THE CHRISTIAN FREEDOM HAS BEEN GRADUALLY TAKEN AWAY
Part I of this series shows that for 26 years after the end of World War II, Jehovah’s Witnesses had Christian freedom. But when the Governing Body was created in 1971, its members immediately began introducing extrabiblical laws and rules that curtailed Christian freedom. A discussion of some of these laws follows.
(1950s) 1971-2026
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST RED BLOOD CELLS, WHITE BLOOD CELLS, PLATELETS, AND 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 HEBREW WORD DAM AND THE GREEK WORD HAIMA REFERS TO THE RED FLUID IN THE VEINS OF HUMANS AND ANIMALS
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. In the 1950s, blood fractionation began, and different blood components were used to address blood loss in hospitals.
What is forbidden by God’s law is expressed by the Hebrew word dam and the Greek word haima, and both words refer to the red fluid in the veins of humans and animals.
Blood contains between 78% and 90% of water. If this water is separated from the rest of the blood, it is not included in the words dam and haima. The same is true for all other blood components, such as red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma, that can be separated from blood. They are not included in the Bible’s prohibition against “blood.”
| FULL BLOOD IS FORBIDDEN TO USE FOR ANY PURPOSE. BLOOD FRACTIONS, SUCH AS RED CELLS, WHITE CELLS, PLATELETS, OR PLASMA, ARE NOT FORBIDDEN TO USE. |
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST BLOOD FRACTIONS IN LIEU OF EATING BLOOD
After World War II, there were two schools of thought among the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The school, stressing that eating blood was forbidden, had the upper hand, but The Watchtower of November 15, 1964, showed in detail how any use of blood was 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 specify 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.
Gamma globulins 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 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 include fractions separated from blood, such as red cells, white cells, platelets, blood plasma, and albumin[1] (which 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 D 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!
THE PURPOSEThe quotations above show that it is not the use of blood that is behind its prohibition but the the purpose of the use. It is blood, used as a nutrient to sustain life, that is forbidden. |
THE GOVERNING BODY’S PROHIBITION AGAINST BLOOD FRACTIONS
Since World War II, the prohibition on blood has been interpreted to include blood fractions as well. But none of the different fractions were early named.
When the Governing Body was created in 1971, its members held that blood, as a form of nutrition for sustaining life, was forbidden, and they instituted this view as law. The first time this was mentioned in print, as far as I know, was 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) (brackets in the original)
As we see from the words a [life-sustaining] transfusion in the last quotation
THE TOKEN WHICH INDICATES RESPECT FOR GOD AS THE SOURCE OF LIFE
As we see from the words a [life-sustaining] transfusion in the last quotation, the Governing Body’s prohibition against red cells, white cells, platelets, and blood plasma is based on the view that the biblical prohibition is against the use of a blood fraction as a nutrient to save life.
I was a member of the Hospital Liaison Committee in Oslo for 20 years, from 1990. While I accepted the Bible’s prohibition against any use of blood and actively helped other Witnesses to have bloodless treatment, from the beginning, I objected to the view that it was the purpose of the use of blood that counted. We cannot risk our lives on the definition of the words “eat,” nutrition,” and “purpose,” was my argument.
The real issue can be illustrated this way: 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 materials (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, burning incense on the fire (the act) would mean worshipping the Emperor rather than God.
In a similar way, the issue regarding the violation of God’s law against the use of blood is the action, not the materials. That Christians are allowed to eat meat illustrates this because meat contains much blood. We show our respect for God as the life-giver because the animal is bled. However, after being bled, a great part of its blood is still inside the meat. And Christians eat this blood together with the meat without violating God’s law.
What is important is not the materials, all the blood that remains in the meat. It is the action, or we may say “the token,” of bleeding the animal which shows our respect for God as life-giver.
| As a matter of fact, Christians are allowed to eat amounts of blood without violating the holiness of blood. But the token of respecting God as the giver of life is to bleed the animal, and by this, draining a part of its blood. |
Please consider the points above carefully, so you do not misunderstand them. The law of Moses is no longer valid, but it illustrates the issue. The prohibition in Leviticus 17:10 is against eating kol dām (“any blood”). The Hebrew words include the idea of any kind of blood (animal or human) and any quantity of blood (small or great). The principle behind this law of Moses is the same as the principle behind the law in Acts 15:28, “with you is the source of life.” (Psalm 36:9)
This means that the use of any kind of blood (dām, the red fluid in the veins of humans and animals) or any quantity of blood, small or great, is forbidden for Christians. Eating the blood that remains in the meat after the animal is bled is not a violation of this. And this shows that the law relates to a token, to the action indicating respect for Jehovah God as the source of life, and not to the material blood per se.
THE STUPIDITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY’S VIEW OF BLOOD FRACTIONS
In the first part of this study, I quoted The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, page 574, to answer the question of whether a Witness could sell Christmas cards and trees. The answer was that there was no right or wrong answer to this question. But each one had to follow his or her conscience. Then we read:
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.
For two decades, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses followed this procedure and refrained from giving advice on matters not mentioned in the Bible. In the same year that the elder arrangement was implemented, The Watchtower published an article with advice along the same lines as the 1951 article. I quote The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589:
11 It would therefore be wrong in such matters to try to extract from someone else, from a body of elders or from the governing body of the Christian congregation, some rule or regulation that ‘draws the line’ on matters. Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.
NO TALMUDLIKE SET OF REGULATIONS.WHERE GOD’S WORD DOES NOT ITSELF ‘DRAW THE LINE,’ NO HUMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO ADD TO THAT WORD BY DOING SO. |
This was excellent biblical advice for individual Witnesses. But the members of the Governing Body now pulled out all the stops, and they were at full speed toward the very opposite of the biblical advice, of making a Talmudlike set of regulations.
It is undeniable that the Bible forbids any use of blood, and that “blood” (Hebrew: dām and Greek: haima) refers solely to the red fluid in the veins of humans and animals.[2]
Why didn’t the members of the Governing Body leave it at that? We do not know the answer. But what we know is that the members of the Governing Body gradually developed a system for handling blood components that was stupid and harmful to individual Witnesses.
The basic tenet of the Talmudlike regulations dealing with blood components was the difference between eating blood, which was forbidden, and using blood, which was not forbidden. This difference was made up by the members of the Governing Body and has no basis in the Bible.
The stupidity of this differentiation was clearly evident at the 1997 refresher course for members of the Hospital Liaison Committees. The manuscript of this course, which I still have in my library, says that an infusion of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma is the same as eating blood and nourishing the body. But an infusion of immunoglobulins, coagulation factors, albumin, and other small fractions is “not with the purpose of nourishing the body.
This 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. Neither 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 albumin is digested in the Body.
We see another example of stupidity 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 that 1% each of the blood volume. These are forbidden, while albumin, which constitutes more than 2% of the blood volume, is allowed. Red blood cells constitute 40-45% og the blood volume, and they are forbidden. However, hemoglobin, which constitutes 95% of the weight of red blood cells, is allowed![3]
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE GOVERNING BODY’S VIEW OF BLOOD FRACTIONS
What has been the consequence for Jehovah’s Witnesses of the prohibition of full blood, as well as red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma? On the Internet, there are articles claiming that tens of thousands have died because blood transfusions have been banned. The basis of these claims can be questioned. I was a member of the Hospital Liaison Committee in Oslo, Norway, between 1990 and 2010. We monitored the situation for the whole country carefully, and during this time, there were two Witnesses in Norway who died, but who probably would have survived if they had received blood. In one of these cases, the Witness died because of a lack of platelets.
But what about the supposed thousands who have died because of a lack of blood? There are situations of people with leukemia and other illnesses who are terminally ill, but whose lives could have been prolonged for a short time with blood transfusions. These people can possibly be counted in hundreds or even thousands over a number of years. But if we count people who have experienced a sudden loss of full blood, and who have died because they have refused blood transfusions, the number is very low — two people in Norway between 1990 and 2010.
But what can we say about the prohibition of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma? As mentioned, one who died in Norway died from a lack of platelets. But deaths because of refusal to take one of the four mentioned factors are extremely rare.
However, thousands of Witnesses have received inferior treatment in connection with big operations and chemotherapy because they have refused to store their own blood and use red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma. As a result, their lives have been shortened.
The members of the Governing Body do not bear any responsibility for any negative outcomes of refusing transfusion of whole blood (dam or haima), as this is the law of God.
But they are responsible for the negative results and the shortening of the lives of thousands of Witnesses because they have banned red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma, because this ban is not based on the Bible.
[1]. Albumin is mentioned as a blood fraction in Awake! of September 8, 1956, page 20. Today, the Governing body allows the use of albumin. The other four fractions are forbidden.
[2]. See the article, The Governing Body’s view of blood contradicts the Bible (I)” https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/03/20/the-governing-bodys-view-of-blood-contradicts-the-bible/
[3]. See the article, «The Governing Body’s view of blood contradicts the Bible (II) Blood components.” https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/03/24/the-governing-bodys-view-of-blood-contradicts-the-bible-ii-blood-components/
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 his work supported the armed forces or political organizations. 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. |
| 1983 — 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 1945 to the creation of the Governing Body in 1971, 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 the Christian freedom by making the mentioned laws and a host of other laws. The result has been that the lives of tens of thousands of Witnesses have been ruined, and 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.
