness with greediness, with the result that Witnesses can be disfellowshipped solely on the basis of their thoughts and inclinations.
All three areas represent human commandments, contradict the viewpoints of the leaders of the Watchtower Society in 1951, and contradict the Bible as well!
1945-1972 THE LEADERS OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES GIVE GOOD MORAL ADVICE TO MARRIED COUPLES
Jehovah God told the first humans to “be fruitful and become many and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). To achieve this, God gave men and women the ability to be attracted to one another and a strong sexual desire that would produce children. Fulfilling God’s words was not a difficult task. And having sexual intercourse inside marriage would give satisfaction to both man and wife, as we see in Proverbs 5:15-19:
15 Drink water from your own cistern And flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be dispersed outside, Your streams of water in the public squares? 17 Let them be for you alone, And not for strangers with you. 18 May your own fountain be blessed, And may you rejoice with the wife of your youth, 19 A loving doe, a graceful mountain goat. Let her breasts satisfy you at all times. May you be captivated by her love constantly.
The issue we are discussing is whether there are passages in the Bible that the Governing Body can rightly use to tell married couples how they should or should not perform their sexual relations. I will follow the development in the literature of the Watchtower Society regarding advice given to married couples as to their sexual relationship.
The Watchtower of February 1, 1947, contained the articles: “Singleness or marriage in the postwar world, which?” On page 37, we read:
9 Even should both parties to the marriage agree upon a course contrary to nature and thereby take a course that works hardship upon the physical body, it leads into difficulty. It may lead to hypocrisy one toward the other in this time of moral distress that exists in the world all round and about us. Because of such deprivation, either onesidedly or by the agreement of both for an unreasonable time, the Devil may find an opening to get in and cause domestic unhappiness and unfaithfulness in the way of violations of the marriage vow.
12 In taking advantage of this concession, no Christian husband would demand more than his due to the point of working physical abuse to his wife, especially if she was a Christian and desired to devote more time, strength and attention to spiritual things, such as prayer to God. The course that either one takes should be a reasonable one, not governed by uncontrolled, unrestricted passion. Each one will lovingly consider the other, so that no physical hardship result to either one, and especially that no spiritual hurt will follow through taking more pleasure in fleshly delights than in the unselfish interests of God’s kingdom.
The expression “contrary to nature” is used. In the literature of the Watchtower Society after 1972, this expression includes oral and anal sex. But the words “physical abuse of the wife” and “not governed by uncontrolled, unrestricted passion” do not define any sexual actions that are unlawful.
‘No scriptures are mentioned, but these expressions may be built on 1 Pet 3:7:
7 YOU husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with them according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since YOU are also heirs with them of the undeserved favor of life, in order for YOUR prayers not to be hindered.
Awake! of August 22, 1960, has a very fine article on the relationship between husband and wife, along the lines of Peter’s words. This article is so excellent that I have a long quotation:
Man, for example, should not approach the satisfying of his hunger for physical food with the greediness of a pack of wolves or the gluttony of the swine in a sty. In the matter of his enjoying a meal there are proper preparation of food, thanksgiving to God, and such things as the right time, table manners, moderation, consideration for others and pleasant surroundings. All these, if given proper attention, are conducive to the enjoyment of the meal as well as contributing to one’s wellbeing all around.
So too in the enjoyment of the intimate aspect of the marital relationship one should not be animalistic. Does not marriage provide for the proper and pleasant satisfaction of this divinely endowed hunger, and, therefore, does not the command to give thanks always for all things also apply to it? And with it also there are such things as proper preparation, good manners, moderation, consideration for others and need for pleasant surroundings to the extent that circumstances permit, — Eph.5:20.
Many husbands err in that they fail to appreciate that sexual union for a woman involves her entire emotional nature, depending upon tenderness and tokens of affection. Physical union that fails to consider these other needs is not really a rendering of the full marital dues. Knowledge, understanding and love will enable the husband to conduct himself with consideration and dignity.
Further, a woman’s emotional nature rises and falls due to the cycle Of operation of her reproductive organs, the chemistry of which affects all her thinking, feeling and desires. A husband with knowledge and understanding, and who loves his wife as himself — which he should — will always take this fact into consideration, even as the apostle Peter counsels husbands to do.
One with self-control will show love and will benefit himself as well as his wife. Not without good reasons did God’s law to the Israelites lay down restrictions upon married men in this regard. — Lev. 20:18; Eph. 5:25; 1 Pet. 3:7.
Not only is woman’s biological nature periodic, but her deeper feelings respond far slower than do a man’s, and therefore knowledge, understanding and love will cause the husband to learn and practice self-control and consideration and gladly to give patient co-operation so that his wife may enjoy their relationship as well as he himself, which is her marriage due.
Since there is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving, husbands who are thoughtlessly selfish in this regard are missing out on the greater happiness. —Acts 20:35.
There is yet another factor to be considered. Tenderness, tokens of affection and thoughtfulness in little things often mean more to a woman than does physical union, and a wife needs these far more frequently than her husband needs such union. For her physical welfare, her unconscious mind needs expressions of tenderness as much as her lungs need air. Then again, if both realize that hard physical or mental work lessens the desire of either one for union, so that at the close of a hard day’s work either one feels incapable of rendering proper marital dues, it may be better to plan for it at another time.
In the knowledge and understanding of these facts the loving husband has brought home to him the truth that his wife is not merely another picture of himself, but is his counterpart or complement, even as God’s Word shows in telling of Jehovah’s purpose in creating Eve: “It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.”— Gen. 2:18.
Of course, there is also another side to this, the husband’s, which draws attention to the wife’s responsibilities. Many women in Western lands err even more than do men in being thoughtless and selfish, in acting without knowledge, understanding and love. Modern woman often takes exception to the Scriptural rule that man is the head. She resents yielding to her husband and shows herself a reluctant partner, instead of giving him his due by being a loving participant in their marital relations.
She may take advantage of her husband’s need and tyrannize over him, feigning illness as an excuse to deny him his dues whenever he denies any whim of hers. It may be that she was dishonest when being courted, feigning indifference, and now continues her feigning for other selfish motives. Such women are extremely foolish. They are dishonest both with themselves and others, and so are unhappy and make their husbands so. One successful medical practitioner even claims that this “Eve-ism” is the cause of the ills of half of his women patients.— Eph. 5:22.
Yes, the wife also must recognize that her husband is different than she is because he is her complement, and that his mental and physical strength, which give her a sense of security, make him less sensitive, emotional and imaginative than she is. But appreciation, gratitude and love will make co-operation comparatively easy.
More than that, hers is the privilege, by patience, tact and willingness, to swallow her pride, to help her husband to express the kind of love he really has in his heart and which will make for the greatest possible happiness for both.
So let husbands and wives exercise knowledge, understanding and love, let them strive together to please God in all their affairs of life, so that they might realize, as far as is possible under imperfect conditions, the happiness the Creator intended for them.
In The Watchtower of January 1, 1950, page 16, there is an article dealing with sexual intercourse between married couples:
“EACH MARRIED COUPLE MIND ITS OWN CONDUCT”
Dear Sister:
Answering yours of September 22 on the matter of sexual intercourse:
Of course, it is best for everyone not to pry into the private affairs of a married couple and even appear to attempt to dictate to them in regard to this subject. The safest thing we can do is to quote the inspired advice of the apostle Paul thereon at 1 Corinthians 7:1-6 (Moffatt’s translation).
It is plain here that the apostle is speaking not just of sexual intercourse for the sake of reproducing children, but for the sake of sexual relief. For this reason, he says, it is better for some passionate persons to have a marriage mate of their own to help keep them from indulging in the immorality prevalent in this world. So married couples should not withhold sexual intercourse; otherwise, Satan might tempt one or both of the couple to immorality with persons outside. But, of course, in this matter self-control must be exercised so as not to overindulge to one’s spiritual harm, even to interfering with ‘devoting yourselves to prayer’. In this respect let each couple regulate its own life and not try to dictate to another couple.
The main point here is that “each couple regulate its own life and not try to dictate to another couple.” This accords with the article in The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, that the Watchtower Society has “no specific recommendation” in connection with different forms of activity and work.
The Watchtower Society evidently had received many questions about sexual relations between couples, and the November 15, 1962, issue of the Watchtower, page 703, had a more detailed discussion than the article in 1950. The question was:
Is there any manner in which the sexual act might be carried on between a husband and wife that would be considered unclean in Jehovah’s eyes?
The first part of the answer has the same conclusion as the article from 1950, that each couple must decide how to perform their sexual relations:
There is, of course, nothing unclean about copulation, the natural way for the sexual connection to be performed by a husband and wife as ordained by our Creator. Sexual union affords those joined in wedlock the opportunity to express deep love and affection toward each other. That it should be not only the means of procreation but also a means of allaying passion and a source of satisfaction and delight is not out of harmony with God’s Word. But as to just what is acceptable in the way of tokens of affection, this is a matter to be worked out by each married couple.—Gen. 1:28; 1 Cor. 7:9; Prov. 5:15-19.
Nevertheless, even in these intimate affairs of life Christians apply Biblical principles. They realize that in this, as in other matters of life, the fruitage of God’s spirit must be cultivated and demonstrated, and this includes self-control. (Gal. 5:22, 23) Hence, a Christian will not give free rein to unbridled passion.
The question was whether there was a way of performing the sexual act that would displease Jehovah. The article points out that there could be an unnatural and degraded way of using the sex organs:
There are definite organs, male and female, for sexual intercourse. Their intended purpose and proper use are very apparent. It is only in this proper and God-ordained way that these organs should be used. Departures from the proper and natural use of these organs in order to satisfy the craving for unnatural intimacy with sex organs, or in order to excite animal passions, is unclean. It is degrading, as shown at Romans 1:21-32. It is a perversion and is unhealthy. Such actions are in reality an idolizing of sex organs, and they do not constitute a means of dignifying marriage. They do not make the marriage bed honorable. (Heb. 13:4) Certainly a Christian would avoid such uncleanness of the flesh, one of the works of the flesh, and would want to be no part of such perversion.—Gal. 5:19.
“Animal passions” are degrading and represent perversions, according to the article. And this is correct. Examples of what the perversions and degrading actions represent are not mentioned. And correctly, the responsibility “to make the marriage bed honorable” is placed on each couple, and not on the Watchtower Society or the elders. We read:
In these matters dedicated Christians must bear their own load of responsibility. Having read and absorbed the excellent counsel that the Bible provides on these matters, it is up to the individual married couple to put such godly principles into practice in their lives in a reasonable and loving way.—Gal. 6:5.
There may be situations in which a couple has problems in connection with their sexual relationship. And a possible solution is pointed out:
If a dedicated couple commit some act that is morally wrong, but is not adultery or fornication… it is strictly a private matter… A personal solution to the problem should be attempted first. However, if all other efforts fail, then an appeal could be made by the oppressed one to the committee of the Christian congregation. It would then be in order for the committee to admonish the offending marriage mate. The committee may offer aid in prayer and counsel, so as to help the couple to overcome the weakness and to conduct their private marital affairs so as to continue in happy married relationship with the least possible distraction and so as to serve the interests of God’s perfect government in a better way.—Jas. 5:13-16.
If the couple cannot solve the problem of “morally wrong sex” among themselves, they can seek help from the elders. We note that there is no judicial committee to punish either mate. But the committee will “admonish the offending marriage mate.”
During the years from 1945 to 1972, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses behaved like good shepherds. They showed correctly that the responsibility for deciding how the sexual actions between couples should be performed resided exclusively with the couples. Neither the Watchtower Society nor the elders should pry into married couples’ lives.
In view of the situation today, it is important to note that no sexual action that was viewed as morally wrong or represented a disfellowshipping offense. Only illicit sexual intercourse (porneia) could lead to disfellowshipping.
1972-1978 THE GOVERNING BODY INTERVENES IN THE INTIMATE LIFE OF MARRIED COUPLES
In 1971, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses was formed, and its members began making decisions that were binding on all Jehovah’s Witnesses.
1972: ORAL AND ANAL SEX BECOME DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES
The sexual relationship between married couples has evidently been an issue that has often been discussed by the members of the Governing Body. The Watchtower of December 1, 1972, page 734, has the following question:
Recently in the news was a court decision ruling that oral copulation by adults is no longer punishable by law in a certain state. Would such practice therefore be solely a matter for individual conscience if engaged in by a Christian couple within the marriage arrangement?—U.S.A.
The answer was:
It is not the purpose of this magazine to discuss all the intimate aspects of marital relations.Nonetheless, practices like those involved in this court case have become quite common and have received considerable publicity…
Unusual sexual practices were being carried on in the apostle Paul’s day and he did not remain silent about them, as can be seen in readingRomans 1:18-27. We are therefore only following his good example in considering this question here.
In discussing sexual practices, the apostle provides us a principle that helps us to reach a right conclusion. He refers to “the natural use of the female,” which some were abandoning in favor of what is “contrary to nature,” thus satisfying “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “working what is obscene.” The apostle specifically deals with homosexual practices, condemning such. But the principle stated—that the satisfying of sexual desires can be “natural” or can be “contrary to nature”—applies just as well to the question under consideration.—See alsoLeviticus 18:22, 23…
The natural way for a married couple to have sexual relations is quite apparent from the very design given their respective organs by the Creator, and it should not be necessary to describe here how these organs complement each other in normal sexual copulation. 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?That those practicing such acts do so by mutual consent as married persons would not thereby make these acts natural or not “obscene.” Are we being ‘narrow’ or ‘extreme’ in taking such position?…
So, the application of the term “sodomy” in modern times to the mentioned forms of copulation shows that we are not unreasonable in saying they are not only “unnatural” butgrosslyso.
The members of the Governing Body call oral and anal copulation “sodomy,” and they say that “the vast majority of persons” would normally reject these actions as repugnant. However, the most important reason for condemning oral and anal copulation is the words of Paul in Romans 1:18-27. I quote verses 24-27, which deal with sexual matters:
24 Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25 even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for boththeir females changed the natural use of themselves into onecontrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.
When we carefully study the context, we see that the words in green are wrong. The words of Paul cannot rightly be applied to the manner in which married couples perform the sexual acts, i.e., they cannot be applied to oral and anal copulation. This is pointed out in The Watchtower of February 15, 1978, page 32:
Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. It must also be acknowledged that even those love expressions that are completely normal and common between husband and wife would be “unnatural” for persons of the same sex and immoral for unmarried people. Whatever guidance these apostolic statements provide as regards sex practices within marriage, therefore, is indirect and must be viewed as only of a persuasive but not a conclusive nature, that is, not the basis for setting up hard and fast standards for judgment. At the same time there is the possibility and perhaps a likelihood that some sex practices now engaged in by husband and wife were originally practiced only by homosexuals. If this should be the case, then certainly this would give these practices at least an unsavory origin. So the matter is not one to be lightly dismissed by the conscientious Christian simply because no direct reference to married persons appears in the aforementioned texts.
The last quotation shows that the biblical “proof” referred to by The Watchtower of December 1, 1972, showing that oral and anal copulation are wrong in the eyes of God, is misapplied and wrong. I am not defending oral and anal sex. My point is that because the Bible does not say anything about oral and anal sex, we have no right to say that it is right or wrong. The members of the Governing Body applied Romans 1:24-27 when they wrote this article, and they even took the issue to a higher level:
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 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. (Compare Proverbs 5:18, 19.)…
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.
The last words of the article in green show that from the year 1972, oral and anal copulation and other situations of “gross unnatural conduct” were disfellowshipping offenses.
1974-1978 THE GOVERNING BODY DECIDES THAT ORAL AND ANAL COPULATION ARE PORNEIA AND CAN DISSOLVE MARRIAGES
We have seen that from 1945 to 1972, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses gave good and balanced advice regarding the sexual relations of married couples. They did not hide that there could be sexual actions that were degrading and represent perversions. But they did not define such actions, but they entrusted that each couple would decide the way they would perform their sexual relations.
But in the year 1972, the members of the Governing Body intervened in the sexual lives of married couples by deciding that oral and anal copulation were perversions, and if couples continued to practice these actions, they would be disfellowshipped.
In the year 1974, they took the next step by defining oral and anal copulation and other lewd actions as porneia, which means that these actions are reasons for divorce.
I quote the whole article from The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, page 703:
Do lewd practices on the part of a married person toward that one’s own mate constitute a Scriptural basis for the offended mate to get a divorce?
There are times when lewd practices within the marriage arrangement would provide a basis for a Scriptural divorce. Of course, the Holy Scriptures do not encourage divorce nor do they command the innocent party to divorce a mate who engages in adultery or gross sexual perversion.
Regarding divorce, Jesus Christ stated: “Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) “Everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”—Matt. 5:32.
Thus “fornication” is set forth as the only ground for divorce. In the common Greek in which Jesus’ words are recorded, the term “fornication” is por·neiʹa, which designates all forms of immoral sexual relations, perversions and lewd practices such as might be carried on in a house of prostitution, including oral and anal copulation.
As to Jesus’ statements about divorce, they do not specify with whom the “fornication” or por·neiʹa is practiced. They leave the matter open. That por·neiʹa can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sex relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. This makes him guilty of por·neiʹa, for the related Greek verb por·neuʹo 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. For example, a wife may do what she reasonably can to prevent her husband from forcing upon her perversions such as are carried on in a brothel. Yet, due to his greater strength, he might overpower her and use her for perverted sex. So as not to be prostituted in this way at another time, a Christian wife may decide to get a divorce. She could establish with the congregation that the real reason for this is por·neiʹa and then proceed to get a legal divorce on any truthful grounds acceptable to the courts of the land.
If, on the other hand, the lewd practices were engaged in by mutual consent, neither mate would have a basis for claiming por·neiʹa as a Scriptural ground for divorce. This is so because neither party is innocent and seeking freedom from a mate guilty of por·neiʹa. Both marriage partners are guilty. Such a case, if brought to the attention of elders in the congregation, would be handled like any other serious wrongdoing.
The basic error of the members of the Governing Body is that they introduce a broad definition of the Greek word porneia that has no basis in the Bible. The word porneia had different meanings in Classical Greek. But the contexts in the Christian Greek Scriptures show that porneia has only one meaning, namely “illicit sexual intercourse.”
It has three references:
- Sexual intercourse between a married person and one to whom he or she is not married.
- Sexual intercourse between unmarried persons.
- Sexual intercourse between homosexuals.
Applying porneia to anal and oral copulation and other lewd actions has no basis in the Bible. I witnessed that this new decision by the Governing Body on lewd sex inside marriage created significant problems. Husbands were disfellowshipped because of their sexual relations with their wives, marriages were dissolved for reasons that contradicted the words of Jesus, and men, women, and children suffered.
1978-1983 ANAL AND ORAL COPULATION ARE NO LONGER LEWD ACTIONS, DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES, OR PORNEIA
In the years 1974 to 1978, the Watchtower Society received a flood of letters regarding lewd sex inside marriage. And at last, the members of the Governing Body realized that they had to do something. This was done with an article in the Watchtower of February 15, 1978, page 32. The question was:
Does the Bible set forth any specific definitions as to what is moral or immoral as regards the sexual relationship between husband and wife? Is it the responsibility of congregational elders to endeavor to exercise control among congregation members in these intimate marital matters?
The answer was directly based on the Bible and not on the human viewpoints of the members of the Governing Body:
It must be acknowledged that the Bible does not give any specific rules or limitations as regards the manner in which husband and wife engage in sexual relations.
This was the same view that was presented in The Watchtower between 1945 and 1972. But in 1972, the members of the Governing Body claimed that the Bible supported the opposite view: That there was a biblical basis for saying that oral and anal copulation was a serious sin, and that these actions were disfellowshipping offenses. The article from February 15, 1978, reversed this. We read:
Beyond these basic guidelines the Scriptures do not go and, hence, we cannot do more than counsel in harmony with what the Bible does say. In the past some comments have appeared in this magazine in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality. On this basis the conclusion was reached that those engaging in such sex practices were subject to disfellowshiping if unrepentant. The view was taken that it was within the authority of congregational elders to investigate and act in a judicial capacity regarding such practices in the conjugal relationship.
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 disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis.
Of course, if any person chooses to approach an elder for counsel he or she may do so and the elder can consider Scriptural principles with such a one, acting as a shepherd but not attempting to, in effect, “police” the marital life of the one inquiring.
We note that while the article correctly shows that the Bible does not say anything that can shed light on oral or anal copulation, and that these actions are neither porneia nor disfellowshipping offenses, that does not mean that the article supports anal and oral copulation and other sexual practices.
This should not be taken as a condoning of all the various sexual practices that people engage in, for that is by no means the case. It simply expresses a keen sense of responsibility to let the Scriptures rule and to refrain from taking a dogmatic stand where the evidence does not seem to provide sufficient basis. It also expresses confidence in the desire of Jehovah’s people as a whole to do all things as unto him and to reflect his splendid qualities in all their affairs. It expresses a willingness to leave the judgment of such intimate marital matters in the hands of Jehovah God and his Son, who have the wisdom and knowledge of all circumstances necessary to render the right decisions.
The importance of this article is that it follows the maxim that was expressed in The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589:
Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.
And it follows the way the Watchtower of September 15, 1951, answered an inquiry about different kinds of work and activity. Applied to our situation, I write
The Society has no specific recommendation to make regarding oral and anal copulation.
The Society’s silence on these matters is not to be viewed as giving consent, nor is it to be viewed as a condemnation we do not wish to openly express.
It means that we think it is the individual’s responsibility to choose, not ours.
The conclusion to this section is: From 1978 to 1983, each married couple had to decide whether oral and anal copulation was acceptable for Christians or not. If some Christians did one of these actions, this was their right because the Bible was silent. And he or she could not be disfellowshipped.
1983-2026 ANAL AND ORAL COPULATION ARE SERIOUS SINS THAT CAN LEAD TO DISFELLOWSHIPPING
No one can rightly dispute the conclusion of the article in The Watchtower of February 15, 1978, which are expressed with the following words:
In view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these [the way sexual relations are performed] are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God.
No passage in the Bible directly or indirectly throws light on whether oral or anal sex is acceptable for Christians or not. However, the members of the Governing Body were not satisfied with this conclusion, and therefore, they turned the wheel on more time, and they decided that oral and anal sex were serious sins and disfellowshipping offenses. This was expressed in the article in the Watchtower of March 15, 1983, page 30:
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. And they will do well to cultivate a hatred for everything that is unclean before Jehovah, including what are clearly perverted sexual practices. Married couples should act in a way that will leave them with a clean conscience, as they give unimpeded attention to developing “the fruitage of the spirit.”—Galatians 5:16, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:3-5.
The discussion begins with a disclaimer that the author of the article will not delve into the private affairs of the Witnesses. But this is, in reality, exactly what he does. He penetrates the intimate sphere of married couples, and he makes rules regarding their sexual relations, under the pretext that these rules are “Scriptural indications of God’s thinking.”
The author of the article speaks of “everything that is unclean before Jehovah, including what is clearly perverted sexual practices.” Then he mentions “perverted acts such as anal and oral sex.” These statements are particularly remarkable in view of the statements in The Watchtower of February 15, 1978, that the Bible does not give any advice as to how sexual relations inside marriage should be performed. The article pointed out that because the Bible is silent, Christian leaders cannot say that oral and anal sex are against God’s laws; each married couple must decide how they will perform their sexual relations.
But now, five years after the correct statements in the article, the view of the members of the Governing Body that anal and oral sex are perversions is “God’s thinking.” Please note that I am not making any judgment regarding oral and anal sex. I am just pointing to the correct information in the article of February 15, 1978, that no Christian has the right to make such a judgment. As a matter of fact, the decision the members of the Governing Body have made regarding oral and anal sex is the same as “prying into the intimate lives of married Christians.”
The members of the Governing Body have gone a step further than just stating that oral and anal sex are perversions. They also contradict the statement in The Watchtower of February 15, 1978 by classifying oral and anal sex between married couples as disfellowshipping offenses:
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. Why?
The consequences of the statements in this quotation can be serious. There are two sides of the disfellowshipping offense that is stated, either practicing anal or oral sex inside marriage, or advocating that these actions are not wrong.
Please consider the following situation:
A brother refers to The Watchtower of February 15, 1978, saying that this article shows without doubt that the previous condemnation on oral and anal sex was expressed without any authority from the Bible, and that Romans 1:26, 27 refer to lesbian and homosexual sex and not to sex inside marriage. Therefore, it is wrong when the Governing Body condemns oral and anal sex and has made it a disfellowshipping offense.
If he does not back down on his view, he will be disfellowshipped.
The previous quotation ends with a declaration that those who perform oral and anal sex can be disfellowshipped. And then comes the question, Why? The answer is:
Galatians 5:19-21lists many vices that are not classed as porneia, and which could lead to one’s being disqualified from God’s Kingdom. Among them are “uncleanness” (Greek, akatharsia, signifying filthiness, depravity, lewdness) and “loose conduct” (Greek, aselgeia, signifying licentiousness, wantonness, shameless conduct). Like porneia, these vices, when they become gross, can be grounds for disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation, but not for obtaining a Scriptural divorce. A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct. Of course, a person with that attitude might even sink to committing porneia; then there would be a basis for a Scriptural divorce. How concerned all devoted Christians should be to avoid and war against all such “works of the flesh”!—Galatians 5:24, 25.
Here, the members of the Governing Body follow a known pattern. They lead readers to a conclusion through a proxy, which here is the expression “being disqualified from God’s kingdom.” The question is why persons who perform oral or anal sex should be disfellowshipped. By using the expression “being disqualified from God’s kingdom,” which we find in Galatians 5:21, the author leads readers to believe that this expression means disfellowshipping.
But this is not possible, because “enmities, strife, and jealousy” mentioned in Galatians 5:20, are thoughts or inclinations that others cannot see, and they cannot lead to disfellowshipping. But persons who are filled with these negative thoughts and inclinations, if this continues, may lose their heavenly inheritance. This means that by being listed as one of the works of the flesh does not mean that this is a disfellowshipping offense.
So far, the question “Why should married persons who perform oral or anal sex be disfellowshipped? are not answered. But the text in blue offers an answer. Married persons who perform oral or anal sex are guilty of “loose conduct” (aselgeia). Instead of using the words “loose conduct” for aselgeia, NWT13 uses the words “brazen conduct.” In my book, My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, pages 224-237, I show that aelgeia does not refer to any actions but only to thoughts and inclinations: I render aselgeia as “unrestrained lust.”
There are two reasons why the claim of the members of the Governing Body that oral or anal sex is included in the Greek word aselgeia (NWT84 “loose conduct”) are wrong:
- Including actions — oral or anal sex — in the Greek word aselgeia, has no biblical linguistic or contextual reason.
- The Greek word aselgeia is a notion or desire and not an action. Actions, such as oral and anal sex, can therefore not be included in the word.
The conclusion to this section is that the man who wrote the article in The Watchtower of March 15. 1983, violated the maxim that is expressed in the Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589:
Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.
The author of the article has drawn the line without any biblical basis.
He has pried into the intimate lives of married Christians, and has forced the view of the members of the Governing Body regarding sexual relations on married couples. He has also shown that Christians who do not have the same view of sexual relations as the members of the Governing Body will be punished by being disfellowshipped.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING THE DIVINE GIFT OF SEX FILTHY
I start with a situation that, in some respects, is similar to the disastrous situation the members of the Governing Body have created for married couples. I quote Genesis 3:8-11:
7 Then the eyes of both of them became opened and they began to realize that they were naked. Hence they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves. 8 Later they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden about the breezy part of the day, and the man and his wife went into hiding from the face of Jehovah God in between the trees of the garden. 9 And Jehovah God kept calling to the man and saying to him: “Where are you?” 10 Finally he said: “Your voice I heard in the garden, but I was afraid because I was naked and so I hid myself.” 11 At that he said: “Who told you that you were naked? From the tree from which I commanded you not to eat have you eaten?”
After Adam and Eve sinned, the text says that they realized that they were naked. This has nothing to do with sex. But the situation was that after they sinned, their conscience struck them, and this caused them to feel uncomfortable being naked. Because of this, they sewed fig leaves together and hid among the trees from God.
Adam and Eve had lived together for a time, and they had never considered themselves naked because this was normal. But now a new negative factor had entered their minds.
Something similar happened among married Jehovah’s Witness couples in 1974. The first words of “Questions from readers” in The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, page 703 are:
Do lewd practices on the part of a married person toward that one’s own mate constitute a Scriptural basis for the offended mate to get a divorce?
The answer is:
There are times when lewd practices within the marriage arrangement would provide a basis for a Scriptural divorce.
A new negative factor was introduced into the minds of married couples, something that had never occurred to them — lewd sex. Could a side of their sexual relations, which they viewed as beautiful and clean, be lewd? And could this even lead to a termination of their marriage?
This new view dropped like a bomb, and it caused many couples to look over their shoulders, so to speak, when they had sex. Could the way they performed their sexual actions be lewd and repulsive to God?
When the Watchtower of November 15, 1974, arrived, the first of the 30 two-week courses for all elders in Norway, where I was the instructor, had just begun, and because of my close contact with all the elders during all these courses, I have firsthand knowledge of the consequences of the new view. I can confirm the text in deep red as true.
When the courses ended, my wife and I settled in Oslo, and I became presiding overseer in the Majorstua congregation.
One typical example of problems with the new view was a couple in their early thirties who had been married for five years. The wife approached the elders and accused her husband of lewd sex. She said that lewd sex is porneia, and porneia is a ground for divorce, and she wanted to divorce her husband
She did not accuse him of oral or anal sex, which were defined as lewd. But she said that the way he performed the sexual act was lewd. The husband did not agree that his actions were lewd. Another elder and I had several conversations with the couple over a period of two months, but they could not reach an agreement. Then she left her husband, and finally she got a divorce.
There can be no doubt that the new view of lewd sex inside marriage caused huge problems with much suffering for thousands of Witnesses. Husbands were disfellowshipped because of their sexual relations with their wives, and a great number of marriages were dissolved for reasons that contradicted the biblical norm for divorce. Husbands, wives, and children in great numbers were suffering!
Let us take a closer look at the situation.
PROBLEMS WITH THE DEFINITIONS
According to Matthew 5:32, the only reason for divorce is porneia. The members of the governing Body have defined different actions as porneia. But the use of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures shows that porneia has only one definition, namely, “illicit sexual intercourse,” and I repeat its three references:
- Sexual intercourse between a married person and one to whom he or she is not married.
- Sexual intercourse between unmarried persons.
- Sexual intercourse between homosexuals.[1]
The article we are discussing introduces oral and anal sex as porneia. This is an arbitrary decision without any basis in the Bible. The Watchtower of December 1, 1972, page 734, mentioned for the first time that oral and anal sex were serious sins. But it was not said that these actions were porneia.
The basic meaning of the actions of oral sex and anal sex is relatively clear. But the consciences of the Witnesses for doing what is right had now become on high alert. The Witnesses will, for example, go to great lengths to avoid taking the smallest drop of blood into their bodies. And now, when they realize “that they are naked,” they will go to great lengths to avoid lewd sex.
This means that when The Watchtower says that oral and anal sex are wrong, the Witnesses will avoid these actions. But what about border situations when the penis, for a shorter or longer time, touches or penetrates the anus, or when the mouth, for a shorter or longer time, touches a sex organ —voluntarily or involuntarily? These may be situations where their consciences strikes them. And this is the reason why many couples, based on the new rules, “look over their shoulders” when they have sex.
There is one more thing: The expression “lewd practices,” which, according to the decision of the members of the Governing Body, includes oral and anal sex but also other sexual actions, which are not defined. And, as in the example with the sister who accused her husband of lewd sex, who shall decide whether the sex was lewd ornot? Shall a sister in such a situation describe in detail the sexual acts of herself and her husband, and shall the elders decide whether they are lewd or not?
We understand that there are many situations in grey areas that can cause problems for married couples.
ALERTED CONSCIENCES AND UNPLEASANT SEXUAL RELATIONS
That couples who love each other have sexual relations to their mutual satisfaction is a gift from God. But by saying to Jehovah’s Witness couples, “you are naked,” the members of the Governing Body have dragged this beautiful gift of sexual relations through the mud by claiming that it can be filthy.
The reality is that the decision of the members of the Governing Body has destroyed the good sex lives for a great number of couples, who never have considered that their sexual relations could be lewd. Peter says that husbands should treat their wives in a gentle way as “a weaker vessel.” (1 Peter 3:7) This means that men and women have different emotional fabrics, and they generally react differently in a number of situations, including sexual relations.[2]
As I have mentioned, Witnesses will go to great lengths to avoid taking the smallest drop of blood into their bodies, and they will do the same in order to follow the instructions of the Governing Body regarding sexual relations. The women are particularly sensitive in this regard, and I have seen two kinds of reactions that have restricted, or even destroyed, their good sexual relations with their husbands.[3]
One reaction has been that the sister has become frigid. Because of the fear of doing something that is wrong in the eyes of Jehovah, she has a block in her mind against sexual relations, and she refuses, for the most part or completely, to have sex with her husband.
Another reaction is that the wife is on the alert when she and her husband have sex. She does not want to do something that is lewd, and she has problems participating in the natural foreplay and the tokens of affection that previously were a delightful part of their sexual relations. The members of the Governing Body have turned something beautiful into something filthy.
THE PRESENT SITUATION
I have shown that three and a half years after the article in The Watchtower about lewd sex, this view was retracted in “Questions from readers” in The Watchtower of February 15, 1978. This article showed correctly that the Bible does not say anything about the way sexual actions should be performed. This means that there is no biblical basis for condemning oral and anal sex, and that only the married couples themselves can decide how their sexual relations shall be performed.
The situation, where there was no focus on lewd sex, lasted five years, from 1978 to 1983. Then, The Watchtower of March 15, 1983, introduced the expression “clearly perverted sexual practices” instead of “lewd practices.” Oral and anal sex were again defined as “clearly perverted practices.” The article speaks about a Witness’s “practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations,” which “could even lead to expulsion from the congregation.” But the view that was expressed in the Watchtower of February 15, 1978, that these actions were not porneia and could lead to divorce was upheld.
The expression “lewd conduct” is still in use, as we see in Watchtower of November 2018, page 25, and “clearly perverted practices” are used with reference to oral and anal sex and other lewd actions, which are viewed as disfellowshipping offenses. This shows that The Watchtower still advocates the view that some sexual actions between married couples are filthy and are disfellowshipping actions.
The discussion above has shown that the members of the Governing Body have a very strict view of sexual relations and that they have forced their personal view on all Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The most extreme action of the view of sex on the part of the members of the Governing Body became visible in the year 2006. This year, they began to disfellowship members of the congregations because of their sexual thoughts, and not because of “lewd practices” between two persons. This will be discussed in the next article.
Figure 1.1 The Governing Body’s changing view of oral and anal sex inside marriage
|
Time |
Oral, anal sex serious sin |
Oral, anal sex is porneia |
Oral, anal sex are disfellowshipping offenses |
| 1945 — 1972 | No | No | No |
| 1972 — 1974 | Yes | No | Yes |
| 1974 — 1978 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1978 — 1983 | No | No | No |
| 1983 — 2025 | Yes | No | Yes |
| 2025 | No | No | No |
CONCLUSION
Jehovah God has created humans with a sexual drive, which should be used to create children and for the mutual pleasure of husband and wife.
The Bible does not say anything about how humans should perform their sexual relations. For 29 years, from 1945 to 1974, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses did not intervene in the intimate lives of married Christians. The advice of The Watchtower was that each couple should love each other and have sexual relations of their own choice.
However, the first interventions occurred in 1972 and 1974. The Watchtower of 1974 said that lewd practices could be done inside marriages, and particularly oral and anal sex were mentioned as such practices. Such actions could lead to the dissolution of the marriage and to disfellowshipping.
All these points were retracted by an article in The Watchtower of 1978, where it was pointed out that there was no biblical basis for condemning oral and anal sex. Neither was there a biblical basis for viewing the mentioned actions as disfellowshipping offenses.
In 1983, The Watchtower published an article that partially retracted the 1978 retraction. Oral and anal sex were again viewed as “clearly perverted actions,” but these actions were not included in the word porneia, so they could dissolve marriages. But oral and anal sex were decided to be disfellowshipping offenses.
THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED IN ARTICLES IN THE WATCHTOWER, THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE TRANSFORMED THE BEAUTIFUL GIFT OF SEXUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN MARRIED COUPLES INTO SOMETHING FILTHY.
POSTSCRIPT:
CLANDESTINE CLARIFICATION OF BELIEFS TO SAVE FACE
After I published this article, one reader contacted me, and later another one. They pointed out that under the heading “Clarified Beliefs,” the Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY had the following entry: “2025, marital intimacies: w25.01 13”[1]
The reference is to a page with five points from the article “Husbands, Honor Your Wife,” in The Watchtower of January 2025, including the following quotation of the footnote:
The Bible does not provide details as to what sexual practices between a husband and a wife should be considered clean or unclean. A Christian couple must make decisions that reflect their resolve to honor Jehovah, to please each other, and to maintain a clean conscience. Generally speaking, a couple would not discuss with others this intimate aspect of their marriage. (Taken from page 13 in The Watchtower of January 2025)
It is not easy to see how this quotation represents “clarified beliefs,” since the whole text is self-evident. But the particular information I got from one Witness showed that the text in brown is the new light. The members of the Governing Body have finally realized that the Bible does not provide any details regarding the sexual relations of married couples, which they previously claimed.
What are the consequences of this? In March 2025, the elders got the following note from the Branch Office:
Notification and Reminder
TO THE ELDERS
- The intimate relationship inside marriage. What is written in the article “Husbands, Honor Your Wife” in The Watchtower of January 2025, paragraph 17, and the footnote, is an adjustment of what is written in The Watchtower of July 15, 1983, pages 30 and 31. Because a married couple generally does not speak with others about their intimate relationship, is there no possibility for elders to meddle into such issues. However, if a couple asks the elders for help, the elders should base their answer on the principles of the Bible and what is written in The Watchtower of January 2025. (Ephesians 5:10)
The reference of the “Notification and Remainder” is:
17 Be kind and respectful. A husband who loves his wife values and cherishes her. He views her as a priceless gift from Jehovah. (Prov. 18:22; 31:10) As a result, he treats her kindly and respectfully, even during the more intimate and private aspects of marriage. He will not pressure her to engage in sexual acts that make her feel uncomfortable, that are demeaning, or that bother her conscience. He too will strive to maintain a clean conscience before Jehovah.—Acts 24:16.
In order to find what was clarified, we must look at what The Watchtower of March 15, 1983, pages 30 and 31, says:
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. And they will do well to cultivate a hatred for everything that is unclean before Jehovah, including what are clearly perverted sexual practices. Married couples should act in a way that will leave them with a clean conscience, as they give unimpeded attention to developing “the fruitage of the spirit.”—Galatians 5:16, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:3-5.
What, though, if one mate wants or even demands to share with his or her partner in what is clearly a perverted sex practice? The above-presented facts show that porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. 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. Even though a believing mate is distressed by the situation, yet that one’s endeavor to hold to Scriptural principles will result in a blessing from Jehovah. In such cases it may be helpful for the couple to discuss the problem frankly, bearing in mind especially that sexual relations should be honorable, wholesome, an expression of tender love. This certainly should exclude anything that might distress or harm one’s mate.—Ephesians 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7.
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. Why?
The words «the Scriptural indication of God’s thinking» according to The Watchtower of March 15, 1983, was that oral and anal sex were perversions and could lead to disfellowshipping. But The Watchtower of January 2025 shows that this was not God’s thinking after all, because God’s thoughts in the Bible do not tell what is clean and unclean in the sexual relations between married couples.
It is not stated directly, but because the elders no longer can view oral and anal sex[2] as perversions and unclean sex, these actions can no longer be disfellowshipping offenses. This must be the clarified belief.
THE PATTERN OF CLANDESTINE RETRACTIONS
Why do I use the word “clandestine”? The reason is that I would not have known that the view of the members of the Governing Body had changed regarding oral and anal sex if I had not received the document “Notification and Reminder.” But this document was only for the elders.
The procedure that Jehovah’s Witnesses know is that a decision made by the members of the Governing Body stands until a new decision that annuls the previous one is published. No new decision stating that we cannot say that oral and anal sex are perversions and are not disfellowshipping offenses has been published.
The self-evident words in The Watchtower of January 2025, that the Bible does not tell what is clean and unclean in the sexual relations between married couples, do not annul any of the words in The Watchtower of March 15, 1983. It is true that “2025, marital intimacies: w25.01 13” were listed as “Clarified Beliefs” in The Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY. But few Witnesses have read this entry. And even those who read it would not know what exactly was clarified.
One reason this clarified belief was not published forthrightly so all Witnesses could see it, evidently, was that members of the Governing Body should save face. A revelation of the history of the situation would not put the members of the Governing body in a favorable light:
The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, page 703, said that oral and anal sex are porneia, and can lead to dissolved marriages and disfellowshipping.
The Watchtower of February 15, 1978, page 32, said that “there is an absence of Scriptural instruction,” and therefore, we cannot say that oral and anal sex are porneia, and it cannot lead to dissolved marriages or to disfellowshipping.
The Watchtower of March 15, 1983, said that “the Scriptural indications of God’s thinking” is that oral and anal sex are unclean perversions. They cannot lead to dissolved marriages, but they can lead to disfellowshipping.
And now, in the year 2025, the members of the Governing Body have returned to what The Watchtower said in 1978: The Bible does not say anything about how sexual relations between married couples should occur. Therefore, we cannot say that oral and anal sex is forbidden by God. But instead of saying this openly, they said it covertly, and only the elders were informed of what the old view, now clarified, really was.
This is a pattern of the way the members of the Governing Body try to save face when they are in deep water.
In 1972, the members of the Governing Body decided that taking coagulation Factors VIII or IX once was allowed. But taking it more than once was forbidden. This was a serious decision for hemophiliacs, who could experience severe pain or even die without these factors. This prohibition was revoked in 1975. But this was first mentioned in The Watchtower three years later, in 1978. And it was mentioned in a covert way so as not to put the Governing Body in a bad light.[3]
In 1973, the members of the Governing Body decided that the use of Methadone by persons who had recovered from drug addiction was a disfellowshipping offense. Persons who use maintenance doses of Methadone are allowed to drive a car, and they are not intoxicated. So, the prohibition was based on a faulty medical basis.
In 2013, the prohibition had lasted 40 years, and it was now annulled, though covertly. In the elders’ file, there was a letter stating that the use of Methadone was prohibited. In 2013, the elders received a letter instructing them to discard this letter. But neither the congregation nor the elders received a letter telling them that the use of Methadone was now allowed. To this day, no information that the use of Methadone is allowed has been published by the Watchtower literature.
The 40-year ban on Methadone was a scandal because it prevented a great number of disfellowshipped Witnesses who were drug addicts from getting the help they needed to become clean. And many died because of the prohibition, because relapses are very common during and after detox, and Methadone prevents relapses. A young man whom I helped to quit his drug habit and who was clean for one year, died of an overdose. It is very likely that he would not have died if he could have used Methadone because it would have prevented him from having the sudden relapse.
[1]. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174.
[2]. We should keep in mind that oral and anal sex are not clear-cut expressions. But their meaning is open to interpretation, particularly regarding oral sex. There may also be a number of border situations. Therefore, each couple should have the right to make their decisions and not the members of the Governing Body.
[3]. See the article, The implementation of the elder arrangement was a blessing — the creation of the Governing Body has been a disaster.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2022/03/17/the-implementation-of-the-elder-arrangement-was-a-blessing-the-creation-of-the-governing-body-has-been-a-disaster/)
[1]. A detailed discussion of the meaning and references of porneia is found in my article, “The 11 disfellowshipping offenses 2: Illicit sexual intercourse (porneia)” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2024/11/23/the-11-disfellowshipping-offenses-2-illicit-sexual-intercourse/).
[2] . See the excellent discussion of this in Awake! of August 22, 1960, which is quoted at the beginning of this article.
[3]. In order not to be misunderstood, I will say that my wife and I were not negatively influenced by the new view of sexual relations from the year 1974.
