Recognizable questions
- Are you born with a conscience, or is it formed?
- Why does something sometimes feel wrong even though I no longer rationally believe it is wrong?
- How much influence do parents, school, culture, and religion have on my conscience?
- Why can guilt linger for years after my beliefs have changed?
- Is guilt proof that I am acting against my own values?
- Why can two sincere people have very different conscience responses to the same behavior?
- How do I know whether a rule truly fits my current values or has mainly been deeply internalized?
- Can I examine my conscience again without losing my entire moral framework?
What is the conscience?
By conscience we usually mean the inner process by which someone evaluates their own behavior, desires, and choices in terms of right, wrong, appropriate, or inappropriate.
It can evoke emotions such as:
guilt,
shame,
regret,
responsibility,
pride,
or, on the contrary, the calm feeling:
“This feels right to me.”
But from a psychological perspective, conscience is not a separate ‘moral organ’ in the brain that is born already containing a complete set of rules.
Research by developmental psychologist Grazyna Kochanska describes conscience as a complex system in which, among other things, moral emotions, self-regulation, and behavior in line with internalized rules develop during childhood.
CONSCIENCE
not one switch
in the brain
but an interplay of:
feeling
values
rules
empathy
self-regulation
experience
social developmentAre we born with it?
Not with a fully developed rulebook.
A baby is not born knowing things like:
“Stealing is wrong.”
“Sex before marriage is wrong.”
“Celebrating a birthday is wrong.”
But that does not mean a child starts out as a completely blank slate morally.
From an early age, capacities develop that later matter for morality, such as:
attention to other people,
social connectedness,
emotional responses to others’ distress,
self-regulation,
and sensitivity to social approval and disapproval.
Research shows that temperament and socialization can work together in the development of guilt, self-regulation, and conscience. Different children may even arrive at internalized moral behavior through different developmental pathways.
So not:
INNATE
OR
LEARNEDbut rather:
disposition
+
temperament
+
relationships
+
upbringing
+
culture
+
experience
↓
development
of conscience‘You don’t just murder someone, do you?’
Some moral beliefs feel so obvious that we may think:
“That’s just part of human nature.”
And indeed, there are early-developing social and emotional capacities that contribute to caring about others.
But even very basic norms are further shaped in a social world.
A child gradually learns:
other people have feelings;
what I do has consequences;
I can hurt someone;
people are not free to just do certain things to one another;
I am responsible for my behavior.
Research on the early conscience shows that both empathic concern and internalized rule-following behavior can become part of that development.
That is why it is too simplistic to reduce morality to just one source.
Parents are one of the first important mirrors
A young child depends heavily on caregivers.
A parent responds warmly:
“How sweet of you to share.”
Or corrects:
“No, we don’t do that.”
The child does not learn only a rule.
The child also learns the emotional environment around it:
this behavior
↓
warmth
that behavior
↓
disapproval
this makes
my parent proud
that causes
tensionThrough repetition, rules can begin to feel less and less like something that comes only from the outside.
They can become part of self-regulation.
Longitudinal research by Kochanska and colleagues shows that early parent-child interactions, temperament, and the way rules are internalized are linked to the development of conscience.
That does not mean parents simply “program” the entire conscience of their child.
Children differ in temperament and, as they develop, they interpret, process, and revise norms.
Then many more influences come into play
Parents are only one source.
Also:
school,
friends,
sports,
media,
legislation,
culture,
religion,
partners,
and personal experiences
can have an effect.
A child may hear at home:
“This is obviously wrong.”
and later discover:
“Other people judge this very differently.”
Then a new developmental question arises:
“What do I actually think — and why?”
Reconsidering things like this does not have to mean rejecting one’s upbringing.
After doing research, you may in fact conclude that you consciously want to preserve a value.
From external rule to internal value
Research on internalization is particularly useful here.
Within Self-Determination Theory, Deci and colleagues distinguished between different ways in which an external norm can become part of us.
A simplified scheme:
EXTERNAL RULE
“I do this because
others expect it”
↓
INTROJECTION
“I have to do this,
otherwise I feel guilt,
shame, or inferiority”
↓
IDENTIFICATION /
INTEGRATION
“I understand this value
and personally
endorse it”That difference matters.
Two people can do exactly the same thing, while their psychological motivation is different.
One says:
“I do this because otherwise I’m afraid of disapproval.”
The other:
“I’ve thought about this and it truly fits my values.”
Outwardly, you see the same behavior.
Inwardly, something very different may be happening.
Religion can strongly shape the conscience
Religion can be an important source of moral development.
That does not have to be negative at all.
Through their faith, people can develop values such as:
honesty,
love of neighbor,
loyalty,
forgiveness,
responsibility,
self-control,
care for others
and meaning.
For a believer, those values can be deeply personal and sincere.
Religions can also have standards on subjects that other religions or non-religious people view differently.
That raises an interesting psychological question:
I feel:
“this is wrong”
but why?
harm?
honesty?
justice?
my current values?
religious norm?
social disapproval?
old association?There does not have to be just one answer.
Conscience among Jehovah’s Witnesses
Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, forming the conscience is explicitly part of religious life.
A recent Watchtower from May 2026 describes the conscience as an inner sense of right and wrong that can accuse or excuse a person. The same publication also says that the conscience is imperfect and can be influenced by, among other things, upbringing and culture, and that Witnesses should therefore form their conscience with Bible principles.
That fits remarkably well with the general psychological idea that a conscience develops and is shaped.
The difference lies mainly in the standard by which it is measured.
For an active Jehovah’s Witness, the conscious choice may be:
“I want to learn to think about right and wrong the way Jehovah sees it according to the Bible.”
Through upbringing, Bible study, meetings, publications, conversations, and personal experience, such standards can increasingly be experienced as one’s own moral conviction.
First:
“My parents teach this”
↓
“My faith teaches this”
↓
“I myself believe
this is wrong”That process is called internalization and is not, in itself, a uniquely religious phenomenon.
The interesting difference: learned and personal can be true at the same time
The fact that a value was learned through upbringing or religion does not mean it is therefore ‘not really yours.’
Almost all our values have a history.
We did not invent language ourselves.
We also did not independently come up with all our ideas about honesty, relationships, and responsibility from scratch.
A norm can therefore:
have originally come
from outside
and
later be consciously
endorsed by youThe more relevant question is not:
“Did I learn this from someone at some point?”
but:
“If I examine it again today, do I still endorse it?”
Example: masturbation
Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that masturbation is an unclean sexual practice that can damage a person’s relationship with Jehovah. An official JW publication advises someone who struggles with it to seek, among other things, prayer and help from spiritually mature people.
When someone personally embraces that standard for years, sexual acts and feelings of guilt can become strongly linked.
For example:
masturbation
↓
“this is unclean”
↓
“Jehovah disapproves
of this”
↓
guilt / shameLater, someone may change their religious judgment and think rationally:
“I now see this differently.”
but still feel afterward:
“I’ve done something wrong.”
That does not have to mean that someone ‘deep down knows’ their old religious judgment is true.
One possible explanation is that the emotional and moral reaction changes more slowly than the conscious judgment.
But psychology also cannot draw the reverse conclusion:
“The guilt is learned, so masturbation is morally good.”
Psychology describes the process; it does not determine the final moral conclusion.
Example: falling in love or dating outside the faith
Jehovah’s Witnesses officially teach that a marriage mate should be a fellow worshipper of Jehovah. JW.org says that marrying ‘only in the Lord’ means marrying someone within the same faith; official publications also connect dating with looking for a potential marriage mate.
A young Witness may therefore learn:
romantic feelings
for non-JW
↓
“this could lead me in
the wrong direction”
↓
tension or guiltWhen someone later no longer holds the same religious belief, dating someone outside that former standard may still feel strange.
That is not necessarily true for everyone.
Another person may instead feel immediate relief or freedom.
‘I know I no longer think it’s wrong — but it still feels that way’
This is an important distinction:
CURRENT JUDGMENT
“I don’t think this
is wrong”
OLD EMOTIONAL REACTION
“But it still feels
wrong”That can happen when belief, internalization, and emotional conditioning do not change at the same time.
Your rational conviction can change in weeks.
An emotional association reinforced hundreds or thousands of times may last longer.
That means:
feeling and conscious belief do not have to change at the same pace.
Conscience is real — but not automatically infallible
People in different cultures and religions can have very different conscience reactions to the same behavior.
One person feels guilty about drinking alcohol.
Another does not.
One sees sex before marriage as a serious moral offense. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that sexual intimacy belongs exclusively within marriage.
Another judges sexual morality primarily by consent, honesty, safety, and responsibility.
One person experiences a birthday as morally problematic.
Another sees no moral issue in it.
Jehovah’s Witnesses officially say they do not celebrate birthdays because they believe God disapproves of such celebrations.
The same action
Person A:
“my conscience
objects”
Person B:
“for me this is
morally neutral”That shows that conscience is shaped in part.
Even the current JW publication on conscience acknowledges that upbringing and culture can have an influence.
So the rule is:
“My conscience
feels this”
≠
“so this has been
universally proven
right or wrong”But a conscience reaction does deserve investigation.
It may contain important information about your values.
Guilt is not automatically the same as moral guilt
You can feel guilty because you have truly done something that goes against your own values.
For example:
“I deliberately lied and hurt someone by doing so.”
Then guilt can lead to:
acknowledgment,
repair,
apologies,
and different behavior.
But you can also experience guilt after violating a standard that you no longer endorse.
For example:
“I celebrated my birthday and feel guilty.”
The important question then becomes not only:
“Do I feel guilty?”
but:
What is my conscience
accusing me of?
Which rule
did I break?
And do I still
endorse that rule
myself today?Guilt and shame are different
Psychological research usually makes this distinction:
GUILT
“I did something
wrong”
SHAME
“I am wrong”Tangney and colleagues describe guilt and shame as important self-conscious moral emotions, but with different focuses and consequences. Guilt is more strongly directed at specific behavior; shame affects the self as a whole.
Compare:
“I wronged someone.”
with:
“I am a bad person.”
When moral norms are strongly tied to identity and belonging, a violation can therefore feel much bigger than a single act.
Internalization: when the outside voice becomes an inner voice
A norm can go through roughly this development:
“My mother says
this is wrong”
↓
“My congregation says
this is wrong”
↓
“God thinks this is
wrong”
↓
“I feel this is
wrong”The original person does not need to be present years later.
The rule may have become part of your self-evaluation.
That does not have to be problematic.
This also happens with valuable norms:
“My parents say:
you must be honest”
↓
“I want to be
honest myself”So internalization is not just another word for indoctrination.
It is a normal human developmental process.
The question is which values are later truly integrated and endorsed.
Introjection: when the rule is inside but still exerts pressure
Self-Determination Theory makes a useful distinction.
In introjection, a rule has moved inside, but behavior is still strongly driven by internal pressure, such as guilt, shame, or the need to feel worthy.
For example:
EXTERNAL
“My father will be
disappointed”
INTROJECTION
“Even without my father
I feel bad
if I do this”
INTEGRATED
“I have examined this
and this value truly
fits me”This helps better explain why something can feel own to you without your ever consciously re-examining the norm.
Conditioning can come on top of that
Sometimes it is not just a matter of belief.
Certain actions can also become emotionally linked to guilt, fear, or tension.
For example:
sexual behavior → guilt
dating outside the faith → tension
birthday → discomfort
missing a meeting → uneaseThat touches on emotional conditioning.
After a lot of repetition, the emotional response can arise quickly, even when someone now thinks differently rationally.
But not every conscience response is conditioning.
A person can also, after careful reflection, come to a sincere moral judgment.
‘I sinned’ versus ‘I caused harm’
After a religious change, it can be helpful to separate several evaluation questions.
PAST QUESTION
“According to my
religious standards,
was this a sin?”
CURRENT QUESTION
“What do I myself
consider morally relevant
here?”For example, you can examine:
Was someone not free?
Was I dishonest?
Did I harm someone?
Did I break agreements?
Was there abuse of power?
Did I act against a value I myself endorse?
Those questions do not always have to lead to a different conclusion than before.
Theft, for example, can remain problematic in almost any moral system.
But on other issues, answers can change.
You do not have to go from one absolute to another
After leaving a religion, a pitfall can arise:
BEFORE
“If religion forbids it,
it is wrong”
AFTER LEAVING
“If religion forbids it,
it must be right”The second position still lets the old religion determine your compass — just in reverse.
Autonomy does not mean:
“Do the opposite.”
but:
“Examine it again.”
You do not have to smoke just because smoking used to be forbidden.
You do not have to celebrate birthdays.
You do not have to have sex.
You do not have to reject a religious value that you still find convincing.
Freedom is not:
“everything that used to
be forbidden must now”
but:
“I am allowed to
reassess every choice”Smoking is a good example of this
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not smoke. In a recent 2026 Watchtower, it is explained that Witnesses derive this from several Bible principles, including avoiding harm and addictive slavery.
JW.org also explicitly links not smoking to caring for the body.
Someone who leaves may discover:
“I no longer endorse my former religious guilt around smoking in the same way.”
But that does not imply:
“Therefore, smoking is sensible.”
A new way of weighing it up might be:
Not:
“I don’t smoke because
otherwise I’m
spiritually impure”
but for example:
“I don’t want to smoke
because of health,
addiction, and harm
to others”The behavior can stay the same while the underlying values and motivation change.
The same applies to relationships and sexuality
You don’t have to choose between:
“everything from my former sexual morality must remain”
and:
“there are no boundaries at all anymore.”
You can examine values such as:
consent,
honesty,
safety,
fidelity to agreements,
bodily autonomy,
respect,
emotional responsibility,
and care for yourself and the other person.
OLD RULES
↓
examine
↓
what do I want to keep?
what do I want to change?
why?
↓
CURRENT VALUESSo your conscience does not have to disappear.
It can be reorganized.
How do I know what is really ‘mine’?
Almost nobody exists completely free from outside influence.
Your ‘own’ values also develop within relationships, experiences, and culture.
So a better question is:
“Which values do I consciously endorse?”
For example, you can ask:
Who taught me that this was right or wrong?
What reasons were given for it?
Do I find those reasons convincing today?
What value is being protected by it?
What consequences does the behavior actually have?
How do other serious ethical or religious traditions judge this?
Would I want to pass this norm on to a child myself — and why?
Can I explain my choice without only saying who taught me the rule?
Not only:
“Where did
the rule come from?”
but also:
“Why do I want
to endorse it
today or not?”‘Whose voice is this?’
This question from your original text is strong and I would absolutely keep it.
When you automatically think:
“This isn’t right.”
ask:
Whose voice
is this?
My current
belief?
My parents?
My old
environment?
A religious
publication?
A former
authority figure?The answer:
“I learned that from my mother”
does not mean:
“So my mother was wrong.”
It only makes visible where the norm came from.
After that, you can reassess it.
Taking a moral inventory
You can examine old norms one by one.
OLD NORM
Sex before marriage
is always wrong
WHY DID I LEARN THIS?
Religious belief
WHAT DO I NOW FIND
MORALLY IMPORTANT?
Consent
honesty
safety
respect
responsibility
MY CURRENT
CONCLUSION
...Or:
OLD NORM
Birthdays are wrong
WHY DID I LEARN THIS?
Religious explanation
WHAT DO I THINK NOW?
...
DO I WANT TO KEEP
THIS NORM?
...The goal is not to decide in advance what answer should come out.
New experiences can continue to shape the conscience
Suppose someone attends a birthday for the first time after leaving.
Beforehand, he feels guilty.
During the birthday he may notice:
people are happy,
he feels connected,
he sees no harm himself,
and the feared moral experience fails to appear.
Old expectation
“this is wrong”
↓
guilt
New experience
“I now see this
differently”
↓
new informationThe next time, it may feel different.
That ties in with what we saw with emotional conditioning: new experiences can add new associations.
But the opposite may also be true.
Someone may try a birthday and think:
“This just means nothing to me.”
Autonomy does not require you to reverse every former rule.
Don’t go faster than you can handle
You do not have to deliberately do everything that used to feel loaded all at once.
Freedom is not a test of proof.
Not:
“If I’m truly free,
I should be able to do this”
But:
“I get to choose
whether, when, and why
I want to do this”That is especially important when old norms have become linked with strong fear, shame, sexuality, or traumatic experiences.
You do not have to destroy your old conscience
I would keep this core from your text:
You do not have to destroy your old conscience. You are allowed to re-educate it.
The goal does not have to be:
“I don’t want to feel guilty about anything anymore.”
A world without moral emotions would not necessarily be desirable.
Guilt can provide valuable information when we genuinely act against our values or harm someone. Research describes guilt as an important moral emotion that can guide behavior and repair.
The main question is:
Which guilt helps me
take responsibility?
And which guilt
comes from a standard
I no longer endorse?Self-punishment is not the same as responsibility
After feeling guilty, someone might think:
I don’t deserve enjoyment.
I have to punish myself.
I am bad.
I’m not allowed to be happy.
But repair asks for something else.
When you have truly harmed someone, responsibility can mean:
acknowledging what you did,
offering apologies,
repairing the damage where possible,
and acting differently.
RESPONSIBILITY
“I did something
wrong and I’m going
to do something about it”
SELF-CONDEMNATION
“I am bad
and deserve punishment”That distinction again comes down to guilt versus shame.
When guilt turns into self-destructive behavior
Long-lasting guilt, and especially shame, can for some people be linked to mental health problems or unhealthy ways of coping with emotions. Research on moral emotions makes a distinction between relatively constructive guilt and shame, which is more strongly focused on the whole self.
When someone tries to numb guilt or punish themselves through substances, risky behavior, self-neglect, or sabotaging relationships, that deserves attention.
The relevant question may then be:
“Do I somewhere believe I don’t deserve anything good?”
If guilt or shame leads to serious psychological distress, self-harm, or clear impairment in daily functioning, professional help is advisable.
How do you examine an old guilty feeling?
You can break the process down:
1. RECOGNIZE
“I feel guilty”
2. NAME THE RULE
“What did I break
according to my conscience?”
3. FIND THE SOURCE
“Where did I learn this?”
4. EXAMINE
“Do I personally still
see this as wrong today?”
5. LOOK AT THE CONSEQUENCES
“Has anyone been harmed?”
6. NAME YOUR VALUE
“What do I want to protect?”
7. HAVE A NEW EXPERIENCE
if that is appropriate and safe
8. REPEAT
feelings do not always
change all at onceThis allows you to take guilt seriously without automatically making it the judge.
A notebook can help
For example:
SITUATION
I started dating someone
outside my former faith
AUTOMATIC REACTION
“I feel wrong”
OLD STANDARD
“This isn’t allowed”
WHAT DO I THINK NOW?
A relationship for me
should be voluntary, respectful,
honest, and healthy
REAL SITUATION
...
CURRENT CONCLUSION
...Important: don’t write the conclusion in advance for yourself.
Maybe you decide to reject an earlier value.
Maybe to adjust it.
Maybe, on the contrary, to consciously keep it.
From ‘Is this allowed?’ to ‘Why do I think this is right or wrong?’
After an environment with clear rules, the automatic question can be:
“Is this allowed?”
A more autonomous question can become:
“How do I judge this — and why?”
“IS THIS ALLOWED?”
often first looks for
an external rule
“WHY DO I THINK
THIS IS RIGHT OR WRONG?”
asks for
personal judgment
and responsibilityBut autonomy does not mean you never use advice, religious sources, or expertise.
You can learn something from someone else and then make it your own.
That aligns exactly with research on internalization: something can originally be external and later become genuinely integrated into your own values.
Your new conscience does not have to become ‘looser’
After a change in faith, on some areas you may actually develop stricter personal values.
Maybe you now find:
honesty in relationships more important,
boundaries more important,
consent more important,
the treatment of children more important,
or responsibility toward vulnerable people more important.
Personal conscience
does not mean:
“anything goes”
but:
“I want to understand
why I think something
is right or wrong”For active Jehovah’s Witnesses
Even someone who remains fully believing can use this article.
An active Witness might ask:
“Do I understand why I consider this standard important?”
“Did I follow it only out of habit, or did I examine it personally?”
“Can I explain which Bible principle I am protecting with it?”
That even aligns with the current 2026 JW publication, in which Witnesses are encouraged to shape their conscience consciously with Bible principles and not simply expect a specific rule for every situation.
So examination does not necessarily lead to:
“I’m letting go of this standard.”
to follow.
The conclusion may also be:
“I’ve examined it and want to keep it consciously.”
Then it is still a learned value — as virtually all values are learned somewhere — but also a value that has been personally chosen again.
For someone who has left Jehovah’s Witnesses
After leaving, the challenge may be different.
Not:
“How do I switch off my conscience?”
but:
“Which values are truly mine today, and which automatic guilt do I want to examine again?”
OLD RULE
↓
old emotion
↓
examination
↓
current value
↓
conscious choiceSome topics change quickly.
Others remain sensitive for years.
That is not unusual.
Intellectual conviction, social identity, and emotional reactions do not have to change at the same time.
When professional help can help
A psychologist can be useful when guilt or shame:
remains very strong,
interferes with daily functioning,
is accompanied by panic or compulsion,
seriously interferes with sexuality,
leads to depressive feelings,
or results in self-destructive behavior.
A counselor does not need to decide:
“Your religion was right.”
or:
“Your religion was wrong.”
A therapeutic goal can be much more neutral:
Which values
do you want to keep?
Which beliefs
do you want to examine?
And how can you live
according to values that you
consciously endorse?Questions to reflect on
What did I learn as a child about right and wrong?
Which people shaped my conscience strongly?
Which religious, cultural, or family norms did I later examine for myself?
Which values from my upbringing do I still fully endorse?
Which old rules still feel wrong even though I no longer endorse them rationally?
If I feel guilty, have I hurt someone or done something wrong according to my current values?
Which rule does my conscience think I have broken?
Who did I originally hear that rule from?
Do I still find the reason behind that rule convincing today?
Do I feel guilty about my behavior or ashamed of who I am?
Which value am I actually trying to protect?
Have I consciously let go of an old rule, or mainly chosen the opposite of it?
Can I retain a norm from my religious upbringing without that meaning I have to keep my entire former worldview?
Can I let go of a norm without having to prove that the opposite is right?
Can I give my feelings time to catch up with my current beliefs?
And perhaps the most important:
Do I truly find this
right or wrong
today?
And if so:
why?Summary
Conscience is not a ready-made moral rulebook that someone is born with. Research into child development shows that temperament, social relationships, empathic development, self-regulation, and the internalization of rules all contribute to the development of conscience.
Parents, culture, school, relationships, and religion can all have an influence.
That does not mean that internalized values are therefore inauthentic.
A value may once have come from outside and later be fully endorsed by someone.
Within Jehovah’s Witnesses, this process of formation is even explicitly acknowledged: a recent Watchtower says that conscience can be influenced by upbringing and culture, among other things, and that Witnesses should shape it with Bible principles.
However, when someone later changes belief, something striking can happen:
THOUGHTS
“I no longer
see this as wrong”
FEELINGS
“But it still
feels wrong”This can be linked to internalization, guilt, shame, and emotional conditioning.
The feeling is real.
But it is not automatic proof that the old rule is objectively correct.
Nor does the fact that a norm was once learned prove that it is wrong.
The central question therefore becomes not:
“How do I get rid of my conscience?”
but:
Which guilt is pointing me
to behavior that truly
conflicts with my values?
Which reaction comes from
an old norm that I
no longer endorse?
And which values
do I want to
consciously keep today?Maybe that is ultimately what an individual conscience means: not that nobody ever influenced it, but that you take responsibility for which values you want to carry after examining them for yourself.
Sources and further reading
Nazan Aksan & Grazyna Kochanska (2005), Conscience in Childhood: Old Questions, New Answers, Developmental Psychology. Longitudinal research describing the young conscience in terms of, among other things, moral emotion and internalized rule-following behavior.
Grazyna Kochanska (1991), Socialization and Temperament in the Development of Guilt and Conscience, Child Development. Research into the interplay of temperament, parenting style, self-regulation, and the later development of conscience.
Grazyna Kochanska (1997), Multiple Pathways to Conscience for Children With Different Temperaments. Shows that there is not just one universal path to the development of conscience and that temperament can influence how socialization works.
Grazyna Kochanska & Nazan Aksan (2006), Children's Conscience and Self-Regulation. About longitudinal research into moral emotions, rule-compatible behavior, self-regulation, and the early parent-child relationship.
Edward Deci, Haleh Eghrari, Brian Patrick & Dean Leone (1994), Facilitating Internalization: The Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Important research into the difference between introjection — taking a norm in but continuing to act under internal pressure — and integration, in which a value becomes part of one’s own self.
June Tangney, Jeffrey Stuewig & Debra Mashek (2007), Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior. About guilt, shame, and other moral emotions and their different relationships with behavior and self-evaluation.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Use Bible principles to train your conscience (2026). Current official publication in which conscience is described as an inner sense of right and wrong and it is acknowledged that upbringing and culture can influence it; Witnesses are encouraged to shape it according to Bible principles.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – explanation about masturbation. Official publication in which masturbation is regarded as sexually unclean and linked to one’s relationship with Jehovah.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Do Jehovah’s Witnesses have rules about dating? and explanation of marrying ‘only in the Lord’. Official description of dating as being aimed at a possible marriage and of the religious norm to marry within the faith.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrate birthdays? Official explanation of the religious reasons why birthdays are not celebrated.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – current explanation of shaping the conscience and smoking. The Watchtower of 2026 explicitly uses smoking as an example of behavior that is judged by Bible principles.
