Social criticisms

### Authoritarianism and denial of free speech

Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, and the denomination does not tolerate dissent over doctrines and practices. Members who continue to openly disagree with the movement's teachings after initial warnings may be expelled and shunned. Witness publications strongly discourage followers from questioning doctrine and counsel received from the Governing Body, reasoning that it is to be trusted as part of "God's organization". They also warn members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil" and would "cause division". Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as "apostates" who are "mentally diseased".

Former Governing Body member Raymond Franz accused the movement's Governing Body of resenting, deprecating and seeking to silence alternative viewpoints within the organization and demanding organizational conformity that overrides personal conscience. He said the Watch Tower Society confirmed its position when, in a 1954 court case in Scotland, Watch Tower Society legal counsel Hayden C. Covington said of Jehovah's Witnesses: "We must have unity ... unity at all costs". He also stated that Witnesses are subject to a disciplinary system that encourages informants.

Franz and others have described Jehovah's Witnesses' meetings as "catechistical" question-and-answer sessions in which questions and answers are both provided by the organization, placing pressure on members to reiterate its opinions. Former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting said Witnesses "are told what they should feel and think". Raymond Franz stated that members who do voice viewpoints different from those expressed in publications and at meetings are viewed with suspicion, and that most Witnesses would be fearful to voice criticism of the organization for fear of being accused of disloyalty.

Authors have drawn attention to frequent Watch Tower warnings against the "dangers" and "infection" of "independent thinking", including questioning any of its published statements or teachings, and instructions that members refrain from engaging in independent Bible research. The Watch Tower Society also directs that members must not read criticism of the organization by "apostates" or material published by other religious organizations. Heather and Gary Botting stated, "Jehovah's Witnesses will brook no criticism from within, as many concerned members who have attempted to voice alternative opinions regarding the basic doctrine or application of social pressure have discovered to their chagrin."

The Bottings argue that the power of the Watch Tower Society to control members is gained through the acceptance of the Society "quite literally as the voice of Jehovah—God's 'mouthpiece'". Franz also said the concept of loyalty to God's organization has no scriptural support and serves only to reinforce the movement's authority structure, with its strong emphasis on human authority. He said *The Watchtower* has repeatedly blurred discussions of both Jesus Christ's loyalty to God and the apostles' loyalty to Christ to promote the view that Witnesses should be loyal to the Watch Tower Society. Heather and Gary Botting said that challenging the views of members higher in the hierarchy is regarded as tantamount to challenging God himself.

The Watch Tower Society has described Jehovah's Witnesses' intolerance of dissident and divergent doctrinal views within its ranks as "strict", but claims its stance is based on the scriptural precedent of 2 Timothy 2:17, 18 in which the Apostle Paul condemns heretics Hymenaeus and Philetus who denied the resurrection of Jesus. It said: "Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation.... Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic."

Various associations of former members have been formed to highlight what they consider to be structural and institutionalized psychological abuses of Jehovah's Witness members and former members. Complaints include the control of adherents, marginalization, discrimination against women and sexual diversity, and attacks on other religious institutions. For example, the *Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses* in Spain states that ostracism of former or disaffected members can lead to extreme loneliness, which can lead to severe depression or even suicide. They also state that Jehovah's Witnesses' system of congregational discipline have been used to investigate criminal matters, hiding or hindering reports of child abuse and rape. Former members from other Spanish-speaking countries have also created similar associations.

#### Comments of sociologists

Sociologist Rodney Stark says that Jehovah's Witness leaders are "not always very democratic" and members are expected to conform to "rather strict standards", but that enforcement tends to be informal, sustained by close bonds of friendship, and that Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as "part of the power structure rather than subject to it". Sociologist James A. Beckford, however, states that the Watch Tower Society is intolerant of dissent or open discussion of doctrines and practices, and demands uniformity of beliefs from its members. He observed that the Society denies the legitimacy of all criticism of itself and that the habit of questioning official doctrine is "strenuously combated at all organizational levels". For similar reasons, Alan Rogerson describes the movement's leadership as totalitarian.

Dr. George D. Chryssides and Dr. James A. Beverley reported that Witness publications teach that individuals' consciences are unreliable and need to be subordinated to scripture and to the Watch Tower Society. Beverley describes the belief that organizational loyalty is equal to divine loyalty as the "central myth" of Jehovah's Witnesses employed to ensure complete obedience. Andrew Holden also observed that Witnesses see no distinction between loyalty to Jehovah and to the movement itself, and said that Witnesses are "under official surveillance" within the congregation. He noted that members who cannot conscientiously agree with all the movement's teachings are expelled and shunned. He also said that Witnesses are taught their theology in a highly mechanistic fashion, learning almost by rote.

### Description as a cult

Authors Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes and Alan W. Gomes claim Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious cult. Hoekema bases his judgment on a range of what he describes as general characteristics of a cult, including the tendency to elevate peripheral teachings (such as door-to-door preaching) to great prominence, extra-scriptural source of authority (Hoekema highlights Watch Tower teachings that the Bible may be understood only as it is interpreted by the Governing Body), a view of the group as the exclusive community of the saved (Watch Tower publications teach that Witnesses alone are God's people and only they will survive Armageddon) and the group's central role in eschatology (Hoekema says Witness publications claim the group was called into existence by God to fill in a gap in the truth neglected by existing churches, marking the climax of sacred history).

Jehovah's Witnesses state that they are not a cult and say that although individuals need proper guidance from God, they should do their own thinking.

In 1992, American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton placed the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination in a list of "established cults". However, he and others have since been more reluctant to use the term "cult" for various groups, including Jehovah's Witnesses, because the term is considered too controversial. Ex-cult watchdog John Bowen Brown II and *Knocking* producer Joel P. Engardio also reject the assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses is a cult. The encyclopedia *Contemporary American Religion* stated, "Various critics and ex-members in recent years have wrongly labeled Jehovah's Witnesses a 'cult'."

### Coercion

Since 1920, the Watch Tower Society has required all congregation members participating in the preaching work to turn in written reports of the amount of their activity, explaining that the reports help the Society to plan its activities and identify areas of greater need and help congregation elders to identify those who may need assistance. In 1943, the Society imposed personal quotas, requiring all active Witnesses to spend at least 60 hours of door-to-door preaching per month, claiming these were "directions from the Lord". Although these quotas were subsequently removed, Raymond Franz claims "invisible" quotas remained, obliging Witnesses to meet certain levels of preaching work to remain in good standing in the congregation or to qualify for eldership. Franz describes repeated urging for adherents to "put kingdom interests first" and devote increasing amounts of time to door-to-door preaching efforts as coercive pressure. He says many Witnesses constantly feel guilty that they are not doing more in "field activity".

Former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting, claiming an emphasis on a personal track record would mean that salvation is effectively being "bought" with "good works", observed: "No matter how long a Witness remains an active distributor of literature, the moment he ceases to be active he is regarded by his peers as good as dead in terms of achieving the ultimate goal of life everlasting in an earthly paradise.... Few realize upon entering the movement that the purchase price is open-ended and that the bill can never be paid in full until death or the advent of Armageddon."

*The Watchtower*, however, noted that although public preaching is necessary, such works do not "save" a Christian and it urged Witnesses to examine their motive for engaging in preaching activity.

According to Andrew Holden, "those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism soon lose the respect of their co-religionists. The Witnesses are thus forced to think quantitatively about their salvation."

Medical and legal commentators have noted cases, claiming that Witness medical patients were coerced to obey the denomination's ban on blood transfusions. According to Osamu Muramoto, in the *Journal of Medical Ethics*, those who unrepentantly receive prohibited blood products are labeled "apostates", expelled, and shunned by other Jehovah's Witness friends or family members. He also states that "there is considerable documentation that [Jehovah's Witnesses] can be subject to psychological coercion".

In a case involving a review of a Russian district court decision, the European Court of Human Rights found nothing in the judgements to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. It noted: "On the contrary, it appears that many Jehovah's Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions in advance, free from time constraints of an emergency situation." The court said: "The freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment, or to select an alternative form of treatment, is vital to the principles of self-determination and personal autonomy. A competent adult patient is free to decide ... not to have a blood transfusion. However, for this freedom to be meaningful, patients must have the right to make choices that accord with their own views and values, regardless of how irrational, unwise or imprudent such choices may appear to others." The court also stated that, "even though the Jehovah's Witnesses whose opposition to blood transfusions was cited in evidence were adults having legal capacity to refuse that form of treatment, the findings of the Russian courts can be understood to mean that their refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of pressure exerted on them by the applicant community. The Court accepts that, given that health and possibly life itself are at stake in such situations, the authenticity of the patient's refusal of medical treatment is a legitimate concern."

### Shunning

Witnesses practice disfellowshipping of members who unrepentantly engage in "gross sin" (most commonly for breaches of the Witnesses' code of personal morality), and "remorseless apostasy". The process of disfellowshipping is said to be carried to uphold God's standards, preserve the congregation's spiritual cleanness, and possibly prompt a change of attitude in the wrongdoer. The practice requires that the expelled person be shunned by all members of the group, including family members who do not live in the same home, unless they qualify for re-admission. A person who dies while disfellowshipped cannot be given a funeral at a Kingdom Hall. Members often face difficulties and trauma once expelled because of their previously limited contact with the outside world. A 2021 qualitative psychological research study of interviews with former Jehovah's Witnesses suggested their experiences of ostracism from their family and friends can be associated with increased mental health risks. *The Watchtower*'s description of those who leave as being "mentally diseased" has drawn criticism from some current and former members; in Britain some have argued that the description may constitute a breach of laws regarding religious hatred.

The Watch Tower Society has attracted criticism for disfellowshipping members who decide they cannot conscientiously agree with all the denomination's teachings and practices. Sociologist Andrew Holden says that because the group provides no valid reason for leaving, those who do choose to leave are regarded as traitors. According to Raymond Franz, those who decide they cannot accept Watch Tower teachings and practices often live in a climate of fear, feeling they must constantly be on guard about what they say, do and read. He says those who do express any disagreement, even in a private conversation with friends, risk investigation and trial by a judicial committee as apostates or heretics and classed as "wicked".

Franz argues that the threat of expulsion for expressing disagreement with the Watch Tower Society's teachings is designed to create a sterile atmosphere in which the organization's teachings and policies can circulate without the risk of confronting serious questioning or adverse evidence. The result, according to Holden, is that individuals may spend most of their lives suppressing doubts for fear of losing their relationships with friends and relatives. Penton describes the system of judicial committees and the threat of expulsion as the ultimate control mechanism among the Witnesses; Holden claims that shunning not only rids the community of defilement, but deters others from dissident behavior. Sociologist Ronald Lawson has also noted that the group allows little room for independence of thought, and no toleration of doctrinal diversity. He said those who deviate from official teachings are readily expelled and shunned.

Watch Tower Society publications defend the practice of expelling and shunning those who "promote false teaching", claiming such individuals must be quarantined to prevent the spread of their "spiritual infection". They have cited a dictionary definition of apostasy ("renunciation of a religious faith, abandonment of a previous loyalty") to rule that an individual who begins affiliating with another religious organization has disassociated from the Witnesses, warranting their shunning to protect the spiritual cleanness of the Witness congregation on the basis of the reference in 1 John 2:19 that those who leave Christianity are "not of our sort". An individual's acceptance of a blood transfusion is similarly deemed as evidence of disassociation. They say Witnesses also obey the "strong counsel" at 1 Corinthians 5:11 that Christians should "quit mixing in company" with people who unrepentantly reject certain scriptural standards.

The Witnesses' judicial process has also been criticized. Hearings take place in secret, with judicial committees filling the roles of judge, jury and prosecutor. According to Franz, witnesses may present evidence but are not permitted to remain for the discussion. Critics Heather and Gary Botting have claimed that Witnesses accused of an offence warranting expulsion are presumed guilty until found innocent. They say the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence and if they make no attempt to do so—by failing to appear at a hearing set by the judicial committee—they are assumed to be guilty and unrepentant.

When a decision is made regarding disfellowshipping or disassociation, an announcement is made that the person is "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses", at which point shunning is immediate. Members are not told whether the person has disassociated or has been disfellowshipped. Neither testimony nor evidence in support of the judicial decision are provided. Congregation members are told to accept the rulings without question and Witnesses who refuse to abide by a judicial committee decision will themselves suffer expulsion. Members are forbidden to talk with the expelled member, removing any opportunity for the person to discuss or explain their actions. Penton claims judicial committee members and the Watch Tower Society frequently ignore established procedures when dealing with troublesome individuals, conspiring to have them expelled in violation of Society rules. Critics claim that Witness policies encourage an informer system to report to elders Witnesses suspected of having committed an act that could warrant expulsion, including deviating from organizational policies and teachings.

Criticism has also been directed at the 1981 change of policy that directed that persons who disassociate from (formally leave) the group were to be treated as though they were disfellowshipped. Holden says that as a result, those who do leave are seldom allowed a dignified exit. Heather and Gary Botting claim inactive Witnesses are often pressured to either become active or to disassociate themselves by declaring they no longer accept key Watch Tower Society doctrines.

### Blood

Jehovah's Witnesses reject transfusions of whole allogenic blood and its primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma), and transfusions of stored autologous blood or its primary components. As a doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses do not reject transfusion of whole autologous blood so long as it is not stored prior to surgery (e.g. peri-operative extraction and transfusion of autologous blood). This religious position is due to their belief that blood is sacred and represents life in God's eyes. Jehovah's Witnesses understand scriptures such as Leviticus 17:10–14 (which speaks of not eating blood) and Acts 15:29 ("abstain from blood") to include taking blood into the body via a transfusion. Controversy has stemmed, however, from what critics state are inconsistencies in Witness policies on blood, claims that Witness patients are coerced into refusing blood and that Watch Tower literature distorts facts about transfusions and fails to provide information that would allow Witnesses to make an informed decision on the issue.

#### Fractions and components

In the case of minor fractions derived from blood, each individual is directed to follow their own conscience on whether these are acceptable. Consequently, some Jehovah's Witnesses accept the use of blood fractions and others do not. However, fractions that carry out "the key function of a primary component" or make up "a significant portion of that component" are not permitted.

Such a stance of dividing blood into major components and minor fractions rather than either accepting all blood or requiring all blood components to be poured out onto the ground has led to criticism from organizations such as the *Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood*. Witnesses respond that blood as the fluid *per se* is not the real issue. They say the real issue is *respect* and *obedience* regarding blood, which they perceive as being God's personal property. Members are allowed to eat meat that still contains small traces of blood remaining. Once blood is drained from an animal, the *respect* has been shown to God and then a person can eat the meat. Jehovah's Witnesses view of meat and blood is therefore different from the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove even minor traces of blood.

According to lawyer Kerry Louderback-Wood, a former Jehovah's Witness, the Watch Tower Society misrepresents the scope of allowed fractions. If taken together, they "total the entire volume of blood they came from". An example of this can be seen in blood plasma, which consists of 90–96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately. Raymond Franz has likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.

#### Storing and donation

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that storing blood violates direction from the Bible to 'pour blood out onto the ground'. They do not donate blood except for uses they have individually pre-approved. However, they are told that acceptance of blood fractions from donated blood is a matter of conscience. A 2006 issue of Jehovah's Witnesses' newsletter *Our Kingdom Ministry* stated, "Although [Jehovah's Witnesses] do not donate or store their own blood *for transfusion purposes*, some procedures or tests involving an individual's blood are not so clearly in conflict with Bible principles. Therefore, each individual should make a conscientious decision" [emphasis added]. Raymond Franz has challenged these policies because acceptable blood fractions can only be derived from stored blood provided by donors.

#### Legal considerations

Regardless of the medical considerations, Jehovah Witnesses advocate that physicians should uphold the right of a patient to choose what treatments they do or do not accept (though a Witness is subject to religious sanctions if they exercise their right to choose a blood transfusion). Accordingly, US courts tend not to hold physicians responsible for adverse health effects that a patient incurred out of his or her own requests. However, the point of view that physicians must, in all circumstances, abide by the religious wishes of the patients is not acknowledged by all jurisdictions, such as was determined in a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses in France.

The situation has been controversial, particularly in the case of children. In the United States, many physicians will agree to explore and exhaust all non-blood alternatives in the treatment of children at the request of their legal guardians. Some state laws require physicians to administer blood-based treatment to minors if it is their professional opinion that it is necessary to prevent immediate death or severe permanent damage.[*citation needed*]

Even when an adult's life is at stake, some philosophers argue that since blood refusal is based on irrational beliefs, the patient's decision may be challenged.

Kerry Louderback-Wood has claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses' legal corporations are potentially liable to significant claims for compensation if the organization misrepresents the medical risks of blood transfusions. Wood claims that constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not remove the legal responsibility that every person or organization has regarding misrepresenting secular fact.

#### Animal blood

*The Watchtower* has stated that "Various medical products have been obtained from biological sources, either animal or human.... Such commercialization of ... blood is hardly tempting for true Christians, who guide their thinking by God's perfect law. Our Creator views blood as sacred, representing God-given life ... blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of."

### Reporting of sexual abuse

Main articles: Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse and Silentlambs

Former Jehovah's Witness Bill Bowen, founder of Silentlambs, accuses Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies of not reporting sexual abuse cases to authorities to protect the organization's reputation. The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance stated that the consequence of keeping the cases secrets is that "there is a very high probability that the abuse will continue." Some victims of sexual abuse have asserted that when reporting abuse they were ordered to maintain silence by their local elders to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization.

The movement's official policy on child protection, which discusses the procedures for reporting child sexual abuse, states that elders obey all legal requirements for reporting sex offenders, including reporting uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations where required by law. Elders are to discipline pedophiles in the congregation. Victims are permitted to notify the authorities if they wish to do so.

While a Witness may lose congregation privileges following a single credible accusation of abuse, Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be scripturally obliged to require corroboration before applying their severest forms of congregational discipline. If there is not an actual second witness to an incident of abuse, a congregation judicial committee will accept medical or police reports, or a witness to a separate but similar incident as such a second witness against a member accused of sexual abuse.

### Views on mental health

Jehovah's Witnesses have been criticized for traditionally viewing mental illness as a symptom of spiritual weakness or a sign of Satan's influence, which implies that they may prefer the guidance of elders to psychiatric and psychological treatment. They may also hesitate to seek help from mental health professionals because of their tendency to avoid relationships with people outside the denomination. However, in recent years the Watch Tower Society has acknowledged that "mental-health professionals can treat many mental-health disorders successfully" and recommended that readers "follow the treatment prescribed by qualified mental-health professionals."

Increased mental health risks among Jehovah's Witnesses may be associated with the authoritarian nature of the organization, internal handling of physical and sexual abuse allegations, and the treatment of sexuality and homosexuality as sin. The patriarchal attitudes and organizational structures of the denomination may also contribute to mental health issues. Various mental health professionals have also noted the negative impact of the practice of shunning of those who are expelled or who voluntary leave the denomination.

No study shows a direct positive correlation between membership of Jehovah's Witnesses and the propensity to develop mental disorders, although that hypothesis has occasionally surfaced in medical and psychological literature and in anti-cult movement literature.