THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELDER ARRANGEMENT WAS A BLESSING — THE CREATION OF THE GOVERNING BODY HAS BEEN A DISASTER (PART II)

(1950s) 1971-2026

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST RED BLOOD CELLS, WHITE BLOOD CELLS, PLATELETS, AND BLOOD PLASMA

During World War II, blood transfusions were used for wounded soldiers. After the war, blood transfusions were used during operations in hospitals around the world. This use of blood is a violation of Acts 15:28, 29:[1]

28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”

The article “Immovable for the right of worship” in The Watchtower of July 1, 1945, page 200, discusses the custom of drinking blood to gain the strength of the slain one and blood transfusions. After this, the article says:

²⁴ The Bible sets out another reason which makes wholly improper the drinking of animal blood. -Lev. 7:25-27…

²⁷ For the same reason [that blood should only be used as a sacrifice], those who consumed the blood of creatures were held accountable to the great Lifegiver Jehovah God for the life of such creatures and came under the penalties of the everlasting covenant made with Noah.

²⁹ Seeing, then, that the Most High and Holy God gave plain instructions as to the disposition of blood, in harmony with his everlasting covenant made with Noah and all his descendants; and seeing that the only use of blood that he authorized in order to furnish life to humankind was the use of it as a propitiation or atonement for sin; and seeing that it was to be done upon his holy altar or at his mercy seat and not by taking such blood directly into the man body; therefore it behooves all worshipers of Jehovah who seek eternal life in his new world of righteousness to respect the sanctity of blood and to conform themselves to God’s righteous rulings concerning this vital matter.

The main point of the article was that taking blood into the body in any way, including blood transfusions, was a violation of God’s law about the sanctity of blood.

The Watchtower of July 1, 1951, had a detailed discussion dealing with blood transfusions, showing that blood transfusions were a violation of God’s laws. The two basic points regarding blood are:

• The word “blood” (Greek: haima) in Acts 15:29 refers to the red fluid (full blood) in the veins of humans and animals.
• Full blood (haima) must not be used for any purpose in any context.[1]

THE DEVELOPMENT LEADING TO THE PROHIBITION OF PARTICULAR BLOOD FRACTIONS

In the 1950s, blood fractionation began, and various blood components were used to replace blood loss in hospitals. This became an issue for Jehovah’s Witnesses.

After World War II, there were two schools of thought among Jehovah’s Witness leaders. One school taught that only eating blood was forbidden, while the other school taught that any use of blood was forbidden.  The school, stressing that only eating blood was forbidden, had the upper hand, but The Watchtower of November 15, 1964, showed in detail how any use of blood was also forbidden.

When I became a Witness in 1961, I was taught, on the basis of Acts 15:28, 29, that the use of blood in any form was forbidden. Therefore, it was not necessary to make statements regarding blood fractions. However, there was one exception, as we see in The Watchtower of September 15, 1958, page 575:

Are we to consider the injection of serums such as diphtheria toxin antitoxin and blood fractions such as gamma globulin into the blood stream, for the purpose of building up resistance to disease by means of antibodies, the same as the drinking of blood or the taking of blood or blood plasma by means of transfusion?—N. P., United States.

No, it does not seem necessary that we put the two in the same category, although we have done so in times past. Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden…

The injection of antibodies into the blood in a vehicle of blood serum or the use of blood fractions to create such antibodies is not the same as taking blood, either by mouth or by transfusion, as a nutrient to build up the body’s vital forces.

Gammaglobulins and serums (= vaccines; not blood serum) are not fractions of blood, but are made in the blood as a response to infections. The prohibition against blood implied that blood fractions also were forbidden. The first time this was implied in writing, as far as I know, was in The Watchtower of November 1, 1961, page 670:

The Bible is very clear that blood could properly be used only on the altar; otherwise it was to be poured out on the ground. (Lev. 17:11-13) The entire modern medical practice involving the use of blood is objectionable from the Christian standpoint. Therefore the taking of a blood transfusion, or, in lieu of that, the infusing of some blood fraction to sustain one’s life is wrong.

As to the use of vaccines and other substances that may in some way involve the use of blood in their preparation, it should not be concluded that the Watch Tower Society endorses these and says that the practice is right and proper. However, vaccination is a virtually unavoidable practice in many segments of modern society, and the Christian may find some comfort under the circumstances in the fact that this use is not in actuality a feeding or nourishing process, which was specifically forbidden when God said that man was not to eat blood, but it is a contamination of the human system.

The phrase “some blood fraction” would naturally include fractions separated from blood, such as red cells, white cells, platelets, blood plasma, and albumin.[2] (Albumin is now accepted). But these fractions were not mentioned by name.

In 1961, the booklet BLOOD, MEDICINE and the law of God was published, and on page 13, we read:

GOD’S LAW AND BLOOD TRANSFUSION

Is God’s law violated by these medical procedures that involve the use of blood? Is it wrong to sustain life by administering a transfusion of blood or plasma or red cells or others of the component parts of the blood? Yes!

When the Governing Body was created in 1971, its members held that blood, as a nutrient for sustaining life, was forbidden, and they instituted this view as a law. This was mentioned in The Watchtower of June 1, 1974, page 352:

As initially stated, out of full respect for what the Bible says about blood, we refrain from endorsing any use of it outside the body of the animal or human to whom it naturally belongs. We believe that the use of blood as a transfusion, or the use of a blood component to accomplish a similar purpose, is obviously in conflict with the Scriptural command to “abstain . . . from blood.” (Acts 15:20)

The phrase “a blood component” must include all blood components, and in The Watchtower of June 15, 1978, page 30, the principal components were named:

In our issue of June 1, 1974, we presented in this column a detailed consideration of the use of vaccines (which do not contain blood) and of serums that are made from blood…

It acknowledged that the medical profession is increasingly turning from the use of whole blood transfusions. Instead, human blood is being separated into primary components that can be ​transfused—red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. On this we said: “We believe that the use of blood as a [life-sustaining] transfusion, or the use of a blood component to accomplish a similar purpose, is obviously in conflict with the Scriptural command to ‘abstain . . . from blood.’ (Acts 15:20)

THE ABSURDITY OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST RED BLOOD CELLS, WHITE BLOOD CELLS, PLATELETS, AND BLOOD PLASMA

What is absurd is the reasons why taking blood into the body is forbidden. The Watchtower of September 15, 1958, page 575 (quoted above) shows that:

Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden

Another parallel expression is “to sustain life,” which appears in The Watchtower, November 1, 1961, page 670. Thus, the prohibition against blood, according to the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, is not based on the Bible’s prohibition against any use of blood for any purpose. But it is based on the more restricted view that the prohibition is against eating blood or using it as a nutrient to sustain life.

The booklet BLOOD, MEDICINE and the law of God applies this restricted view to the use of full blood and blood fractions:

Is it wrong to sustain life by administering a transfusion of blood or plasma or red cells or others of the component parts of the blood? Yes!

Now, I present the situation so stupid it is beyond comprehension. In 1995, a refresher course was held for members of the Hospital Liaison Committees. The reason given for why red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma were forbidden was that transfusing any of these was the same as eating blood.  But this claim is nonsensical! I quote from the manuscript of the course:

Reasoning on the basis of biblical principles and medical procedures,” points 1 and 2:

1. 1. Principle: Blood represents the life of a creature. It is wrong to eat it and by this sustain your life by the blood of life of another person, either blood from humans or from animals. “You shall not eat the blood of any kind of flesh, because the soul [the life] in all kinds of flesh is its blood. Anyone who eats it, will be cut off.” (Leviticus 17.14)
2. a) Application: It is wrong to accept a transfusion of full blood or one of the bigger blood components (like red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets or plasma). This is the same as eating blood. (w90 6.1, p. 30, 31; w89 3.1, p. 30, 31; w 78 11.1, s. 23; bq17, 18)[3]
3. b) Application: Accepting immunoglobulins, coagulation factors, albumin, and other small blood fractions with the purpose of curing sickness and not with the purpose of nourishing the body is a matter of conscience (w94 10.1, s. 31; w90 6.1, s. 30, 31; w 78 11.1, s. 23; g 82 11.8, p. 23; g 82 11.8, p. 25)
4. Principle: Blood that has been wasted must not again be returned to the body in order to nourish it. Wasted blood, as a symbol of life, must be “poured out.” It returns to the Lifgiver, Jehovah. (Leviticus 17:13; Deuteronomy 12:15, 16)
5. a) Application: Pre-operative gathering of blood, storing the blood, and later infusion of the patient’s own blood cannot be accepted. (w89 3.1, p. 30, 31; w78 11.1, p. 22; g82 11.8, p. 25)

What the manuscript says about eating and not eating is pure nonsense! Red blood cells transport oxygen and remove carbon dioxide; platelets form plugs to seal damaged blood vessels; and white blood cells fight infections in the body. None of these three blood components can be compared to eating or nourishing the body. However, albumin is a protein, and an infusion of albumin, which the Governing Body allows, can be compared to eating or nourishing the body, because albumins are digested in the body.

We also see how stupid the situation is when we compare the volumes of the components: Blood plasma, which is 82% water, constitutes 55% of the blood volume, and it is forbidden. Platelets and white cells constitute less than 1% each of the blood volume. These are forbidden, while albumin, which constitutes more than 2% of the blood volume, is allowed.

The absurdity in the decisions of the members of the Governing Body is particularly seen in connection with hemoglobin (HBOC):

At the time of the course, hemoglobin taken from human or bovine blood (HBOC) was not available for transfusion. Transfusion of hemoglobin was first used in 2001, and the members of the Governing Body approved its use.[3]

According to them, red blood cells are forbidden because an infusion of such cells is viewed as eating blood. However, hemoglobin constitutes 33% of a red blood cell (or 95% of its dry weight), and hemoglobin infusions are allowed. This means that infusing blood cells is the same as eating blood, but infusing fragments that constitutes 33% of the red blood cells is not the same as eating blood.

RED BLOOD CELLS, WHITE BLOOD CELLS, PLATELETS, AND BLOOD PLASMA ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BIBLE’S PROHIBITION AGAINST BLOOD

To illustrate the situation, I use the fact that blood contains between 79% and 83% of water. If we separated the water from the solid matter of blood, would it be a violation of the Bible’s prohibition against the use of blood to drink this water or to infuse it into our veins? Is an infusion of this water the same as eating blood?

IN CONNECTION WITH GOD’S LAWS, IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN ACTION AND MATTER (SUBSTANCE)

Please consider the following example: The Roman emperors persecuted the Christians. Consider a Christian family that had been arrested and whose loyalty to Jehovah was tested. They were taken to a place with an altar, where a fire burned. Beside the fire was a receptacle with incense, and the father got the following choice: Either put incense on the fire, which meant sacrificing to the genius of the Emperor, or he and his wife and son would be killed.

The issue in this situation was the action and not the matter (fire and incense). There was nothing wrong with the fire and the incense. The family could have a fire in their home and burn incense to create a pleasant fragrance without compromising their Christian faith. But in the situation mentioned, pouring incense on the fire (the action) would mean worshipping the Emperor rather than God.

I will apply this illustration to God’s law regarding blood. The law of Moses is no longer valid. But the Christian laws are based on the same principles as the laws of Moses. And some laws of Moses may illuminate details in Christian laws. Acts 15:29 says, for example, that Christians must “abstain” (apekhō) from blood (haima). This means that a Christian cannot use blood (haima) for any purpose in any situation. But this law does not give any details as to how Christians shall treat the blood of an animal whose flesh they want to eat. But this is found in Leviticus 17:13:

‘Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out (shāfakh) blood and cover it with earth,

The Hebrew word translated “drain out” is shāfakh with the meaning “pour out, shed, spill.” (Kohlenberger and Mounce) The Jewish disciples of Jesus were acquainted with this procedure. And they understood that if they should eat the flesh of an animal, they first had to drain its blood. This is confirmed by the words in Acts 15:29 that it was forbidden to eat the flesh of a strangled animal, because its blood was not drained and was still in its body.

But in connection with this situation, a question arises: When an animal is slaughtered, between 40% and 60% of its blood is drained, and the rest is trapped in its organs, bones, and muscles. This means that a Christian is allowed to eat between 40% and 60% of a slaughtered animal’s blood. But he is not allowed to eat the 100% of the blood of a strangled animal that is still in its body. What is the difference? To understand that, I will compare two texts, Psalm 36:9 (above) and Ecclesiastes 12:7 (below):

⁹ For with you is the source of life.

⁷ Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the [true] God who gave it.

Jehovah God is the source of life, and the force in the cells of all living creatures that causes them to live comes from God. Therefore, when a human dies, figuratively speaking, his life force returns to God. When an Israelite wanted to eat the flesh of an animal, he should do the symbolic action of draining its blood. When this blood fell to the ground, it should be covered with dust, indicating that its life went back to God.

We see a parallel between this situation and the situation with the Christian family and the Roman Emperor. The fire and incense were not important, but the symbolic act of pouring incense onto the fire was. And the blood per se was not important, because a great part of it could be eaten with the flesh after the animal was slaughtered.  But the symbolic act of draining the blood, indicating that its life returned to God, was important. When an animal was strangled, this symbolic action was not performed, and its blood within its flesh could not be eaten. When an animal was drained for blood, this symbolic act was performed, and the blood within its flesh could be eaten.

It was the symbolic action in connection with sacrificing to the Emperor’s genius that was important, not the matter of fire and incense. It is the symbolic act of draining the blood from an animal to show that its life returns to God that is important, not the matter of blood. This is evident in that we are allowed to eat the blood in the flesh after the symbolic action of draining the blood has been performed.

THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY’S WRONG EMPHASIS ON MATTER INSTEAD OF ACTION

There are two facts that are undeniable:

• The Hebrew word dam and the Greek word haima refer to the red fluid in the veins of humans and animals and to nothing else.
• Any use of dam/haima for any purpose is forbidden.

Based on these two undeniable facts, the situation should be simple and easy: Jehovah’s servants should never use the red fluid in the veins of humans and animals for transfusion or for anything else. Consciously abstaining from blood, including draining blood from animals that should be eaten, represents the symbolic action of hailing Jehovah God as the source of life, by letting the blood return to him.

The difference between action and matter can also be illustrated by the emblems at the memorial of Christ’s death. When the Memorial is celebrated, bread and wine are placed on the table, representing the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. Only anointed Christians will eat from the bread and drink from the wine. However, after the Memorial, the bread and wine no longer have any symbolic meaning, and anyone can eat the bread and drink the wine.

I again refer to my example with the water in the blood. Blood contains between 79% and 83% water. If we separated the water from the solid matter of blood, would it be a violation of the Bible’s prohibition against the use of blood to drink this water or to infuse it into our veins? I have stressed that the law dealing with blood relates to action, not to matter. If we understand that, we can, with a good conscience, drink this separated water or infuse it into our veins.

We understand that the symbolic action of draining the blood of an animal before eating its flesh, and refusing to use blood for any purpose, is a token of our acceptance that God is the source of life. This means that blood itself, with all its ingredients, is not important. It is only the matter or substance we use for our symbolic action.

Let us then go a step further and consider what would happen if we separated the blood plasma, which constitutes 55% of the blood volume. Of this plasma, between 90% and 92% is water. The rest of the plasma consists of proteins, such as albumin, globulins, and fibrinogen; minerals such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, and chloride; and nutrients such as glucose, amino acids, fatty acids, and vitamins.

The members of the Governing Body have forbidden an infusion of blood plasma. But what is ironic is that the members of the Governing Body allow the infusion of any of the substances contained in blood plasma alone. But infusing all these substances together with water, which is called blood plasma, is forbidden.

It is also ironic, as I have already discussed, that the members of the Governing Body forbid the infusion of red blood cells but allow hemoglobin, which constitutes 33% of the red blood cells.

There can be no doubt that the members of the Governing Body have misunderstood the whole situation. They put great weight on the matter, on the components of blood, and overlook the fact that the law regarding blood concerns the symbolic action supporting God as the source of life.

There is one situation created by God that illustrates how a human life can be sustained from the blood of another human, namely, the breastfeeding of a baby.

When a woman eats, her digestive system breaks down food into nutrients. These nutrients are then absorbed into the woman’s bloodstream. The milk-producing cells in the woman’s breasts filter water, proteins, fats, and sugars directly out of her passing blood supply to synthesize breast milk.

The mother’s milk is made from the mother’s blood. It contains 87% water, 7% carbohydrates, 4% fat, and 1% protein, and a great amount of white blood cells, exactly what the baby needs. This means that the mother’s milk glands take the necessary substances directly from her blood and mix them with water. When the baby sucks this milk, his life and development are supported by substances that were in the mother’s blood.

This example shows how substances from the blood of one person, the mother, are used to support the life of another person, the baby. In view of this pattern created by God, there is no reason why doctors should not take fragments from the blood of a person to support the life of another person, even to save this person’s life.

And most importantly, what is forbidden in the Bible is to use the red fluid in the veins of humans and animals (full blood) for any purpose, and not to use the water in its blood or its different components.

The Christian Magna Carta is:

Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so. (The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589)

Acts 15:29, 29 forbids any use of blood for any purpose. By making the law that infusions of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma are forbidden, the members of the Governing Body have violated the Christian Magna Carta by drawing the line where the Word of God does not draw the line.

 

[1]. A detailed analysis of biblical data regarding this issue is found in the articles:

“Disassociation 1 (I) Willingly and unrepentantly accepting blood.” https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/01/07/disassociation-1-i-willingly-and-unrepentantly-accepting-blood/

“Disassociation 1 (II) Willingly and unrepentantly accepting blood.” https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/01/08/disassociation-1-ii-willingly-and-unrepentantly-accepting-blood/

[2]. Albumin is mentioned as a blood fraction in Awake! of September 8, 1956, page 20. Today, the Governing Body allows the use of albumin. But red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma are forbidden.

[3]. Kingdom Ministry of August 2006 had a detailed table showing which blood fractions were forbidden and which fractions were allowed.  Hemoglobin was allowed. This table has now been deleted from the Kingdom Ministry of August 2006 in the Watchtower Online Library. A copy of this table is found in the article “Disassociation 1 (II) Willingly and unrepentantly accepting blood.” https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/01/08/disassociation-1-ii-willingly-and-unrepentantly-accepting-blood/

Awake! of August 2006, page 12, shows that hemoglobin is allowed for Jehovah’s Witnesses.

1972-1975

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST COAGULATION FACTORS VIII AND IX

Hemophilia is a condition in which 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 lack Factor VIII and sometimes Factor IX in the coagulation chain, and the treatment is particularly to give these persons infusions of Factor VIII or Factor IX.

When I was district overseer in Norway between 1972 and 1974, 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 between the rounds of assemblies. In 1972, I was asked to respond to a letter from a brother who was a hemophiliac, asking about the use of cryoprecipitate, which contains Factor VIII. I remember that I answered that accepting an inoculation 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 Governing Body’s view changed, and the use of Cryoprecipitate and Factor VIII was considered 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 this was later reversed. Raymond Franz provides detailed information about the reversal and explains that the Governing Body did not publish it in order to save face. I quote from 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 published, but was conveyed only to the 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, that they had no record of such phone calls, and that they had absolutely no way of determining who the 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 they had followed instructions, being loyal and obedient to their superiors in the organization. This policy change 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 was still not acknowledged that this represented a change from the previous policy regarding the multiple use of blood fractions by hemophiliacs.

The same wrong distinction between eating and using blood underlay the prohibition against Factor VIII and Factor IX. And the stupidity in the view that one infusion of one of the factors is medicine, but two infusions are the same as eating the factor, is beyond comprehension.

The situation Franz outlined is not only strange but also very bad.

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 “Disassociation 1 (II) Willingly and unrepentantly accepting blood” that there have been two different schools among the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding blood. One school held the correct view that all uses of blood were prohibited, and the other school held the view that only eating blood was forbidden. In connection with Factor VIII, the Governing Body held the wrong view that only eating blood was forbidden.[1]

Second, the view was that taking factor VIII one time was the same as taking 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 policy change in 1975, which stated that accepting both cryoprecipitate and Factors 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.

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 Factor VIII was included in the “gray area” that is mentioned.

Fifth, the original ruling could lead to bloodguilt on the part of the members of the Governing Body. Hemophilia is a serious disorder, and in some situations, a person with the disease could bleed to death without Factor VIII. In such a case, forbidding the use of this Factor more than one time would lead to bloodguilt if the person bled to death. Moreover, the failure to publish the reversal so that 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 the hereditary defect. That the leaders of the organization of true Christians should act in this way is again unbelievable. This clearly is “criminal negligence,”[2] and it would lead to bloodguilt if someone died because they did not know about the new ruling.

[1]. https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/01/08/disassociation-1-ii-willingly-and-unrepentantly-accepting-blood/

[2]. See the article «Bloodguilt because of criminal negligence” https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/01/30/bloodguilt-because-of-criminal-negligence/

1973 — 2026

DISFELLOWSHIPPING PERSONS WHO USED TOBACCO

The use of tobacco is clearly 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 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 bad. 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 men who used tobacco could not be appointed as full-time servants or as servants in the congregation, except for one exception. If there was no person available in a congregation, a man who used tobacco could be appointed as 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 tobacco use have appeared, and in The Watchtower of February 15, 1969, pages 126-129, there was an article on tobacco stating that “Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly discourage its use.” But still, people who used tobacco were not punished in any way. The magazine had a question on page 129 about Jehovah’s Witnesses’ attitude toward tobacco use. 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 its use contradicts the Bible’s principles. 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, not based on the Bible. However, tens of thousands of Witnesses were disfellowshipped because they used tobacco from 1973 onward. And this was a disaster for these Witnesses.[1]

1973 — 2013

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE USE OF METHADONE

Witnesses who become drug abusers did not plan to become abusers. Young people may, in a moment of carelessness, accept a tablet and later another, 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, and Witnesses who became abusers were disfellowshipped.

To be able to quit drug abuse is extremely difficult. But there are two resources that can help people determined to quit achieve their goal. One resource is loving family members and friends who can continuously help and support the addict, even when there are relapses. And the other resource is the chemical methadone. However, the Governing Body has prohibited both resources.

Methadone is a long-acting opioid that fills the same opioid receptors in the brain that heroin and painkillers do. But persons who use maintenance doses of methadone are not intoxicated, and in Norway, they are allowed to drive a car while using the drug. The Watchtower of June 1, 1973, page 336, says that the questions of whether methadone can be used by the Witnesses “have come up for prayerful consideration,” and the answer is No. The issue was again discussed 30 years later in The Watchtower of August 3, 2003, and the answer was that persons who had been addicts of hard drugs and now used methadone as a help to stay away from hard drugs would be viewed as still being “hooked on narcotics.”

The clause “have come up for prayerful consideration” in the Watchtower of June 1, 1973, has great implications. It shows that the members of the Governing Body believe they have the right to make decisions for individual Witnesses, even to deny them the right to use medicine prescribed by a doctor. The Watchtower of  October 1. 1972 had the maxime: “Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.” It is hardly possible to distance oneself further away from this maxim than the members of the Governing Body did when they denied Witnesses who wanted to become clean from drugs, or had become clean from drugs, the medicine methadone, as described by a doctor.

However, the article says that if a doctor prescribed methadone as a painkiller, that could be accepted because this person “could hardly be said to be seeking intoxication.” Here we see the same inconsistency as in the case of blood fractions: It is not the use of methadone that is wrong, according to the Governing Body, but the purpose of the use. It can be used as a painkiller, but not as a medicine for those who have managed to quit their abuse of hard drugs.

This also shows the lack of knowledge of the members of the Governing Body regarding the function of methadone. That the use of methadone as a painkiller is allowed because this use does not lead to intoxication implies that those who are no longer abusing hard drugs but using methadone do so to become intoxicated. But this clearly is incorrect because maintenance doses of methadone do not cause intoxication. And as mentioned, in Norway, users of methadone are allowed to drive a car.

Forty years after the prohibition against the use of methadone was introduced, the Governing Body decided that its use by those who had been abusers of hard drugs was allowed. However, there was no retraction of the old view in The Watchtower. But evidently, to save face, the change of viewpoint was introduced covertly. A letter from the Norwegian branch office to all elders’ bodies, dated February 6, 2013, stated that the 2003 letter forbidding the use of methadone should be destroyed. But no new letter with instructions regarding the use of methadone was sent to the bodies of elders. Persons who anticipated a change of view had to call the branch office to obtain information about the new decision made by the Governing Body members.[2]

What was the consequence of the prohibition against the use of methadone for 40 years, and then the new view that methadone could now be used by the Witnesses? Implying that God was behind the prohibition, the article in The Watchtower of 1973 said that the prohibition was the result of “prayerful consideration.” However, the new view of 2013 indicated that the prohibition was a human commandment, and by retracting it, the members of the Governing Body admitted that the 40-year-long prohibition was wrong. The prohibition should never have been issued!

The members of the Governing Body retracted the prohibition in a covert manner — evidently, they did not want to be publicly held accountable for the error that had caused so much harm to so many persons. But they could not eliminate their accountability and responsibility. During the 40 years of prohibition, the members of the Governing Body were clearly guilty of “criminal negligence” — they prevented a large number of people from receiving the medicine that could have saved their lives.

A great number of Witnesses who had been hooked on hard drugs wanted to stop their abuse.  But to do that without any support from family and friends and without the help of methadone is extremely difficult. A great number of those who wanted to stop their drug abuse have died of an overdose or have died from sicknesses related to their drug abuse, and in connection with many, or most of these, the Governing Body has bloodguilt because of its extreme law of prohibition. This 40-year prohibition had disastrous consequences for thousands of drug abusers and their families.

I helped a young addict in my congregation to come clean. He functioned well in the congregation. But after one year, he died from an overdose. If he had been allowed to use methadone, he probably would not have died. The account of the situation is found in the article in the footnote 2.

[1]. See the article “The use of tobacco — a disfellowshipping offense not based on the Bible.” https://mybelovedreligion.no/2020/09/25/the-use-of-tobacco/

[2]. See the article, “The 11 disfellowshipping offenses 3 (II) Drunkenness and drug intoxication”  https://mybelovedreligion.no/2023/12/30/the-governing-bodys-criminal-negligence-and-bloodguilt-introduction/

1974 — 1978

PORNEIA — INSIDE —MARRIAGE

Question from Readers in The Watchtower of December 15, 1969, pages 765, 766, discussed some sexual issues. The article quoted the phrase “the natural use of the female” in Romans 1:27 and 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 Governing Body meetings, Franz writes that on several occasions the members did not know what to discuss before the meeting began. In connection with the mentioned unusual sex practices, the members 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 copulation was a disfellowshipping offense:

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 delve 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.

Two years after this decision of the Governing Body, another decision was made. A new meaning of the word porneia (“illicit sexual intercourse”) was introduced. The decision of the Governing Body was 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 oral and anal sex between married persons 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.[1]

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. Numerous 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 strong pressure on the members of the Governing Body to reverse their decision, and they did so in 1978. The Watchtower of February 15, 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 disfellowshipping were not based on the Bible. And it is an admission that the 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 was not based on the Bible. This means that because of the extra-biblical decisions of the Governing Body, thousands, or perhaps even tens of thousands of lives were ruined, and men, women, and children were suffering.

In 1983, oral and anal sex between married couples became a disfellowshipping offense again. But it could not dissolve the marriage. In 2026, oral and anal sex between married couples was no longer a disfellowshipping offense.

[1]. See the article “The 11 disfellowshipping offenses 2: illicit sexual intercourse (porneia).” https://mybelovedreligion.no/2024/11/23/the-11-disfellowshipping-offenses-2-illicit-sexual-intercourse/

1974 — 2026

NEW LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH SECULAR WORK

I have already quoted The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, page 574, regarding secular work. But here I repeat a part of that quotation:

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 advice regarding secular work; that would require a Talmudlike set of regulations. Each person must follow their 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, this stance was reversed. 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 had sexual relations with someone to whom he was not married. From 1974 onward, the Governing Body made a full-scale attempt to decide which kinds of secular work Witnesses could engage in. 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 July 1973 showed how the congregation should deal with those who continued to use 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 situations, such as when a brother is a partner with a non-Witness regarding franchise arrangements, when contracts for producing or selling tobacco have been made, and several others. This is a contribution to the Talmud-like rules formulated by the members of the Governing Body.

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 abd tgird are problematic because the expressions “directly linked” and “accomplices or promoters” must be interpreted, and the Governing Body’s interpretation is very strict. One example given of a contemned practice is working “as a cashier in a gambling establishment.” However, the quotation of The Watchtower of 1954 above shows that there was no “condemned practice” in that year. But 22 years later, the Governing Body had defined this as a “condemned practice.”

The change in viewpoint by the members of the Governing Body shows that, while the Bible is used to a great extent, “condemned practices” are essentially defined by the Governing Body. 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 from Kingdom Ministry of September 1976, page 6, shows that in this year, 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.[1]

No work and no products are condemned in the Scriptures, so the basis of the new disfellowshipping power given to the elders has 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 principles 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 neither the Governing Body nor the elders has followed it, 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.

Franz’s comment is that the issue is not mentioned in the Bible, yet the members of the Governing Body made a decision regarding it, with harmful consequences for the brother. We note that the truck driver was not even paid by the military, and his delivery to the military base was just one of many.

Moreover, the extreme sensitivity of Governing Body members to 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 they accept a nation’s right 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 from working in a factory that produces engines for military vehicles or other items 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 interesting examples from the book on branch committees, Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence. 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.

It is quite a dramatic claim that a woman who cleans the barracks on a military base has bloodguilt and that a woman who works in the home of a military man is not bloodguilty. 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 September 1976 that if a Christian is paid by a worldly 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 phrase “As a Christian, he could not do that” means that he would be disfellowshipped if he did the kind of work 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 for work done.

Moreover, I cannot see a principal difference between emergency work on a Church building and 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 that advancement.

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 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 larger work on the building is wrong, then a smaller work is wrong as well, even in an emergency. I assume most Witnesses would not feel good about working on a church building, given what is happening in this one.

However, we may take Afghanistan 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 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.

The conclusion in connection with secular work is that the answer of the Watchtower of September 15, 1951, page 574, regarding the selling of Christmas cards and Christmas trees, is the correct one. The Bible does not discuss the secular work of Christians, and therefore, neither the Governing Body nor anyone else has the right to make rules regarding the secular work of Christians. Each Christian must apply Bible principles to his or her situation, and others have no right to criticize the decisions that are made.

CONCLUSION

According to Bible prophecies, there should be one worldwide Christian group who are the people of God in the time of the end, just as the Jewish nation was the people of God in the ancient past.

A worldwide organization must have leadership that directs its daily operations. But this leadership must obey the same laws as the individual members. This was the principle behind the Magna Carta of 1215, which established the principle that everyone, including the king, was subject to the law.

I have pointed out that the Christian Magna Carta is found in 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.

During this study, I have shown how the members of the Governing Body from the time when the Governing Body was created in 1971, have abolished the Christian Magna Carta by making binding laws that have no basis in the Bible. The following extrabiblical laws have been discussed:

1971— 2026	Red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma are forbidden.
1972 — 1975	Coagulation Factors VIII and IX are forbidden.
1973 — 2026	Tobacco is forbidden.
1973 — 2013	Methadone is forbidden.
1974 — 1978	Oral and anal sex inside marriage can dissolve marriage and are disfellowshipping offenses.
1983 — 2026	Oral and anal sex inside marriage are disfellowshipping offenses.
1973 — 2026	New strict laws regarding secular work.

According to the Christian Magna Carta, no leader has the right “to draw the line” if this is not done in the Holy Scriptures. This means that none of the laws in the table should have been instituted by the Governing Body.

From 1942 to the implementation of the elder arrangement in 1972, Jehovah’s Witnesses had full Christian Freedom. This freedom continued throughout most of the 20th century. But the members of the Governing Body have tried to curtail Christian freedom by promulgating the mentioned laws and a host of others. The result has been that the lives of tens of thousands of Witnesses have been ruined. this  is one reason why I say that the creation of the Governing Body has been a disaster. 

[1]. The book for elders, Shepherd the flock of God (2025), chapter 7, point 36, says that a Witness who has an occupation that violates Christian principles will be given 6 months to change his job. If he has not changed his job after 6 months, it is said that he has voluntarily left the congregation because he no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is disfellowshipping with the name “disassociation.”

Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.

CONCLUSION

Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.