This article is a sequel to the article, “The dictatorship of the Governing Body II — The Governing Body’s way to dictatorship.”[1] The article shows that in the days of C.T. Russel, the organization was democratic, in the days of J. F. Rutherford and N.H. Knorr, it was theocratic, and in the 21st century, the organization became dictatorial.
However, from 1971, when the Governing Body was formed, its members functioned as dictators on single issues while the organization as a whole was theocratic. This article will discuss the most important instances in which the dictatorial power of the members of the Governing Body was evident.
The elder arrangement was implemented in the year 1972. The maxim of this article is found in The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589:
It would therefore be wrong in such matters to try to extract from someone else, from a body of elders or from the governing body of the Christian congregation, some rule or regulation that ‘draws the line’ on matters. Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.
This is the true Christian viewpoint. And it was followed by the Watchtower Society and its leaders for 30 years, from the year 1942, when N.H. Knorr became the president of the Watchtower Society.
I will now show how the Governing Body blatantly has violated this Christian viewpoint.
[1]. (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/03/04/the-dictatorship-of-the-governing-body-ii-the-governing-bodys-way-to-dictatorship/)
1972-1975
A DECISION THAT CAUSED GREAT HARM AND POSSIBLE DEATHS TO HEMOPHILIACS
Hemophilia is a condition when the blood of a person does not clot normally. External wounds usually are not serious, but internal bleeding in joints, tissues, and muscles may be serious, particularly bleeding in vital organs, such as the brain. Internal bleeding can be very painful and it can also lead to death. Hemophiliacs especially lacks Factor VIII and sometimes Factor IX in the coagulations chain, and the treatment is particularly to give these persons infusions of Factor VIII or Factor IX.
When I was district overseer between 1972 and 1974, between the rounds of assemblies that we participated in, my wife and I worked at the branch office for 1 1/2 month in the winter and 3 1/2 months in the summer. In 1972, I was asked to answer a letter from a brother who was a hemophiliac who asked about the use of cryoprecipitate, which contains Factor VIII. I remember that I answered that accepting inoculations of cryoprecipitate would be a violation of the sanctity of blood. Cryoprecipitate, or Factor VIII, had not been discussed in the Watchtower literature, so my answer was based on information that the branch office had. I also remember that a few years after I wrote this letter, the view of the Governing Body changed, and the use of Cryoprecipitate and Factor VIII was viewed as a matter of conscience. I do not know whether the branch office informed the brother about the change of view.
As mentioned, I was aware of the prohibition of Cryoprecipitate and that this later was reversed. But Raymond Franz gives a more detailed information of the decisions of the Governing Body regarding the use of Factor VIII in Crisis of Conscience, pages 120, 121:
For many years inquiries sent by hemophiliacs to the headquarters organization (or its Branch Offices) received the reply that to accept such blood fraction one time could be viewed as not objectionable, as, in effect, “medication.” But to do so more than once would constitute a “feeding” on such blood fraction and therefore be considered a violation of the Scriptural injunction against eating blood.
Years later, this ruling changed. Those staff members who worked at answering correspondence knew that in the past they had sent out letters to the contrary and that hemophiliacs who had taken their “one time” injection were still under the impression that to do so again would be counted as a violation of Scripture. They could bleed to death because of holding to such a stand.
The administration was not in favor of publishing the new position in print since the old position had never been put in print but only conveyed to the particular individuals inquiring. To publish something would require first explaining what the old position had been and then explaining that it was now obsolete. This did not seem desirable. So the staff workers made a diligent search through their files to try to find the names and addresses of all those persons who had written inquiries and another letter was sent to each advising of the change.
The staff workers felt better about this. Then they realized that many of the inquiries had come in by phone and that they had no record of such phone calls and absolutely no way of determining who such inquiring hemophiliacs were. Whether, in the interim between the old ruling and the new, some had died, they did not know; whether some whom they had not been able to contact would yet die because of holding to the old ruling, they did not know. They only knew that they had followed instructions, being loyally obedient to their superiors in the organization. This change in policy was made official at the June 11, 1975, session of the Governing Body. It was not until three years later, in 1978, however, that the change was finally put into print, though rather obscurely stated and, strangely, listed in with the issue of the use of serum injections to combat disease (whereas hemophilia is not a disease but a hereditary defect), in the June 15, 1978, issue of the Watchtower. It still was not acknowledged that this represented a change in the previous policy as to multiple use of blood fractions by hemophiliacs.
The situation outlined by Franz is not only strange, but it is very bad.
| The members of the Governing Body had no biblical right to make any decision regarding the medical treatment of individuals. When they did so, they functioned as dictators. |
First, the opinion of the Governing Body was that only eating blood was against God’s will and not any use of blood. I show in the article “Disassociation 1 (II) — Willingly and unrepentantly accepting blood”(https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/01/08/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 was prohibited, and the other school held the view that only eating blood was forbidden. In connection with Factors VIII and IX the Governing Body held the wrong view.
Second, the view was that taking factor VIII or IX one time was the same as taking it as medicine and was acceptable, but taking it two times was the same as eating blood, which was forbidden. This is utter nonsense! But what is really bad is that hemophiliacs could suffer extreme pain or even die — not because of faithfulness to God’s law in the Bible — but because of the Governing Body’s idiosyncratic definition of the word “eat.” This situation was simply crazy, and that intelligent persons could make such a ruling is unbelievable.
Third, the change of policy in 1975 by saying that accepting both cryoprecipitate, Factor VIII and IX was a matter of conscience was an admission that their previous prohibition was wrong. But the members of the Governing Body did not want to publish this decision because it could destroy their credibility — even though a failure to publish it could lead to someone’s death
Fourth, as Franz wrote, the new ruling was “obscurely stated” in The Watchtower of June 15, 1978, page 31 — just see for yourself:
What, however, about accepting serum injections to fight against disease, such as are employed for diphtheria, tetanus, viral hepatitis, rabies, hemophilia and Rh incompatibility? This seems to fall into a ‘gray area.’ Some Christians believe that accepting a small amount of a blood derivative for such a purpose would not be a manifestation of disrespect for God’s law; their conscience would permit such.
Hemophilia is mentioned in the quotation, but as Franz notes, hemophilia is not a disease but a hereditary defect. So, it is not clear that Factors VIII or IX were included in the “gray area” that is mentioned.
Fifth, the original ruling could lead to bloodguilt on the part of the Governing Body. Hemophilia is a serious disorder, and in some situations, a person with the disease could bleed to death without Factor VIII or IX. In such a case, forbidding the use of these Factors more than one time would lead to bloodguilt if the person bled to death. Moreover, the failure to publish the reversal so 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,” which is defined by the Governing Body itself and it would lead to bloodguilt if someone died because they did not know about the new ruling.[1]
[1]. See the article in Awake! of October 22, 1970, page 27.
1973 — 2026
DISFELLOWSHIPPING PERSONS WHO ARE USING 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 July 1, 1942, pages 205 and 206, wrote:
The use of tobacco is extremely filthy, regardless of the form in which it is used… To be sure, the Society has no power or authority or desire to say that a person who wishes to use tobacco may not do so. Nor can it say, “You may not witness for the Kingdom.”
These words represent a true Christian viewpoint. It was pointed out that the habit was 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 the rule was that men who used tobacco could not be appointed as full-time servants or servants in the congregation, with one exception. If there was no person available in a congregation, a man who used tobacco could be appointed as a ministerial servant or congregation servant (overseer). But he had to refrain from using tobacco in public.
Over the years, several articles about the dangers of 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 regarding the attitude of Jehovah’s Witnesses toward the use of tobacco. The answer was:
The Bible does not comment directly on the view that God’s servants should have concerning the use of tobacco…Yet, from what we read in God’s Word, it is easy to see that the use of tobacco, whether one is smoking, chewing or snuffing it, is an unclean habit that goes contrary to Bible principles. So Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly discourage its use, and they view as spiritually immature any Christian who continue to use tobacco…
The quotation shows that tobacco is not mentioned in the Bible, but 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]
| The members of the Governing Body admit that tobacco is not mentioned in the Bible. When they introduced the use of tobacco as a disfellowshipping offense, they violated the principle that ”Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.” This law is an expression of dictatorship! |
[1]. See the article in Awake! of October 22, 1970, page 27.
[1]. Se the article “The use of tobacco” in the category “Gross uncleanness with greediness.”
1973 — 2013
THE PROHIBITION 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 help and support the addict, also when there are relapses. And the other source 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 methadone are not intoxicated, and in Norway, they are allowed to drive a car while using the drug. The Watchtower of June 1, 1973, 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.”
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.” This is really inconsistent because it shows that 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 does not cause intoxication. And as mentioned, in Norway, users of maintenance doses 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 the change in viewpoint was introduced covertly. A letter from the Norwegian branch office to all bodies of elders, 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 members of the Governing Body.[1]
What is 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 held 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 members of the Governing Body have bloodguilt because of their extreme law of prohibition.[2] This 40-year prohibition had disastrous consequences for thousands of drug abusers and their families.
[1]. A detailed discussion of the issue regarding the prohibition against the use of methadone is found in the article “Methadone and disfellowshipping.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2020/10/19/methadone-and-disfellowshipping/)
[2]. A discussion of drug abuse from the point of view of the Bible is found in the article “Abuse of medical and addictive drugs.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2020/10/17/abuse-of-medical-and-addictive-drugs-2/)
1974 — 1978
DISSOLVING MARRIAGES IN OPPOSITION TO THE WORDS OF JESUS
“Question from Readers” in The Watchtower of December 15, 1969, pages 765-766, addressed some sexual questions. 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 meetings of the Governing Body, Franz writes that on several occasions the members did not know what to discuss before the meeting started. In connection with the mentioned unusual sex practices, the members of the Governing Body came to a conclusion in a short time without having time to search the Bible and meditate on the issue. As a result of this decision, The Watchtower of December 1, 1972, pages 734-736, contained an article where it was stated that oral or anal copulation were disfellowshipping offenses:
We believe that, aside from those who have been indoctrinated with the view that ‘in marriage anything goes,’ the vast majority of persons would normally reject as repugnant the practice of oral copulation, as also anal copulation. If these forms of intercourse are not “contrary to nature,” then what is?…
It is not our purpose to attempt to draw a precise line as to where what is “natural” ends and what is “unnatural” begins. But we believe that, by meditating on Bible principles, a Christian should at least be able to discern what is grossly [the author’s italics] unnatural. In other areas, the Christian’s individual conscience will have to guide, and this includes questions regarding caresses and ‘love play’ prior to intercourse…
It is certainly not the responsibility of elders or any others in a Christian congregation to search into the private lives of married couples. Nevertheless, if future cases of gross unnatural conduct, such as the practice of oral or anal copulation, are brought to their attention, the elders should act to try to correct the situation before further harm results, as they would do with any other serious wrong. Their concern is, of course, to try to help those who go astray and are ‘caught in the snare of the Devil.’ (2 Tim. 2:26) But if persons willfully show disrespect for Jehovah God’s marital arrangements, then it becomes necessary to remove them from the congregation as dangerous “leaven” that could contaminate others.—1 Cor. 5:6, 11-13.
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 the mentioned actions disfellowshipping offenses, but they could also terminate the marriage. The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, page 703, says:
As to Jesus’ statements about divorce, they do not specify with whom the “fornication” or por·nei’a is practiced. They leave the matter open. That por·nei’a can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sexual relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. This makes him guilty of por·nei’a, for the related Greek verb porneu’o means “to prostitute, debauch.”
Hence, circumstances could arise that would make lewd practices of a married person toward that one’s marriage mate a Scriptural basis for divorce.[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. A great number of letters came to the Watchtower Society. On page 48 in Crisis of Conscience, Franz writes:
The Governing Body’s decision in 1972 resulted in a sizeable number of “judicial hearings” as elders followed up on reports or confessions of the sexual practices involved. Women experienced painful embarrassment in such hearings as they responded to the elders’ questions about the intimacies of their marital relations. Many marriages where one of the mates was not a Witness underwent a turbulent period, with the non-Witness mate objecting strenuously to what he or she considered an unwarranted invasion of bedroom privacy. Some marriages broke up with resulting divorce.
An unprecedented volume of mail came in over a period of five years, most of it questioning the Scriptural basis for the Governing Body members inserting themselves into the private lives of others in such a way, and expressing inability to see the validity of the arguments advanced in print to support the stand taken. (The principal portion of Scripture relied upon was Romans, chapter one, verses 24-27, dealing with homosexuality, and those writing to the Society pointed out that they could not see how it could rightly be applied to heterosexual relations between man and wife.) Other letters, often from wives, simply expressed confusion and anguish over their uncertainty as to the properness of their “sexual foreplay.”
There was strong pressure on the members of the Governing Body to reverse their decision, and they did so in 1978. The Watchtower of February 1978, page 31, wrote:
A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshipping action with such matters as the sole basis.
The most important portion of the reversal was the words “In view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction.” This is an admission that the decisions of 1972 that oral and anal copulation would lead to 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.
[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/)
[2]. The reason the year 1961 is written in parentheses is that, as far as I know, in that year, the stance that The Watchtower Society did not give any advice regarding secular work was reversed. But the full-scale reversal, when the Governing Body made rules for many kinds of secular work and threatened those who did not follow with disfellowship, was in 1974.
(1961[1]) 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 Talmud-like 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 is 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 appealed to to a great extent, “condemned practices” are essentially defined by the Governing Body or the elders. This means that persons may be disfellowshipped for actions that previously were not considered wrong. Not only the changing views of the members of the Governing Body may lead to disfellowshipping, but also the viewpoints of the elders who make up a judicial committee. The following quotation shows that in 1976, the elders were given the power over life and death:
Where a brother engages in employment that clearly violates God’s law, the congregation and its elders rightly become concerned in the matter. Where work or a product thereof is condemned in the Scriptures, or is such as to make one an accomplice or promoter in wrongdoing, the elders should first endeavor to help the person see the wrongness of his course. In such cases where the connection is definite and evident, it should be possible to make what the Bible says clear to him and enable him to see why it does indeed apply to him. It may however, take a number of discussions, perhaps over a period of some weeks, to help him see the point and give prayerful consideration to what has been brought to his attention. If it is definitely established that his employment violates Christian principles and he, nevertheless, insists on continuing in it, he may be disfellowshiped from the congregation.
No work and no products are condemned in the Scriptures, so the basis of the new disfellowshipping power given to the elders 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 it neither have been followed by the Governing Body nor by the elders, as I will show below. Raymond Franz in his book Crisis of Conscience, page 114, refers to one such example:
Consider this case that came up for discussion and decision by the Governing Body. One of Jehovah’s Witnesses, driving a truck for the Coca-Cola Company, had as his route a large military base where numerous deliveries were made. The question: Could he do this and remain a member in good standing or is this a disfellowshipping offense? (The crucial factor here being that military property and personnel were involved.)
Again, what scriptures discuss such matters—in a way that can be clearly and reasonably seen, in a way that obviates the need for involved reasonings and interpretations? None were brought forward, yet the majority of the Body decided that this work was not acceptable and that the man would have to obtain another route to remain in good standing. A similar case came up involving a Witness musician who played in a “combo” at an officers’ club on a military base. This, too, was ruled unacceptable by the majority of the Body. The Scriptures being silent, human reasoning supplied the answer.
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 deliveries.
Moreover, the Governing Body’s extreme sensitivity 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 examples from the book for branch committees Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence that are interesting. Under the subheading “Work that is not itself unscriptural but that links one with a wrong practice or makes one a promoter of it” we find the following examples:
EXAMPLE: Two women work as maids on a military base. One is employed in a home by a family, the husband of which is in the military. The other is a maid employed to clean the barracks.
Comments: The first woman concludes that she could accept such work for the family and not be in conflict with Isaiah 2:4 [which speaks of beating one’s swords into plowshares and not learning war anymore]. She reasons that, despite the location of her work and the fact that the “breadwinner” of the family is in the military, she is providing a common service for individuals in a home and is not employed by an organization in conflict with the Scriptures. (2 Ki. 5:2, 3; 5:15-19; Phil. 4:22) She continues to be a member of the congregation, though if she sought the privilege of pioneer service consideration might have to be given to how her employment is affecting others and whether she is viewed as a good example.
The other woman, by her regular work, is performing a needed service in the accomplishment of the overall objectives of an organization the purpose of which is out of harmony with Isaiah 2:4. She is paid by the military, works on military property and is doing work regularly that makes her a part of that organization and its objectives. She is in conflict with Isaiah 2:4.
Thus, the first woman who works domestically for a military man in his household on the base can retain her standing in the congregation; the second, who cleans barracks, perhaps on the same base, cannot. As the rest of the manual and as all Watch Tower publications make clear, anyone “in conflict with Isaiah 2:4” is either to be disfellowshiped or pronounced “disassociated.” The first woman might be paid by an officer, even a general, who orders the men in the barracks into combat. Her pay comes from him, true, but the money comes from his military salary. Still, her work does not make her “unclean.” The second woman who cleans barracks, because her pay comes from the military as an organization and because she is somehow viewed as contributing to the “overall objectives” of the military, is counted as bloodguilty and worthy of being cut off from the congregation.
It is quite a dramatic claim that a woman who cleans the barracks on a military base is guilty of supporting an organization that has bloodguilt, and that a woman who works in the home of a military man does not support that organization. Neither of the women has killed anyone, and they have no plans to do that. The distinction that the Governing Body has created here is artificial, and it contradicts the quotation in brown 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 maintain a military force, it is a matter of conscience for the individual Christian whether he or she will serve in the military. This accords with the words of The Watchtowers of 1951 and 1954, which state that the Watchtower Society will not recommend any kind of secular work, but that each one must make a personal decision based on his or her conscience.
I will also quote another example from Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence:
EXAMPLE: A brother owning a plumbing business receives a call to do emergency repairs on a broken water pipe in the basement of a local church. Some time later a representative of the church contacts another brother, a builder, about putting a new roof and addition on the church.
Comments: The first brother concludes that, as a human service, his conscience would permit him to care for the emergency situation, though advising the church to seek another plumber for any regular work. Likely few would be critical of his helping anyone during an emergency or view him as reprehensible.
The second brother realizes that, even though he has put roofs and additions on many homes and businesses, for him to contract to do so in the case of the church would be lending considerable support to the advancement of false worship. It would not be just an incidental contact, such as a postman’s delivering mail, or an act of humanitarian aid in a desperate situation. It would be a major undertaking that would involve lengthy work on a building used exclusively for the advancement of false worship, aiding in the perpetuation of Babylon the Great. (2 Cor. 6:14-18) As a Christian he could not do that.
The words “As a Christian he could not do that” mean that he will be disfellowshipped if he does the kind of work that is mentioned. In my view, the reasoning is flawed. The words of Kingdom Ministry of September 1976 can also be applied here. A Christian does not “support or condone” the actions of an organization that is paying him 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 with a Church building. If a bigger work on the building is wrong, then a smaller work is wrong as well, even if there is an emergency. I assume most Witnesses would not feel good about working on a church building, given what is going on in this building.
However, we may take Afganistan as an example where millions of people do not have work, and millions may starve. A Christian with a wife and children is a carpenter with no 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.
1981 — 2026
THOSE WHO RESIGN FROM JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES MUST BE SHUNNED AND TOTALLY ISOLATED
Until the year 1981, a person who wanted to leave Jehovah’s Witnesses and no longer be counted as a Witness could do that without being punished for it. However, that was now changed. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 23, said:
14 One who has been a true Christian might renounce the way of the truth, stating that he no longer considers himself to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses or wants to be known as one. When this rare event occurs, the person is renouncing his standing as a Christian, deliberately disassociating himself from the congregation. The apostle John wrote: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.”—1 John 2:19.
15 Or, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of an organization whose objective is contrary to the Bible, and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4.) So if one who was a Christian chose to join those who are disapproved of God, it would be fitting for the congregation to acknowledge by a brief announcement that he had disassociated himself and is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
16 Persons who make themselves “not of our sort” by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing.
This new policy meant that resigning from Jehovah’s Witnesses was no longer possible. A person who expressed by his word or in writing that he did not want to be a Witness no longer would, in reality, be disfellowshipped. The decision that was published in 1981 was reiterated in The Watchtower of July 15, 1985, page 30:
Did 2 John 10, which says not to receive into one’s home or to greet certain ones, refer only to those who had promoted false doctrine?
In context this counsel concerned the “many deceivers” who had gone forth, “persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” (2 John 7) The apostle John offered directions on how Christians back there should treat one who denied that Jesus had existed or that he was the Christ and Ransomer. John directed: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 10, 11) But the Bible elsewhere shows that this had a wider application…
Aid to Bible Understanding shows that the word “apostasy” comes from a Greek word that literally means “ ‘a standing away from’ but has the sense of ‘desertion, abandonment or rebellion.’” The Aid book adds: “Among the varied causes of apostasy set forth in apostolic warnings were: lack of faith (Heb. 3:12), lack of endurance in the face of persecution (Heb. 10:32-39), abandonment of right moral standards (2 Pet. 2:15-22), the heeding of the ‘counterfeit words’ of false teachers and ‘misleading inspired utterances’ (1 Tim. 4:1-3) Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the ‘antichrist.’ (1 John 2:18,19)”
A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description. By deliberately repudiating God’s congregation and by renouncing the Christian way, he would have made himself an apostate.
The quotation above shows that the view of the members of the Governing Body is that a person who wants to resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses is just as wicked as the antichrists mentioned in the first and second letters of John.
The quotation also shows how the members of the Governing Body are misusing the Bible. The quotation says: “But the Bible elsewhere shows that this [the treatment of the antichrists] had a wider application.” Such expressions are typical for the members of the Governing Body. They often say that the Bible says this or that, but there is no reference to any scripture. The reason is that the Bible says nothing about the subject. In this case, this is clear. The quotation says: “A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation [by saying that he no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses] would have matched that description [of the antichrists].” It is not the Bible that says that those resigning have matched the description of the antichrists, but the members of the Governing Body.
The members of the Governing Body often use the expression “the Bible shows,” “the Bible elsewhere shows,” and “the thoughts of God are.” But the truth is that the decisions of the Governing Body are not based on God’s thoughts or on the Bible but on the thoughts of the members of the Governing Body that they falsely ascribe to God. |
1983 — 2025
ORAL AND ANAL SEX ARE AGAIN DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES
We would think that the members of the Governing Body had learned something from all the misery they had created by their decision of porneia-inside marriage. But not at all! In 1983, five years after the reversal of 1978, the Governing Body introduced a partial reversal of the reversal, as I will show below.
The article in The Watchtower of February 15, 1978, page 31, showed that “in view of the absence of Scriptural instruction,” only the couples themselves should make decisions about marital intimacies, and neither the elders nor the Governing Body had any right to intervene. But The Watchtower of March 15, 1983, page 31, reversed this view:
How about sexual activity between married couples within the marriage bond? It is not for the elders to pry into the intimate lives of married Christians. However, the Bible certainly enters into their lives. Those who would “keep walking by spirit” should not ignore the Scriptural indications of God’s thinking.
We may compare the two quotations from 1978 and 1983. The first quotation says correctly that there is “an absence of clear scriptural instruction” regarding marital intimacies, i.e., how the sexual relations between a married couple should occur. But the second quotation speaks about “the Scriptural indication of God’s thinking” in connection with “marital intimacies.” But because the Scriptures are silent on marital intimacies, “the Scriptural indication of God’s thinking” is, in reality, “the Governing Body’s thinking of marital intimacies.”
So what is “God’s thinking” (= the thinking of the members of the Governing Body)? The article answers:
As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation.
The quoted words indicate a partial reversal of the reversal of the 1978 decision. The expression “perverted sex relations” includes oral and anal copulation and other lewd practices. The view presented here is that these actions are not the same as porneia, as it was held between 1974 and 1978. But these actions are disfellowshipping offenses. So, the Governing Body in 1983 overruled the true words in The Watchtower of 1978 that, in connection with sexual relations inside marriage, there is “absence of Scriptural direction.” The members of the Governing Body now claim that they know “God’s thinking” on this.
| 1972-1978 | The Governing Body made rules for the sexual life of married couples. Oral and anal sex are porneia and a disfellowshipping offense. The marriage can be dissolved by these actions. |
| 1978-1983 | The Governing Body’s rules for the sexual life of married couples were abolished. Oral and anal sex are not porneia and not a disfellowshipping offense. The marriage cannot be dissolved by these actions. |
| 1983-2025 | The Governing Body made again rules for the sexual life of married couples. Oral and anal sex are not porneia but disfellowshipping offenses. |
| 2025-2026 | The Governing Body’s rules for the sexual life of married couples were abolished. Oral and anal sex are not disfellowshipping offenses.[1] |
[1]. See “Postscript” in the article, “The Governing Body making the divine gift of sex filthy (II) Lewd sex inside marriage.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/02/23/the-governing-body-making-the-divine-gift-of-sex-filthy-ii-lewd-sex-inside-marriage/)
1950s – 2026
THE PROHIBITION OF 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.
In the 1950s, blood fractionation began, and different blood components were used in connection with 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.”
However, although blood fragments are not dam or haima, when different parts of blood were separated from the blood and used by doctors in the 1950s, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses included these in the Bible’s prohibition against dam and haima.
It is not possible to connect the prohibition of different fractions with particular years. But it seems there was a prohibition on any blood fragments from the year 1951.
The first example of a prohibition that I found is in the Awake! magazine of September 8, 1956, page 20:
While this physician argues for the use of certain blood fractions, particularly albumin, such also come under the Scriptural ban. In fact, these fractions are being used not only by physicians but also by food processors, and so it would be well to note the labels on such products to see if they contain any blood substances or fractions. When in doubt, it would be best to do without.
These words suggest a prohibition against any blood fraction. However, albumin is allowed today. No reason for the ban on blood fractions is given. But this is implied in The Watchtower of September 15, 1958, page 575. The question was:
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.
The answer was:
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. While God did not intend for man to contaminate his blood stream by vaccines, serums or blood fractions, doing so does not seem to be included in God’s expressed will forbidding blood as food. It would therefore be a matter of individual judgment whether one accepted such types of medication or not.
This is the first time the Watchtower literature has introduced the concept “purpose” in connection with blood components. If the purpose of the infusion of the component is to use it as a nutrient to nourish the body, then it is forbidden, but if the purpose is not to nourish the body, it is acceptable.
This interpretation is completely unacceptable. Following God’s laws cannot be based on the purpose of our actions. Gamma globulin, which is mentioned, is a mixture of blood plasma proteins. If all fractions of blood are dam and haima, infusions of gamma globulins are forbidden, regardless of the purpose of the infusion. However, I have shown that the water in the blood that is separated, or the other fractions, are not dam or haima and are not forbidden.
The booklet BLOOD, MEDICINE and the law of God was published in 1961, page 13, says:
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!
This text prohibits all blood fractions. But we note that the idea of purpose is also implied in this text by the words “sustain life.” The author of this booklet believed that the law of God prohibited using blood as a source of nutrition for sustaining life. This means that the words of the booklet did not contradict the conclusion of The Watchtower of September 1958, that gamma globulins and other blood fractions used as vaccines, and not as food, were not forbidden.
A three-day seminar for the members of the Hospital Liaison Committee was held in Arboga, Sweden, in 1990. Seven years later, there was a refresher course in Norway and other countries. In this course, again, the purpose of using blood fractions was stressed.
The manuscript that all participants received stated that infusions of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma were the same as eating blood and were forbidden. But infusions of albumin, immunoglobulins, and coagulation factors were not the same as eating blood and were allowed.
This is absurd because none of these factors are used for nutrition. Red blood cells transport oxygen and remove carbon dioxide; white blood cells treat infections, and platelets form plugs to seal damaged blood vessels. These fractions has nothing to do with nutrition!
The reason red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma are forbidden is the introduction of the concept of purpose in connection with keeping God’s laws, and an idiosyncratic, completely untenable definition of the words “eat” and “nutrient.”
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 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 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.[2]
(1989) 2000 — 2026
PROHIBITION AGAINST STORING ONE’S OWN BLOOD IN ORDER TO GET IT INFUSED LATER
The Watchtower of March 1, 1989, page 30, and the book How to Remain in God’s Love? states that storing one’s own blood for later infusion is prohibited. The issue was discussed in The Watchtower of October 15, 2000, page 31:
Occasionally, a doctor will urge a patient to deposit his own blood weeks before surgery (preoperative autologous blood donation, or PAD) so that if the need arises, he could transfuse the patient with his own stored blood. However, such collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out—returned to God, as it were. Granted, the Mosaic Law is not in force now. Nevertheless, Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the principles God included in it, and they are determined to ‘abstain from blood.’ Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’ That practice conflicts with God’s law.
Other procedures or tests involving an individual’s own blood are not so clearly in conflict with God’s stated principles. For instance, many Christians have allowed some of their blood to be withdrawn for testing or analysis, after which the sample is discarded. Other more complex procedures involving one’s blood may also be recommended.
For example, during certain surgical procedures, some blood may be diverted from the body in a process called hemodilution. The blood remaining in the patient is diluted. Later, his blood in the external circuit is directed back into him, thus bringing his blood count closer to normal. Similarly, blood that flows into a wound may be captured and filtered so that the red cells can be returned to the patient; this is called cell salvage. In a different process, blood may be directed to a machine that temporarily carries on a function normally handled by body organs (for example, the heart, lungs, or kidneys). The blood from the machine is then returned to the patient. In other procedures, blood is diverted to a separator (centrifuge) so that damaging or defective portions of it can be eliminated. Or the goal may be to isolate some of a blood component and apply that elsewhere on the body. There are also tests in which a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or to mix it with medicine, whereupon it is put back into the patient.
The details may vary, and new procedures, treatments, and tests will certainly be developed. It is not our place to analyze each variation and render a decision. A Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy. Ahead of time, he should obtain from the doctor or technician the facts about what might be done with his blood during the procedure. Then he must decide according to what his conscience permits. (italics of the author)
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF
If some of my blood will be diverted outside my body and the flow might even be interrupted for a time, will my conscience allow me to view this blood as still part of me, thus not requiring that it be ‘poured out on the ground’?
Would my Bible-trained conscience be troubled if, during a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, some of my own blood were withdrawn and directed back into (or onto) my body?
We should note that the reason given for not storing one’s own blood is different from the reason given for not taking full blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma into the body. The mentioned blood components are prohibited because taking them into the body is the same as eating them, which is forbidden, is the argument — an argument that is wrong. But the prohibition against storing one’s own blood is based on the commandment in the law of Moses that blood must be poured out on the ground, that is, the blood of a dead creature must not be used for any purpose.
However, the blood was poured out on the ground when a creature died. This was a token indicating respect for the lifegiver. When the blood was poured out, the creature’s life was symbolically returned to God. But when a person stores his own blood with an operation in view, the person is not dead, and his life should not be returned to God. Also, the blood transfused into the person’s veins is not that of another human being, but his own.
An article in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980, page 31, discussing transplantation and whether taking a transplant is the same as eating another person’s flesh, thus being a cannibal, says:
It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food.
In a similar way, it is the blood of a dead creature and not a living one that should not be stored. Because the person who is storing his blood is not dead, the prohibition against storing the blood of a dead creature cannot be used to show that storing a living creature’s own blood is wrong. There is no law in the Bible showing that the storing of one’s own blood is against God’s law. This is a decision that the dictators have made
We must therefore conclude that the decision — or rather the order — of the Governing Body that one’s own blood must not be stored has no biblical basis. So, whether to store one’s own blood is a matter of conscience; each person has the right to decide.
| Blood from dead creatures must not be stored but must be poured out on the ground. The commandment for doing this cannot be used as a prohibition against storing one’s own blood for a future operation because the commandment only relates to the blood of dead creatures, and it is a part of the law of Moses that is no longer valid. |
In order to drive home the points above, I will compare the situation of blood storage with other procedures mentioned in the Question from readers. Please consider the following examples:
- When a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or mix it with medicine, it can be stored for several minutes before it is returned to the patient.
- When blood flows into a wound, it is captured, filtered, and the red cells are returned to the patient. In the process, the red cells can be stored for half an hour, an hour, or more.
- When blood is withdrawn for testing and analysis, it can be stored for several days if sent to a laboratory specializing in specific tests. After that, it will be discarded.
- When blood is withdrawn from the patient with the purpose of returning it to the patient during an operation, the blood can be stored for one or two weeks.
In all these cases, blood is withdrawn from the patient and later returned to him or discarded. The basic difference between the four examples is the time, i.e., how long the blood is stored. It does not make sense to claim that a person’s blood that is withdrawn and stored for three days before it is processed at a laboratory is a matter of conscience, but a person’s blood that is withdrawn and stored for seven days or two weeks before it is returned to him during an operation is forbidden.
Today, there are many alternatives to blood transfusion, and it almost never happens that a Witness dies because he or she refuses a transfusion. However, there is one area where the prohibition against storing one’s own blood for an operation can have disastrous consequences.
One reason a doctor asks a Witness to store his blood for use in an operation is that the operation is large. I have been told by surgeons that if all the sick tissue is removed, the blood loss may be so severe that even all the alternatives to blood transfusion cannot save the life of the patient.
This means that a Witness who refuses blood transfusion and does not have his own blood stored often will receive inferior treatment. If there is severe bleeding, the surgeon may only remove the greater part of the sick issue but not all of it. If the sick tissue, for example, is cancerous, the tissue that is not removed may soon start to grow, and the life of the patient will be shortened. So, the lives of a great number of Witnesses have been shortened because of the Governing Body’s prohibition against storing one’s own blood.
The same is true with chemotherapy. I accompanied a woman with a brain tumor to her oncologist. He informed her that she could not receive the most potent chemotherapy regimen because it would destroy a part of her blood. “But you will receive a good alternative,” he said.
| The dictators, the members of the Governing Body, are responsible for the shortening of the lives of a great number of Jehovah’s Witnesses because of their ban on storing one’s own blood to be used in a future operation. |
We have so far discussed decisions of the Governing Body that have had a disastrous effect on the lives of the Witnesses. In what follows, I will sketch how the members of the Governing Body “have drawn the line” without any basis in the Bible in the 21st century.
During a JW Broadcasting talk on March 20, 2026, the prohibition on storing one’s own blood was repealed by the Governing Body member Gerrit Lösch. This shows that the previous decision was wrong and did not reflect a belief clarified by the Holy Spirit.
[1]. For a detailed discussion of the issue, see the article, “Disassociation 1 (I) “Willingly and unrepentantly accepting blood.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/01/07/disassociation-1-i-willingly-and-unrepentantly-accepting-blood/)
[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/);
“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/)
THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a power struggle inside the Governing Body between Lloyd Barry and Theodore Jaracz. Barry was a more balanced person, while Jaracz was a hardliner who wanted to make laws and rules for everything. In 1999, Barry suddenly died, and until his death in 2010, Jaracz was the leader of the Governing Body and had the final say on who should be appointed to it. Jaracz’s personality, as a person who sought to enact many laws, shaped the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 21st century. Under Jaracz’s leadership, the organization became increasingly militant and legalistic.[1]
THIRTY- SEVEN NEW DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES INTRODUCED
The organization’s legalistic nature is evident in the increase in disfellowshipping offenses. After Barry’s death, the number of disfellowshipping offenses doubled. In 1991, the book “Pay Attention to Yourselves and to all Your Flock” was published, and in this book, I count 20 disfellowshipping offenses. In 2019, the book “Shepherd the flock of God” was published, and in this book, I count 46 disfellowshipping offenses. And two other disfellowshipping offenses are mentioned elsewhere.
Included among the 46 disfellowshipping offenses are four situations in which a person is said to be “disassociating himself” from the organization. But “disassociating” is really a euphemism for disfellowshipping. The book Shepherd the Flock of God, published in 2010, has the same 46 disfellowshipping offenses as the book with the same name, published in 2019. This shows that the 35 new disfellowshipping offenses were added while Jaracz was the leader.
THE CRUSADE AGAINST HIGHER EDUCATION
In addition to new disfellowshipping offenses, several new rules were introduced. Barry was university-educated and had a balanced view of higher education. This is evident in an article he wrote about education in The Watchtower in 1992. Jaracz had only a basic education and held negative views of higher education and people with higher education. In 2005, on Jaracz’s watch, a campaign against higher education began and continued until 2026. This has been a disaster for tens of thousands of young brothers and sisters who have been pressured not to pursue higher education.[2]
NEW AND WRONG UNDERSTANDINGS OF BIBLICAL TEXTS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED
In the 21st century, members of the Governing Body have directed the focus on themselves, claiming that they are “the faithful and discreet slave.” They have also claimed to be wiser than previous members of the Governing Body. In The Watchtower of March 15, 2015, page 7, we read:
Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet.
Because of this, they claim that they understand things that have not been understood before, and they have presented a great number of “beliefs clarified.” During the 120 years between 1870 and 1989, 107 “beliefs clarified” were presented, according to the Online Watchtower Index. But over the 31 years from 1990 to 2020, 94 distinct “beliefs clarified” have been published. During the eight years from 2013 to 2020, the members of the Governing Body have been particularly busy, as I count 46 “beliefs clarified” in these years.
I have divided the “beliefs clarified” into three groups:
- Trivial matters: 22
- Important matters: 15
- Prophecies: 57
The Governing Body uses all these “beliefs clarified” as evidence that the holy spirit has helped them gain an understanding of truths that were not previously understood. However, in my view. Most of the important matters and prophecies are clouded instead of being clarified.
In the article “Analysis of evidence used to show that the Governing Body is the faithful and discreet slave” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/04/09/analysis-of-evidence-used-to-show-that-the-governing-body-is-the-faithful-and-discreet-slave/), I show that 15 of the so-called “beliefs clarified” simply are wrong. And most of the other “beliefs clarified” are, in reality, “clouded beliefs” by which the Witnesses are led astray.
[1]. See the article “The dictatorship of the Governing Body I — The power struggle inside the Governing Body in the 1980s and 1990s” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/03/03/the-dictatorship-of-the-governing-body-i-the-power-struggle-inside-the-governing-body-in-the-1980s-and-1990s/)
[2]. See chapter 4, “The extreme view of higher education” in my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition.
EXCURSUSA WRONG APPLICATION OF THE PROPHECY IN DANIEL 11:25, 26The following example shows that the claim by members of the present Governing Body that they are wiser than previous members is utterly false. It is obvious that because none of them understand the original languages of the Bible, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, they are not able to interpret and explain the text of the Bible for others, as they claim they can. The “beliefs clarified” in connection with Daniel 11:25, 26 show that their lack of understanding of Hebrew has caused them to make an enormous blunder. (The definition of “blunder” is: “to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness.”) Daniel 11:25, 26 says:
The Watchtower of May 2020 discusses prophecies in the book of Daniel. But sad to say, I find several errors in this article, and I will discuss one of the serious errors that is found on page 13:
Verse 11:26 speaks about “the king of the north,” which is applied to the German Empire in World War I. The quotation says that as a fulfillment of 11:26 “the German army was “swept away”— the German Empire was defeated in World war I. The problem, however, is that the Hebrew text of prophecy in 11:26 says the very opposite of what the members of the Governing Body claim that it says. The conclusion of the Governing Body that is stated in the article is based on a wrong translation of the verse. But because the members of the Governing Body do not understand Hebrew and so cannot base their interpretation on an analysis of the Hebrew text, they have made this grave error. Here is a literal translation of Daniel 11:26 above and the translation of NWT13 below:
The important differences in the translations concern the fate of the king of the north’s army. My translation shows that this army will be victorious, while NWT13 shows that this army will be defeated. Why do I say that the rendering of NWT13 is wrong? This is because the Hebrew verb shatap (“overflow”) is Qal imperfect 3rd person singular masculine. The Qal stem is active and not passive, and this is the crucial point. To translate this active verb with an English passive verb is indisputably wrong! I will illustrate this. A clause can be analyzed in two ways, either grammatically as predicate, subject, object, and adverbial, or semantically as agent (the actor) and patient (the one who is acted upon). I will apply this to the two clauses below:
In the active clause above, “defeated” is the predicate, “Napoleon” is the subject, and “the British-led coalition” is the object. The subject is the agent, and the object is that patient. In the clause below, the passive expression “was defeated” is the predicate and “Napoleon” is the subject. There is no object, but “the British-led coalition” is the adverbial. The adverbial is the agent, and the subject is the patient. We cannot translate an active clause into a passive clause because the agent and patient switch positions. In other words, the one who is acted upon is different in an active and a passive clause. In the NWT13 rendering of Daniel 11:26, the king of the north (supposed to be the German Empire) is acted upon and defeated. In my translation, the king of the north (supposed to be the German Empire) acts upon someone who is not identified and is defeating this unidentified patient. But why does the NIV and other translations have a passive rendering like NWT13 in 11:26, if such a rendering is wrong? As for the NIV, the reason for the passive rendering evidently is the belief that Daniel contains history in prophetic disguise and that a large portion of Daniel chapter 11 describes the history of the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. According to this view, 11:26 refers to the Egyptian king Ptolemy VI Philometor. His army was defeated, and a passive translation was needed to express this defeat.[3] The members of the Governing Body, who oversaw the translation of NWT13, and the translators believe that the book of Daniel contains real prophecies. So, this could not be the reason for their translation. Whether the Governing Body chose the passive rendering to fit their new interpretation of Daniel 11:26, I do not know. But in any case, their translation is erroneous. The members of the Governing Body have expanded this error by applying the king of the north in 11:26 to the German Empire in World War I. If this application is correct, this is a false prophecy because, correctly translated, verse 26 would mean that the German Empire would be the victor of World War I. The Governing Body claims that “evidence of holy spirit” is proof that the eleven members of the Governing Body are “the faithful and discreet slave.” “The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood.” All the “beliefs clarified” that are listed in the Publications Index prove this. After I have analyzed all the “beliefs clarified,” my conclusion is that almost all of them are “clouded beliefs,” beliefs that are erroneous. So, it is quite ironic that the list of “beliefs clarified” proves the very opposite of what the Governing Body claims it does. This list shows that, in many, if not most, cases, the members of the Governing Body have been led by their imperfect human reasoning rather than by the spirit of God.
A number of Bible translations use a passive English verb to translate the active Hebrew verb shatap (“overflow”). But the following eight translations use an active English verb: 26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yea, they that eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yes, they who eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yea, they that eat of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow, and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yea, those who feed from the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yes, they that feed of the portion of his provisions shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain. 26 Yes, they who eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 26 and those eating his portion of food destroy him, and his force overfloweth, and fallen have many wounded. The Commentary of the Old Testament in Ten Volumes by C.F Keil and F. Delitzsch contains translations with grammatical and syntactical comments of the text of the whole Hebrew Scriptures. Volume 9, page 453, comments on 11:26. Regarding the verb, the text refers to the commenator, and we read:
The correct meaning, according to Keil and Delitzsch is: His army shall overflow. |
THE BELIEF IN THE FULL INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
When I was preaching the good news about the Kingdom from door to door, sometimes I met someone who said he believed the whole Bible is inspired by God. I often asked the person: “Do you believe that Adam was the first human who was created about 6,000 years ago, as Luke 3:23-38 shows. When the person said no, as was the case in most situations, I concluded that he did not believe in the Bible’s full inspiration.
If you ask a member of the Governing Body if he believes in the full inspiration of the Bible, he certainly will say yes. Then I ask: “Do you believe that the Song of Solomon is a prophetic drama where the different persons foreshadow persons today? Then he will say no, and the same answer he will give to a great number of other accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures. I conclude that he does not believe in the full inspiration of the Bible because he thinks a large part of it is just “filler material” with no meaning for us. This new view of the Bible was expressed in The Watchtower of June 15, 2015.[1]
THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE GIVEN THEMSELVES DICTATORIAL POWER
Since 1971, when the Governing Body was formed, its members have had the absolute power over the doctrines. Everything that they write must be accepted as the truth that comes from God. However, in 2013, their position as those who are appointed by God as the interpreters of the Bible was stressed and enhanced, because The Watchtower of July 15, 2013, page 22, said that these eight men (today 11 men), and not all the anointed Christians, were “The faithful and discreet slave.”
However, their power base was not yet complete. The Watchtower of February 15, 2009, page 26 says:
9 Moreover, Jesus Christ has appointed the faithful and discreet slave “over all his belongings”—all Kingdom interests on earth. (Matt. 24:47) Included among these belongings are the facilities at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses, at branch offices in various lands, and at Assembly Halls and Kingdom Halls worldwide. Included too is the work of Kingdom-preaching and disciple-making. Would anyone assign someone he did not trust to keep and use his valuable things?
In 2013, the Governing Body did not yet have the power over “all kingdom interests on earth.” What was lacking were the properties and the money of all the congregations. The Kingdom Halls were owned by the congregation members, not the Governing Body, and the congregation members, not the Governing Body, had control over the congregation’s money. As I show under the heading “The new view of soliciting money” in my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, pages 145-155, it seems that the members of the Governing Body already from 2009 made plans for gradually to come in the position where they could take over the ownership of each Kingdom Hall. When this goal was reached, they also introduced a system in which all the money from each congregation, except for three months’ expenses, should be donated to the branch office.
This means that from now on, the members of the Governing Body had all power over the doctrines, the properties, and the money. It is quite ironic that now, when the members of the Governing Body had all power over “all kingdom interests on earth,” the view of the meaning of the words “over all his belongings” has changed. The belief is that this is something the anointed ones receive through their heavenly resurrection, and that the words do not refer to the Kingdom Halls or the congregations’ money.[2]
CONCLUSION
The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589, expressed the words that have been the maxim of this study:
It would therefore be wrong in such matters to try to extract from someone else, from a body of elders or from the governing body of the Christian congregation, some rule or regulation that ‘draws the line’ on matters. Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.
This is the true Christian viewpoint. Only the Bible is the authority that the people of God can rely on. And humans have no right to add laws and rules to what the Bible says. This study has shown that the members of the Governing Body have blatantly violated the words in the quotation, and in the 21st century, they have given themselves unlimited power, and they function as dictators.
[1]. See the article, “The members of the Governing Body do not believe in the full inspiration of the Bible.”
(https://mybelovedreligion.no/2023/05/20/the-members-of-the-governing-body-do-not-believe-in-the-full-inspiration-of-the-bible-2/)
[2]. See the article, «The dictatorship of the Governing Body II — The Governing Body’s way to dictatorship” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/03/04/the-dictatorship-of-the-governing-body-ii-the-governing-bodys-way-to-dictatorship/)
