By Watchtower's own rules, the Governing Body MUST GO!

By its own rules, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses should be sitting in front of a committee of elders right now — what used to be called a judicial committee. That will never happen inside the organization, so this article holds that hearing anyway, using nothing but the Governing Body's own secret rule book for elders, Shepherd the Flock of God. Not because any law of any country requires it, but because the rules Watchtower wrote for everyone else say it must happen.

The 2025 edition of that manual, issued under the Governing Body's direction and used by every body of elders on earth to decide who stays in a congregation and who gets removed, requires the Governing Body to be tried. And if they don't repent, they need to be removed from the congregation — what used to be called disfellowshipping. What follows walks through their own process, step by step, with one change: this time, the men sitting on the other side of those rules are the ones on trial.

The Rules, in Their Own Words

The elders' manual only allows two outcomes for a judicial matter: repentance or removal. And even if the accused repents, the manual still requires the loss of any position as an elder — which, if applied consistently, would mean the loss of a Governing Body seat too.

Since 2024, a judicial committee has been called a "committee of elders," and disfellowshipping has been renamed "removal from the congregation." The labels changed; the underlying machinery didn't. In my judgment, the relabeling exists for legal protection, not doctrine.

The elders' manual does apply, on paper, to the Governing Body. The Watchtower of May 1, 2006, describes the Governing Body as "the small group of anointed elders who represent the slave class." By their own description, they are elders — and elders can be brought before a committee under the organization's own rules.

The Girl the Old Rule Was Written For

Before going through the process, it's worth remembering who this is really about. Len Martinez was 12 years old in 1993, in a hospital in Fresno, California, dying of leukemia. Her doctors wanted to give her a blood transfusion to try to extend her life. She refused, because she had been taught that God forbade it — a rule created by Jehovah's Witness leadership. Awake! told her story in 1994.

Len needed two components of blood: red cells and platelets. Both were forbidden to her at the time, supposedly by God's law. On September 18, 2026, the Governing Body declared all four major blood components — red cells, white cells, plasma, and platelets — a personal decision. Len didn't live to see that reversal. Keep her in mind through the rest of this.

Establishing That Wrongdoing Occurred

Chapter 6 of Shepherd the Flock of God, "Determining Whether a Committee of Elders Should Be Formed," lays out the starting point:

Elders should act promptly when they receive a report of serious wrongdoing. If the wrongdoing is established, the body of elders should assess whether a committee of elders should be formed to handle the matter and assist the individual.

Wrongdoing is established one of two ways: two or three eyewitnesses, or a confession.

A confession of wrongdoing may be accepted as sufficient evidence.

The confession can be written or oral — and here there are both. Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson used the same language in Governing Body Update #6 that appears in the written update itself.

Here is the rule the Governing Body enforced before the change. The Watchtower of June 15, 2004, repeating language from June 2000, stated:

Jehovah's Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God's law.

That was the teaching: abstain from red cells, white cells, plasma, and platelets, or violate God's law. The penalty for refusing to comply is also in the elders' manual — Chapter 7, paragraph 35, under "Willingly and Unrepentantly Accepting Blood," which states that a person who doesn't repent has disassociated themselves, meaning the same shunning that comes with removal from the congregation. That paragraph has now been formally revoked by a letter to elders that went out the same day as Update #6.

Here is what Jackson said in that update:

Now, does this mean that the governing body views lightly the matter of treatments involving one or more of the primary blood components? No, not at all. The governing body continues to regard this as a very serious matter. However, since the scriptures don't comment on the various products that may be derived from blood, we recognize that in harmony with 1 Corinthians 4:6, we're not authorized to go beyond the things that are written. We also recognize the importance of what is stated at 2 Corinthians 1:24: Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy. For it is by your faith that you are standing.

He admits the previous rule was never theirs to make. They made it anyway, called it God's law, and attached the most severe penalty available to breaking it. By the manual's own standard, that is a confession — written down, spoken publicly, and delivered directly by the people this hearing concerns.

Six Questions for Wrongdoing Years in the Past

Because this wrongdoing happened over decades, the manual directs elders to paragraph 14, which lists six questions to weigh for offenses that occurred long ago.

1. Are their works befitting repentance? Hold this one — it matters most later.

2. Does the individual show evidence of spiritual progress, or is his progress being hindered? Some credit is due: the rule did change, and on paper that's progress. What counts against it is that the Governing Body never admits it got the doctrine wrong. Instead it says "the light got brighter," framing the process as Jehovah's doing rather than their own error.

3. Will counsel be sufficient to restore him, or will more be required for a clean conscience? Counsel from whom? Watchtower has no checks and balances — every elder who might sit on a committee answers to the Governing Body. Update #6 does raise the word "conscience," warning that taking the matter lightly could harm a Christian's conscience. It never raises the question of their own.

4. Did he voluntarily confess, or did the matter come to light by other means? The blood doctrine change dropped while Watchtower was in court in Japan over this very issue, particularly regarding children. The Japanese branch and a group of Witness parents are suing the government over child-protection guidelines that classify refusing a blood transfusion for a child as neglect. Separately, five Witnesses have a case against the Okinawa prefecture over hospitals requiring signed transfusion-consent forms. This confession looks like it came out of legal necessity, not conscience — and Japan has already ordered the Unification Church dissolved for arguably lesser wrongs, such as predatory donation policies.

5. How widely known is the matter? If a committee isn't formed, will the body of elders still have the congregation's respect? Nearly every Witness on earth will know about this change once Update #6 plays in Kingdom Halls in early October. On a private forum for Witnesses only — JW Talk — baptized publishers, not apostates or ex-Witnesses, are already questioning why the Governing Body hasn't apologized or owned its mistake. It is causing some to doubt their leadership.

6. To what degree have lives been affected or damaged by the wrongdoing? This is where Len Martinez returns, in Watchtower's own words. Awake!, May 22, 1994, in a series on young people who put God first, reported that Len was at Valley Children's Hospital in Fresno. Doctors wanted to give her packed red blood cells and platelets — two of the four components the Governing Body made optional on September 18, 2026. The magazine said she had been taught that God forbids it, and quoted her directly:

I would rather accept death if necessary than to break my promise to Jehovah God to do his will.

And then:

After a long, difficult night, at 6:30 a.m., September 22nd, 1993, Len fell asleep in death in the arms of her mother.

The rule that governed that night is now, by the Governing Body's own admission, a rule they were never authorized to make. Watchtower never released an official count of how many others were affected. One outside estimate, from awr.org, puts the toll above 33,000 deaths, not counting people harmed without dying. The manual doesn't ask for a number — it asks to what degree lives were affected. Watchtower's own magazine already answered that question.

With a written and spoken confession, a matter known to every Witness, and documented harm to lives, the manual's own threshold for forming a committee is met.

The Charge: Manslaughter by Their Own Definition

Appendix A of the elders' manual, "Matters Requiring the Formation of a Committee," opens with this caveat:

This appendix lists wrongdoing that may be serious enough to form a committee of elders. However, there may be other matters that would require the formation of a committee.

The list isn't exhaustive, but paragraph 37 covers what's needed here:

Manslaughter includes deliberate murder. It may also include causing loss of life through carelessness or because of violating Caesar's safety or traffic laws. The body of elders should investigate the matter and determine whether to form a committee. The body's decision should be based on clearly established facts, not simply on the decision of the secular authorities.

That paragraph cites Deuteronomy 22:8, which requires homeowners to build a railing around a flat roof to prevent accidental falls, so as to avoid blood guilt if someone fell and died. The homeowner doesn't need to have intended anyone's death — failing to take a reasonable precaution is enough. By the manual's own definition, intent isn't required for manslaughter; carelessness with other people's lives is.

Here is how the Governing Body itself, in the same September 18 update, defines respect for life:

This means that Christians don't eat unbled meat. But this command is more than a dietary restriction. It's an opportunity for each of God's servants to reflect Jehovah's view of life. Obedience to this command includes avoiding the consumption of blood. And since the underlying principle is respect for life, it also includes avoiding blood guilt caused by murder or by careless or reckless conduct that could result in the loss of life. In all of those areas, Jehovah's Witnesses have shown a determination to reflect Jehovah's view that life and blood are sacred. With regard to blood, Jehovah's Witnesses have understood Acts 15 to mean they should not consume whole blood either by mouth or by transfusion and that they should not donate blood. This position has protected Jehovah's people spiritually and physically. We've also applied this principle to the four main components of blood.

So: a rule about life and death, which they admit scripture never addressed and they were never authorized to create, enforced through the threat of losing family and friends to shunning, followed by harm their own magazine documented. Under the manual's definition of manslaughter, and under the Governing Body's own stated definition of respect for life, that is the offense this committee is built around.

The Defenses That Don't Hold Up

In fairness, the accused gets to answer. Since the Governing Body won't issue a formal statement, here are the strongest arguments they could plausibly make.

"It was her choice." Nobody forced Len to refuse blood; the hospital treated her as a mature 12-year-old and didn't pursue a court order. But choice under threat isn't free choice, and the manual confirms it. The same September 18 letter that replaced paragraph 35 instructs elders, when a Witness does take blood, to ask: was he pressured by others? Was he weakened by illness or strong medication? Len was 12, in pain, and by her own account vomiting blood, with pressure coming directly from her religion's rules. Nobody asked those questions about her. The magazine called it faithfulness. Under their own framework, pressure only counts when it pushes someone away from the rule — never toward it.

"No one can prove a transfusion would have saved her." Watchtower's own website makes this argument directly: "No one can say for certain that a patient will die because of refusing blood." That might be a fair point when weighing a single case for a verdict. But the question at this stage isn't a verdict — it's whether a committee should be formed at all, and the manual's own question is simply "to what degree have lives been affected or damaged." Their own magazine already answered that by holding up Len's death as an example of faithfulness.

Neither defense survives contact with the manual's own standards. A committee should be formed.

A Second Charge: Child Neglect

Appendix A, paragraph 11, under "Child Abuse," reads:

Child abuse may include neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or emotional abuse of a minor.

Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, in its December 2022 child-protection guidelines — the guidelines Watchtower is now suing over — classifies refusing a necessary transfusion for a child on religious grounds as neglect. The manual's neglect provision is written about parents, and it was parents who signed the hospital forms refusing transfusions for their children. But those parents were following direction under threat of consequences if they didn't make what Watchtower, at the time, said was the only acceptable choice. The manual has no category for the people who issued that direction — which is precisely the gap this hearing exists to fill.

Is There Any Repentance?

Chapter 7, "Leading Individuals to Repentance," tells a committee how to approach this question:

Remember that all of us are imperfect. This can help you to be understanding, empathetic, patient, and merciful. However, do not minimize serious wrongdoing.

And it defines what repentance requires:

Repentance involves a deep regret over a damaged relationship with Jehovah and the reproach brought upon his name and people. It includes a rejection of the bad course and a longing to come back into Jehovah's favor.

Deep regret and rejection of the bad course. Measured against that, Update #6 falls short. It repeats that the old rule "has protected Jehovah's people spiritually and physically," without ever explaining how, or why it needed changing if it was protecting anyone. The words sorry, apologize, regret, mistake, error, and forgive appear nowhere in it, spoken or written. Neither do died or death. The only harm acknowledged is that taking the matter lightly could harm "a Christian's conscience and his precious relationship with Jehovah" — never the deaths their own magazine documented. The update closes with "we love you very much." Whole blood, and donating whole blood for transfusion, remain banned. Having admitted they had no scriptural authority for the old rule or the new one, they still haven't fully abandoned the underlying course.

About a week after the policy change, a Governing Body member gave a morning worship talk instructing the rank and file on how to respond:

But it also became very clear that the system didn't end and they weren't taken to heaven. They woke up the next day. So Jehovah adjusted their expectations by not doing what they expected. That then caused them to go back to the scriptures. They realized they needed to preach with more earnestness. And what do we see today? Some 9 million people right now serving around the globe. Lessons: Jehovah may clarify a matter by not doing something that was expected. And we don't get frustrated. Whether it's a new understanding or an adjusted understanding, it's all good. The light is getting brighter. The fact is if there were never an adjustment then we should be worried. That means the light wouldn't be getting brighter. So if anyone ever asks or says, "Well, you know, you folks made another change," smile and agree. It's a reminder that Jehovah is making the path brighter for his people. It's all good.

"Do not minimize serious wrongdoing," the manual says. "Smile and agree," the Governing Body member says. He makes no exception for the blood policy, no matter how much harm it caused.

Watchtower's own Awake! of May 8, 1992, addressed how to handle a minister who sins, criticizing churches that reassigned offending priests from parish to parish:

A Christian minister who practices serious sin and fails to provide evidence of repentance should be expelled from the congregation.

Also worth noting: jw.org currently carries a page addressing "myths" about the blood position. One entry frames it this way:

Myth: Many Witnesses, including children, die each year as a result of refusing blood transfusions. Fact: This statement is totally unfounded.

Even now, with the doctrine largely reversed, there is no acknowledgment of the harm it caused.

The Nine Questions They Erased

Up through the 2024 edition, the elders' manual gave committees a list of indications of repentance. It appears in every English edition from 2015 through 2024. It is gone from the 2025 edition. Here is what the 2024 manual asked, measured against the Governing Body's actual conduct.

Was his confession voluntary or did he have to be accused by others? Some offenders are so deeply ashamed or have such difficulty expressing themselves that they are reluctant to speak.

The confession followed active litigation in Japan — its voluntariness is doubtful.

Is the individual truthful? When questioned, are his answers forthright? Is he cooperative with the judicial committee? The judicial committee should be especially cautious if the individual has shown himself to be guilty of hypocrisy, lying, or deliberate efforts to deceive.

No. The update talks around an almost complete reversal rather than stating it plainly.

Has he prayed to Jehovah and asked for forgiveness? Keep in mind that some wrongdoers, though repentant, find it difficult to pray.

There is no indication of any request for forgiveness, from Jehovah or from those harmed.

What has he done to repair his relationship with Jehovah and with others he has hurt by his actions? Has he made amends, expressed willingness to do so, or apologize to those damaged by his sinful course? Has he asked for the forgiveness of those he has wronged?

No accountability has been offered to anyone harmed by the old rule, no restitution paid or promised, and no forgiveness requested.

(Question five deals specifically with adultery and doesn't apply here.)

Does he manifest a spirit of heartfelt regret over having damaged his relationship with Jehovah?

No indication of regret has been expressed.

Does he demonstrate godly sadness or worldly sadness? Is his sadness primarily because of hurting Jehovah and bringing him into reproach or because of the disappointment he has caused to family and friends and the shame he has experienced? Individuals vary in their emotional makeup and control. Tears do not necessarily indicate sincere repentance. Neither does a lack of strong emotion show a lack of repentance.

There is no sadness of either kind on display — and again, would the change have happened at all without the Japan litigation?

Does he accept responsibility for his error or does he rather minimize or justify his bad course?

No — and the morning worship talk quoted above supplies the justification: "the light got brighter."

Does he recognize that lesser sins may have led up to serious wrongdoing? And is he determined to avoid these?

The "lesser sins," in my judgment, are the pattern of man-made rules imposed on Jehovah's Witnesses under threat of shunning without room to question them — the same pattern that produced the blood doctrine in the first place. The Governing Body has never acknowledged that pattern as the cause.

A Governing Body member made the organization's position explicit:

Well, we have the privilege to live during the last days where true knowledge was foretold to become abundant. But even still, it is released and made known at a pace that we can absorb, that we can handle, and that we can use. And we thank Jehovah for that. So, this is what we know from the scriptures and from our own experience as well about how the light gets brighter in modern times. It comes about by means of the Holy Spirit through his channel of the faithful and discreet slave. He reveals it gradually and at a time that it is needed. Well, knowing this, then we are not embarrassed about adjustments that are made. Nor is an apology needed for not getting it exactly right previously. We understand this is how Jehovah operates. He reveals matters gradually when it is needed. And also the governing body is neither inspired nor infallible. And so it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. The brothers do the best they can with what they have and what they understand at the time, but are happy if Jehovah sees fit to clarify matters.

Up through 2024, the manual asked whether a wrongdoer had apologized to the people harmed. In 2024, a Governing Body member stated on record that no apology was needed. The following year, that question disappeared from the manual entirely. The words apology, apologized, amends, restitution, wrong, and forgiveness of do not appear anywhere in the 2025 edition. Repentance is now defined only as regret toward Jehovah — the people actually harmed were dropped from the definition.

The Verdict the Manual Requires

Having walked the process the manual itself lays out, the outcome it specifies is unambiguous:

Not all whom Jehovah tried to lead to repentance responded positively. Similarly, despite the committee's best efforts, an individual may not respond positively to spiritual assistance. In such a situation, the unrepentant wrongdoer must be removed from the congregation.

And the manual explains why removal matters:

Failure to remove an unrepentant wrongdoer could minimize the wrong in the mind of the individual and in the minds of others who know of his sin.

That is exactly what "smile and agree" does. Given the absence of apology, amends, or rejection of the underlying course, the manual leaves no other outcome available: removal from the congregation.

Even If They Repent, They're Still Out

To be fair, this is a hypothetical committee, and it's worth considering the alternative: suppose the Governing Body did apologize, made amends, and asked forgiveness of the families harmed. Chapter 5 of the 2025 manual, on appointment and deletion of elders, still doesn't leave room for them to keep their positions.

A brother is automatically deleted if he disassociates himself or commits serious wrongdoing that needs to be handled by a committee of elders. Even if the committee has not concluded the matter, an announcement of deletion should be made to the congregation. The congregation service committee should immediately inform the circuit overseer of the deletion and the reason, including the specific wrongdoing, if applicable. In cases of reproof, the circuit overseer will send a letter of deletion to the body of elders. The circuit overseer should also be informed if an appointed brother dies.

Deletion from an elder position is automatic the moment wrongdoing is serious enough to require a committee — before the committee even concludes. "Reproof" is the outcome when someone repents and stays in the congregation, and even then, they're deleted as an elder. There's also a provision covering wrongdoing that's never formally handled at all:

If the body of elders determines that a committee of elders is not needed to handle the matter, it should evaluate whether the brother can still be considered irreprehensible and free from accusation. What was the nature of the wrongdoing? If the sin occurred before his appointment, why did he not mention it to the elders? If the wrongdoing occurred within the past few years while he was serving as an appointed brother, he would no longer qualify to serve as such.

Even without a committee, the question of whether the Governing Body can still be considered "irreprehensible and free from accusation" has to be evaluated — and enforcing a deadly rule with no scriptural authority to do so answers that question.

The Watchtower of September 15, 1995, describes the Governing Body as representing the faithful and discreet slave, with special responsibility for overseeing the teaching of the worldwide congregation — a description the organization has since strengthened to claim the Governing Body is the faithful and discreet slave, not merely its representative. That 1992 Awake! article set the standard for anyone in that position:

God sets high standards for those who oversee his people and teach his word. James said of himself and other elders, "We shall receive heavier judgment." And Jesus stated this guiding principle: "The one whom people put in charge of much, they will demand more than usual of him." Therefore, if a Christian overseer sins flagrantly but repents, he might remain a member of the congregation, but he should be removed from his office of overseer. He is no longer irreprehensible. It might take years for him to reestablish a fine reputation so as to be free from accusation again.

The same article states that an overseer is answerable foremost to Jehovah, and then to the people under his oversight — directly contradicting the claim that no apology is owed to the Witnesses themselves. So even in the most generous scenario, where the Governing Body repents fully and stays in the congregation, its own rules still require the loss of elder status — and since the Governing Body is made up entirely of elders, that means the end of their positions there too.

That same 1992 article recounts the case of Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, rebuked for notorious immorality, whom the College of Cardinals elected pope anyway. Watchtower's own conclusion:

The way a religion handles a problem of a minister who sins will help you to recognize if that religion is truly Christian.

By their own manual, their own magazine, and their own defined standard for manslaughter and respect for life, the verdict holds regardless of whether repentance occurs: removal from their positions as elders and Governing Body members.

Why This Will Never Actually Happen

The reason none of this will occur isn't that the rules are unclear. It's that Watchtower operates by one standard for the rank and file and another for itself.

Look at how the manual treats anyone with special status. If a missionary or special pioneer is accused, elders must contact the service department. If a Bethel family member is accused, they contact the Bethel office. When a committee and an appeal committee disagree, the service department has final say. When someone insists a serious error was made even after appeal, the letter goes to the service department. Every path leads to headquarters, and headquarters answers to the Governing Body.

Even if the rules technically apply to the Governing Body as elders, there's no structural path for anyone beneath them to actually convene a committee. And the manual itself disqualifies most potential judges before they could start:

An elder who is a close relative of the individual, has been in business with him, or has had a special friendship with him, would not normally serve on the committee.

Every circuit overseer, every service department brother, every branch committee member holds his position because the Governing Body put him there, and many are housed and supported by the organization those men run. None of them is positioned to be impartial. That's the practical result of an organization with no checks and balances on its leadership.

The only Governing Body member ever disfellowshipped was Raymond Franz, in 1981 — and he had already resigned from the Governing Body in 1980. He was disfellowshipped 18 months later for eating a meal with his employer and a friend who had disassociated.

One man did try to bring the Governing Body before an internal committee. William Bowen founded silentlambs.org, the organization that brought Watchtower's handling of child abuse into public view in the early 2000s. In 2002, according to Silent Lambs' own published record, Bowen requested a judicial committee of three impartial elders be convened in Brooklyn on September 27, 2002, to hear charges against the Governing Body over its child abuse policies. He said he would bring witnesses — and did, 125 of them. Bowen was disfellowshipped that same year; by his account, the charge was "causing divisions." Despite that, on September 27, 2002, the group went to Brooklyn headquarters anyway. Nobody convened anything. According to Silent Lambs, when they tried to leave stuffed lambs at the front door, headquarters called police and threatened littering charges, so the group pushed the lambs into a chain-link fence across the street instead.

Bowen's charges concerned child abuse, not the blood doctrine, but he followed the process the manual outlines and had the evidence the manual requires. Instead of the Governing Body facing judgment, he did.

Step back from the details and look at what Shepherd the Flock of God actually is: a book that covers evidence, eyewitnesses, confession, repentance, appeals, and reinstatement in exhaustive detail — detailed enough to instruct elders on someone who stayed overnight in the wrong house, or chewed betel nut. There is not one line in it describing a path for bringing a grievance against the Governing Body itself. That isn't an oversight. The manual is written to judge the flock, not the leadership of the flock.

Every standard applied above came from their own book: do not minimize serious wrongdoing. Has he made amends and apologized to those he damaged? Manslaughter includes carelessness. A repentant overseer is still removed from office. Respect for life means avoiding blood guilt from careless or reckless conduct. The only thing missing is a mechanism for applying any of it to the people at the top — because a rule that bound the Governing Body would be a rule above the Governing Body, and in this organization nothing is above them except a God who, they claim, speaks only through them. The only people positioned to hold them accountable are themselves, and they have never done so much as apologize.

Len Martinez died at 6:30 in the morning, in her mother's arms, holding onto a rule the Governing Body now says it was never authorized to make. For years, their own manual instructed elders to ask a wrongdoer whether he had apologized to the people he hurt. That question has never been put to the men responsible for the rule that governed Len's death — because inside their own structure, no one is positioned to ask it. By their own manual, their own standards, and their own definition of manslaughter, the answer is guilt, and the required outcome is removal from their positions. Nothing in the organization will ever make that happen. That, more than any single doctrine, is the story.