Jehovah's Witness Blood Policy Angers Even More Members

About a third of Jehovah's Witnesses aren't happy with the new blood policy reversal. They're upset, they're confused, or they're openly questioning it. That's the conclusion after reading hundreds of posts about it on the heavily moderated forum for witnesses called JW Talk, which has over 9,000 members. And keep in mind, because it's moderated, the angriest or harshest responses very likely never see the light of day.

"Legends of Defiance, No Surrender"

Here's one of the posts:

Like many of you, I've been in the truth for decades or even from birth, but feel as if something that I've relied on has been swiped from under my feet. I've grown up with the legends of defiance. No surrender was the thinking. So, it does feel a little surreal today.

That's from a lifelong witness posted the day after the blood change announcement was made. The identifying information has been blurred out since it's a private forum, and there's no beef here with the rank and file, just leadership.

Legends of defiance, no surrender — that's what the blood rule was for a lot of these people. This wasn't just a medical decision for them because that's not how Watchtower framed it. It was a badge of honor that set them apart from what they call false religion. Obeying that deadly mandate was one of the things that proved their loyalty to God. Or so they believed, because now that rule is gone.

Kudos to the forum moderators for allowing these kinds of reactions to appear at all. Though here's another wrinkle: the message "your content will need to be approved by a moderator" appears only on one specific thread — "2026 governing body update number six." According to forum members, that long thread, where the policy reversal is discussed, is the only one where every single post had to be approved by a moderator before anyone else could see it. That shows just how much of a hot-button issue the blood change is. The responses shown here aren't the whole story. The ones that made it through are bad enough. What's in the ones the moderators didn't approve is anyone's guess.

The Update Itself

There were over 800 posts across a dozen different threads reacting to this on JW Talk, and reading through all of them made clear how active believing Jehovah's Witnesses were reacting to this at scale. It's bad, and it's certainly not what Watchtower wants seen.

On September 18th, the governing body released update number six. Red cells, white cells, plasma, and platelets — the four main parts of blood that witnesses were forbidden for decades, on pain of shunning, from taking — are now a personal decision. Whole blood is still banned, but that's largely a technicality since almost every transfusion a hospital gives in wealthier countries doesn't use whole blood, but the now-approved components. A letter to elders leaked the same day as the update shows that even if a witness does accept a whole blood transfusion, automatic disfellowshipping is gone, replaced by "loving shepherding" and maybe a call to the service department at Bethel if the person is truly unrepentant. In reality, there's almost no real ban left on blood at all.

By the Numbers

As of this recording, 142 people had posted about the update since September 18th. Sorted by response type: 16% were clearly negative — upset, shaken, angry, or critical of the governing body or how they handled this. Another 16% weren't upset, but had real reservations, the kind of questions that don't have easy answers. Between those two groups, about a third of witnesses aren't happy with this change. 40% were supportive, and the rest were neutral, posting links or medical facts or talking about something else.

These reactions aren't from Jehovah's Witnesses randomly sampled in a properly conducted survey — these are people engaged enough to spend their free time discussing this in an online forum, which isn't something Watchtower would encourage. But since this is a moderated discussion, the real number of upset or questioning witnesses on the forum is probably a lot higher.

Not every witness is even changing their position on blood despite the update. One member posted about their 92-year-old father-in-law, a witness for more than 50 years who had a leg amputated without blood. He asked: "So if I want to keep my view of the use of blood for my own health, that's okay, right?" When told yes, that was the end of it for him. At 92, he wasn't shaken, upset, or discouraged.

But not all of the 40% who posted in support are like that. A lot of the supportive posts came from people who were shaken at first but talked themselves down and made peace with it. And here's the thing worth noticing: those supportive posts spend most of their time defending the change to other Jehovah's Witnesses — not to outsiders, but to insiders, their own brothers and sisters.

"I Wondered If a Fake Video Had Slipped Onto Our Site"

Most of the distress is concentrated in the first 72 hours after the announcement. One post from the day after read:

I was shocked by this adjustment. I could not sleep for hours. And like someone in the comments above, I wondered if a fake video had slipped into our site.

That reaction traces back to Kenneth Cook's broadcast demonstration. Eleven days before this announcement, Governing Body member Kenneth Cook showed an AI video of himself on the September broadcast, telling witnesses to be careful about what they believe online because it might be fake. That's the reason this witness's first thought was that the actual announcement might be fake — and not just fake, but that JW.org itself must have been hacked and an AI video uploaded to it. At least half a dozen people on that forum said they thought it might be AI, or would have, if it weren't posted to the official site. One member said they sent the JW.org link to an elder, and the elder's reply was that it "seems to be apostate info." An elder called the governing body's own announcement apostate information.

Then there's this: a brother whose 68-year-old brother never got baptized and lived through a rough life, but held on to two rules. "He doesn't have a lot of understanding in the truth. But there are two things that have been law for him. One, go to the memorial. Two, no blood transfusions." He risked his life in the past by not accepting a blood transfusion — something he's proud of. "I haven't quite figured out how I'm going to explain this new understanding to him," the poster wrote, adding that "all the old-timer witnesses we have known and loved would roll over in their graves at this announcement."

A medical officer who used to work in anesthesia and intensive care wrote:

Telling a doctor that you won't accept blood transfusion, but you can accept packed cells, red blood cell transfusion, is close to laughable to the doctor.

They added that a doctor colleague had screenshotted the update from the website and posted it on his WhatsApp status, captioned: "If you die because of religion, only you will have yourself to blame." The witness called it "very demoralizing" — and however harsh, the doctor wasn't wrong.

One of the more honest reactions on the forum read:

The world sees us as senseless people. The people who are extremists. They will allow their dear ones to die but not take the blood. They ask questions. Would your Jehovah not want you to save a life? You are brainwashed by this organization. And deep inside our hearts, we feel uncomfortable.

That's a believer admitting the rule they defended in public was one they couldn't fully defend to themselves — and it's a supportive post. That member was relieved by the change.

Was It a Mistake?

The interesting part isn't that some witnesses are shocked. It's a question that kept coming up and never gets settled: was it a mistake?

On September 24th, a member asked directly:

Do we really need to explain away every single change that GB makes? Couldn't we simply acknowledge that it was a correction of a mistaken idea? ... Logically, this means that before the update, the GB was going beyond the things that are written.

That witness put the pieces together. In the update, governing body member Geoffrey Jackson admits the governing body isn't authorized to go beyond the things that are written. If going beyond what's written is off-limits now, then for decades, that's exactly what they were doing. The poster hedged, saying they didn't mean it critically and even admired the governing body's "courage" in making the change. It didn't matter — here's a reply:

It concerns me that some have said that the governing body were mistaken in their past understanding of the use of blood. This is not true.

According to that member, the governing body doesn't decide when new understanding needs to be shared — they simply pass on what Jehovah shares with them. That's a clear illustration of something worth noting: Jehovah's Witnesses really do believe their leadership gets its information directly from God.

Then there's someone caught in the middle, having to explain this to someone outside:

Since the GB is directed by Jehovah, how do I explain to someone that Jehovah changed his mind or learned more about blood or the GB went beyond what was written?

An elder answering that question wrote:

Jehovah hasn't changed. Jehovah does not change. It is up to us to determine for ourselves what we think Jehovah approves of based on our understanding and relationship with Jehovah. Our understanding as an organization has changed. Jehovah has not changed. As our understanding as an organization has matured over the years, we have grown to appreciate some decisions are ours to make individually. Just as when a child matures and begins making decisions for themselves instead of relying on their parents, their parents did not go beyond their authority when the child was young.

So the elder's argument, to avoid saying the governing body made a mistake, requires admitting Jehovah's Witnesses have been spiritual children for decades rather than mature Christians who can think for themselves and read the scriptures on their own. That's the trap: if Jehovah is directing the governing body, then either Jehovah changed his mind, Jehovah learned something, or the governing body got it wrong. There's no other option.

Another member, on the second day, stated a real problem with the update:

It's easier to explain that minor exegesis can be subject to change depending on whether new information prompts us to examine some passages under a new light. It's more difficult for me to have convincing arguments when it's something major like this to justify all these years where we were seemingly in error. I'm happy that here we are at peace with the adjustment, but I'm talking about how we appear to non-witnesses.

That's a real problem, especially now that mainstream media has picked up the news and human-interest stories about people dying from the previous policy are circulating. How do you explain that your religion is the only true Christianity — which is what they believe — when you got something so terribly wrong that it cost countless lives?

Other witnesses said the governing body needs to come out and admit they went beyond the things written in the past:

It would maybe come across better with these huge changes that the GB state that they were too heavy-handed in making rules beyond what was written. I feel without this admission it will open the doors for huge criticism as after all this change or adherence has cost lives.

Another wrote:

I'm grateful for the change and I hope some like my dad who has leukemia can benefit from it. Having said that, I can't help but feel a little sad for those that in the last 60 years or so have had no choice in the matter and might have been negatively affected. I hope the GB acknowledges that pain at some point and offers consolation.

And in the moderated thread, one post that sat waiting for approval for more than 24 hours read simply:

I think this is a really positive change and will save lives. There just seems to be a lack of compassion for all the families that have been destroyed because of this rule.

Her husband went to a different thread to ask what happened to it, saying she was upset that an honest response similar to lots of others was held back and came across as selective. A moderator eventually found it and approved it — a supportive post whose only offense was mentioning the families the old rule cost. If that innocent comment got held for 24 hours and was only approved after her husband complained, it raises the question of how many harsher or more direct posts weren't approved at all.

No Apology Coming

There are clearly sincere, supportive witnesses on this forum asking for an acknowledgment from the governing body, some kind of consolation, maybe even an apology. They aren't getting one. That's not speculation — it's what the governing body has directly said. Here's governing body member Jeffrey Winder, in comments captured on video:

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 and then that can be shared with the brotherhood. And when that happens, we understand it's because it's Jehovah's time for that to happen and we eagerly accept that. Nor is an apology needed.

He admits they're neither inspired nor infallible, even though witnesses believe Jehovah directly shares information with them. He also admits they can err in doctrinal matters or organizational direction — they can be wrong. They'll just never be sorry for it, at least not publicly. The believer who asked whether it was a mistake quoted the Watchtower's own printed line — "neither inspired nor infallible" — and took the governing body at its word. The forum told them they were wrong to do that. That's what a lot of the discussion centers around: not compassion or sorrow for the dead and harmed, but making sure nobody applies the word "mistake" to the governing body.

What Even Is Blood Now?

The second question the forum can't seem to settle is a basic one: what exactly is blood? For decades, witnesses were told what blood is by Watchtower — whole blood and the four main components. Now the governing body says it can't draw that line for them; they have to draw it themselves. One poster wrote:

I think the definition has gone from clear to blurry. The GB used to define each of the four components as blood on our behalf. Now they humbly acknowledge that the definition of blood is not clearly defined and each individual must come to their own conclusions via their Bible-trained conscience. It is now possible for each witness to have their own personal definition of what constitutes blood.

When someone pushed back and said the governing body never defined what blood was, another witness responded:

I think in a way it has. Dictionary definitions don't always reflect exactly the usage of words in every context. Of course, blood is a body fluid that circulates in our arteries and veins. But until now, for Jehovah's Witnesses, blood we had to abstain from included its main components. Although technically red blood cells are not blood, for us, for all purposes they were blood. On the other hand, fish blood, which is technically blood, wasn't considered blood we need to abstain from. Now whole blood is blood and the rest is up to every individual conscience.

An elder in the same thread insisted the definition hadn't changed at all. So there are believers who can't agree on what the command they're obeying even refers to.

The Sandwich Question

Then there's what could be called the sandwich question: if you can eat bread and cheese and ham and lettuce, why can't you eat a sandwich? If you can take red cells and plasma and platelets and white cells, what happens if you take all four? One witness put it this way:

I am a bit confused. We can have the components separately, the bun, patty, and cheese, but not together as a cheeseburger.

Someone else asked:

Serious question. What if someone decides to take all four components separately? How is that not a violation of the command? Or worse, how is it not mocking God?

Another member went further:

What if regardless of the situation, someone who would not take blood as a whole decided, forget emergency situations for a minute, I am never taking the blood as a whole, but I can take different blood components by parts. Sounds like calculus integration by parts. So, I'll take all those components individually, which would add up to whole blood inside me. The important thing is that the drip needles do not deliver those components simultaneously into my veins, either because of a time differential or because of different vein paths into the circulatory system. Can we fault such a person or did the person just get away with bloody murder, pun intended, on a technicality lawyering?

Those are fair questions, and neither the governing body's article nor the update that dropped really answers them. The update explains that "some components make up a smaller percentage of whole blood than certain fractions that some Christians might already be willing to accept." But that's been true for as long as fractions have been allowed. One member pointed out:

The argument I quote below from the newest QFR about blood released alongside the update could have been made a long time ago. It has been known for decades that white blood cells, a component, make up a smaller percentage of whole blood than albumin or immunoglobulins, which are fractions.

The elder who'd been answering everybody's questions all week, after paraphrasing what Jackson said about going beyond what's written, wrote:

On the other hand, I see such thinking as chaos and a lack of unity. I see that making us look, sound, and act like the world where there are no standards. I'm not able to reconcile the two. It is possible to hold multiple conflicting opinions at the same time. It is very confusing.

So an elder is saying that letting people make their own conscience decisions makes them look, sound, and act like "the world where there are no standards." He's right about one thing, at least — it's clearly very confusing to a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Loyalty, Not Regret

When it came to the people who died because of the old rule, the defenders didn't talk about whether the rule was right. They talked about loyalty:

We have obeyed direction from the organization in regards to what abstaining from blood looks like. And now in different ways it is presented as a personal choice with the components and fractions from another person. Was that a waste of our time and energy in obeying the past direction when it is now changed? No. Like the recites, Jehovah values our obedience and loyalty and will repay that even to human commands because they are motivated by love for God, even if we have died for the sake of keeping those commandments.

That post admits the old no-blood rule was a human command, but argues that dying for it still scores points with God because God values obedience and loyalty — obedience and loyalty to whom, if it was a man-made rule to begin with, is left unanswered. Another person rationalized it this way: "It hasn't cost any lives in Jehovah's eyes. They will be back in paradise."

One of the more revealing posts admitted the struggle isn't over:

The issue of blood has been part of the Jehovah's Witnesses DNA for decades. It has been the subject of much discussion in our lives, in newspapers, in doctor's offices, and before judges. It has led to trials that have left a deep mark on some of us. Nevertheless, I'm thinking about this update as I reflect on the past. For decades, the governing body has always prayed fervently to Jehovah, seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance in order to make wise and prudent decisions for the well-being of Jehovah's people. This means, therefore, that previous decisions regarding the use of blood were also made through prayer and thus under divine guidance. They resulted from deep spiritual reflection, which Jehovah approved of at that time. Did Jehovah leave the GB to make the decision on their own? Shouldn't we just tell ourselves that this is taught at the right time, even if it shakes us up? The products derived from whole blood chart is great for thinking things through simply and calmly. We are not out of the woods yet when it comes to new developments.

More change is coming — that much seems almost certainly true. But notice the reasoning: the old rule was divine guidance, and once it was removed, that was also divine guidance. Either way, it wasn't wrong to obey it. It comes from decades of Watchtower claims that they're never wrong, that the light only gets brighter, and that their claims to absolute truth survive never-ending changes to doctrine and policy.

One of the sharpest lines from all the posts: "The seriousness hasn't been removed. The responsibility has been moved." For decades, the governing body made this decision for every Jehovah's Witness. If someone died because of it, they were being faithful to God. If they refused and lived, they were kicked out and shunned. Now it's the individual's decision either way — if the choice goes wrong, that's on them, not the organization. That shift in responsibility may be precisely why the change happened to begin with, especially with Watchtower facing pressure in countries like Japan, including a dissolution request from a group of attorneys, at a time when Japan treats denying a child blood as neglect.

"What Happens When Your Mom Steps Back and Lets You Get Hit by the Car?"

One poster compared Jehovah's Witnesses to children prior to this change:

When we were young, our mother may have held our hand as we crossed the road to ensure we were safe. We didn't need to know the traffic laws and road hazards. We just followed mom. As we grew up and matured, we learned how to gather the information we needed to make our own decisions. The traffic laws and road hazards didn't change, but we were able to cross the street by ourselves.

That post was likely meant to be comforting. But it raises the question of what happens when a parent steps back and lets a child get hit by the car. That's what happened to Jerod Septer, who was 11 when he was diagnosed with lymphoma. His parents said in a JW video, "In no way would we accept a blood transfusion, and neither would Jerod." He died in June of 1992. Nobody can say whether blood would have saved him. In 2019, Watchtower played that video in a talk by Gary Breaux, and the speaker said Jerod "gave a witness to the universe that even a child that trusts in Jehovah can prove his loyalty to death." The Bible hasn't changed since 1992 — the organization was always going beyond what was written, and the governing body has all but admitted as much.

Another member seemed to anticipate the criticism coming from outside the organization:

They knew exactly what this change is going to cause outside the organization. Since this is a significant and historic change, we must be aware that we will be attacked by opponents, critics, and apostates. We must be vigilant. We must not listen to the apostates. They will take advantage of this change to try to make us believe that the governing body will also want to change other clearly condemned teachings, which is not the case. They will appeal to sentimentality, talking about brothers who refused certain treatments and died. All this to break our faith and our loyalty to Jehovah's organization.

Decrying the deaths of children under the prior policy, in this framing, is just "appealing to sentimentality." Given that this doctrine has now changed, the confidence that other teachings resting on the same "going beyond what's written" logic won't also change looks harder to justify — a growing number of doctrines rely on exactly that kind of reasoning.

Fences Around the Law

One believer, in an attempt to defend the religion, compared Jehovah's Witnesses to Israel after the Babylonian exile, when religious leaders built "fences" around God's law — rules stricter than God ever required, meant to keep people from getting anywhere near a violation:

Since spiritual Israel is made up of imperfect humans, it could also over time create some fences around Bible principles, rules or applications that were stricter than what the Bible itself requires.

They listed blood among those fences, citing Mark chapter 7 — the same passage that includes verse 13, where Jesus tells the religious leaders of his day, "Thus you make the word of God invalid by your tradition that you have handed down." That witness cited that exact passage about their own organization, seemingly without recognizing the parallel, framing it as fine now that the fence is coming down.

In 1961, refusing to stay inside that fence came with severe penalties. The Watchtower stated that anyone who accepted a blood transfusion or donated blood and wouldn't repent was a "rebellious opposer," writing: "As a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation, he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshipping" — kicked out and shunned for not following a man-made rule that went beyond what was written.

One member asked a question every witness should be researching right now: is this the first time the governing body has decided something previously considered a serious sin would become a matter of conscience? It isn't. Watchtower used to police what happened in the bedroom between spouses — discovery of the wrong act could get someone kicked out and shunned — before that was reversed. Accepting alternative civilian service could also get someone shunned, until that too became a personal decision. This wasn't the first time the governing body reversed course this way. It was just the next domino to fall, and the forum is already speculating about what's next — birthdays came up repeatedly in that discussion.

If this change of approach gets to birthday, it will be harder to swallow than the blood issue for me. Go figure. But I will swallow. It will go down scratching my throat, but it will go down. The fact is that we have nowhere else to go. And whatever change is hard for us, it will in reality make it easier for maybe millions of people out there to have a relationship with Jehovah.

Another wrote: "It is embarrassing to say as an adult that we don't celebrate birthdays because they are against our religion because I'm not a child. I need solid reasons that make sense." A moderator eventually stepped in:

This thread is supposed to be about the new update on blood and not about wanting to celebrate birthdays. What will it be next? Christmas. I don't get why someone want to push the boundaries. We all know the scriptures. Regarding birthdays, one of the only birthdays mentioned was when John sadly lost his head. Do we really want or need to celebrate birthdays? If we can't stand out as being different now, then we have zero chance in the tribulation. I'm sorry, but I just don't get this thinking. So, can we get the discussion back on topic, please?

"We all know the scriptures," the moderator said — despite the governing body somehow missing, for more than 80 years, that the Bible never talks about the medical use of blood components. Those birthday posts weren't off-topic at all: they rely on the same kind of reasoning, picking a verse from here and a principle from there and weaving those threads together into a rule that's never actually stated in the Bible. If the rule people died for can become a personal decision when the Bible itself never changed, asking what else is just as arbitrary is a fair question.

One member summed up where that leaves the rank and file:

With the updates coming in recent times, I feel it's actually becoming more difficult for one to defend the beliefs that distinguish us from mainstream Christianity with one's full chest because no one knows what is going to change the following day. Just imagine defending the blood position strongly a day before the update was released. It's going to be a real struggle to adapt.

That poster suggests imagining defending the blood position strongly a day before the update. A lot of witnesses don't have to imagine it — they did it at work, at the door, at the hospital, and in some cases at the bedside of a dying loved one.

What It Adds Up To

There's more coming. The annual meeting is on October 3rd, Watchtower study articles are being prepared to explain the change further, and the update itself is being played in Kingdom Halls around the world the week after the annual meeting.

What the forum reveals is that Watchtower's biggest problem with this change isn't the backlash. About a third of engaged witnesses are struggling, but almost none of them are talking about leaving — or at least those posts didn't make it through moderation if they were made. The bigger problem is that the people who stay can't fully explain it. They can't say it was a mistake, because the governing body can't be wrong in any way that actually matters under their own theology. They can't say the old rule was right all along, because it's gone — which means, whether or not they can use the word, it was wrong. And they can't even agree anymore on what blood is.

So they reach for the only thing left: we were loyal then, and we'll be loyal now. Maybe that holds for a while. But the member who asked how to explain this to people outside — "How do I explain to someone that Jehovah changed his mind?" — was met with an answer on their own forum: Jehovah's Witnesses were just spiritual children, and now it's time for them to grow up. That's the sound of a religion that used to have an answer for everything, running out of answers.