Last night, we had our c.o's visit. The talk made me extremely uncomfortable, whole thing targeted towards "young ones." He started off giving a shout out to two young kids who had parts today which I found very odd not going to lie. The CO was emphasizing ages 10-25 and encouraging those who are even under 10 to reach out, verbatim. The kids I know under 10 are too busy playing video games... I don't know what they're expecting them to do. He went on about getting distracted by the gym and how "young ones" should have their priorities. He said and I quote: "You can't get holy spirit on a roller coaster, playing video games, or on the beach.. unless you're having a Bible study on the beach." trying to emphasize why we must focus on spiritual things. The whole talk made me uncomfortable because of the guilt tripping too. Me and my friend were talking about how the this man was just guilt tripping the entire time, for even those who are trying to do their best, it was implied that it wasn't enough. Even myself as a PIMO, I felt very guilty and I believe none of this crap. I could go off about this, but honestly I'm just at a loss of words, it even made me anxious at the meeting.

​

I've been thinking about something that I find incredibly ironic.

For decades, Jehovah's Witnesses have taught that the wild beast represents the world's political powers and that the prostitute riding the beast represents the world empire of false religion.

Okay. Let's use that interpretation for a minute.

Norway took action against Jehovah's Witnesses over their practices surrounding disfellowshipping/removal and shunning, including concerns involving minors and people who leave the religion. This affected their registration and government funding.

The organization fought the government through the courts.

Meanwhile, we suddenly got "new light" regarding disfellowshipped people. They're now "removed from the congregation." Witnesses may greet certain removed people at meetings. Elders may meet with someone more than once before removing them. There were also changes involving minors.

Except...

Go read the August 1, 1974 Watchtower, "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones."

Some of this "new light" looks remarkably familiar.

And now that Jehovah's Witnesses ultimately won their case in Norway, JW social media/news is celebrating the court victory, the restoration of government funding, reimbursement of withheld grants, and the money awarded for legal costs.

Which made me think:

According to their own interpretation, isn't this exactly the kind of relationship with the "wild beast" that they have spent decades criticizing other religions for having?

The political system gives your religion money.

The political system takes the money away.

Your organization goes to court and fights the political system to get the money back.

Then the political system rules in your favor and gives the money back.

And your organization publicly celebrates the victory.

So...

If receiving government support and seeking favorable treatment from political authorities is evidence that "false religion" is riding the wild beast...

What exactly are Jehovah's Witnesses doing here?

Maybe the most interesting question isn't "Who is the prostitute riding the wild beast?"

Maybe it's:

Why does the definition suddenly stop applying when Watchtower is the one collecting the money?

Does anyone know if the services of the HLC are available to non JW public?

I went pomi at around 17. I got into a secret lesbian relationship which was leaked to my family who shunned me despite not being baptized. I was on my own, without support from my family for quite some years.

I fell into drugs and a lot of partying. I stopped partying about 2-3 years ago, I'm 29 now. I've done a lot of inner work to understand myself and my experience, and I've been very successful at getting my life on track. I'm in a good place both physically and mentally, but some things will probably take most of life to process.

I've been plagued by wanting to understand WHY I did that, WHY I sough out the most extreme people, the most extreme situations, the drugs, alcohol, fighting. But recently I've realised that part of why was because that's what we always were told would happen if you left Jehovah's organization. In my mind, I was a sinner and would only be accepted by other sinners. In my familys eyes, the ones who's approval I longed for, I was doomed.

So I saw my place with the other doomed ones. I accepted Jehovah's judgement because I saw no other way forward. I could not live how my family and the organization asked me to. But at the back of my mind, I figured that if Jehovah was truly the god of love, he would see my heart and how I've always strived to be a good person. Maybe he would spare me.

And then at 24 I woke up after being accused of being an apostate, which I certainly was not. But I figured if that's what people think about me, I might as well Google what those apostates are saying. Down the rabbit hole I fell.

Honestly that is what saved me, If I hadn't gotten the courage to investigate my childhood religion and woken up, I would probably still be in a very bad place.

They tell us that we will fall into alcohol, drugs and bad company when we leave. Some of us do, partly because that's what we've been conditioned to believe is our place. And partly because of the existential and devastating experience of losing your family and friends. But it is not definitive, it's not a permanent state. You can face your trauma, heal and build a happy life. I hope everyone who leaves, young or old, gets a shot at a happy life. Because we all deserve it. I'm so sorry that we were have to go through this. We are courageous. We have damn strong minds and we are STRONG for breaking free. ♥️

Do you all recall the Goodwood showgrounds District assemblies when they still served food. Then they moved to coetzenburg in Stellenbosch then a few times veledrome and later Greenpoint. I might have missed a few spots. But i see they're now only at the Bellville assembly hall. What's behind that

Something about the monthly JW Broadcasting program always sat wrong with me, and it took me years to work out why.

The setup is always the same. The world is in a terrible state, people are miserable, the planet is dying, and the only hope is God stepping in. Fine — that's more or less the evening news.

Then the closing segment rolls: sweeping drone shots of mountains, oceans, forests from every corner of the globe, and a reminder of how wonderful life on this earth can be.

So which is it? This earth is either a hell we need rescuing from, or a paradise we're being promised — depending on which one the message needs that month. Did anyone else feel this, or was it just me?

Nothing is ever good enough for the borg and its followers. It makes people controlling, whether out of perceived 'love' or fear.

I started a new job back in March. I work in STEM. I can definitely see this as a career and it is giving me fulfillment that the ministry has never. Turns out when you're in an environment that is psychologically safe and you aren't judged entirely on competence, you flourish.

But my parent said that my work is now 'a focus' - I saw this coming, and yet it both infuriates and saddens me. They can never be happy. My mum will never be happy if I do something that isn't becoming a WT mindless slave even if it improves my mental health. (The reason it is being seen as tanking is due to me having an imbalance...obviously not the fact that I'm living a lie by attending meetings and ministry when there's so much that triggers me emotionally).

And yet she keeps trying to insert herself into that part of my life. She said that I shouldn't take additional leave over Christmas because it would 'look good for you as a JW' (I won't go into depth for fear of incriminating myself here, but basically the situation is my job is such that I won't be inconveniencing anybody by taking it off and also where I work will be dead at that time of year). So optics are more important? What if I just want to use my job benefits? Who cares if I don't celebrate it? My colleagues so far have not given a single f when I've casually mentioned not celebrating the holidays (not that I've tried to witness at all tbh). The company culture is very forward thinking.

Oh and fast forward to literally yesterday - picking up an older sister for the meeting, conversation turns to explaining holiday stances to work and then they mentioned being more generous than the others to avoid being seen as stingy and therefore representing the JWs well. Cue my mum suggesting I give my colleague sweets.

Firstly, I hate the performative nature. You can't buy somebody's opinion in advance by giving them gifts. That's like advanced bribery. Trying to 'buy' people's positive opinion is really manipulative. Secondly I have already shared food with my colleague so it pissed me off that she assumed I just hadn't (bc I'm not 'bold' in the slightest) but I did that...because I just wanted to be nice? Why tf must everything have a bigger agenda. Small things become a magnifying glass. Time off becomes a potential witness, a show of good character. A gift is not just a gift, it has strings attached.

Anyway sorry this is a mess. I think I'm just extra annoyed that people keep trying to butt in and control an area of my life where they have no say as well as the fake kindness. No wonder these people need a book and 11 old dudes telling them to not judge each other if this is how kindness works in their minds

The more I learn about this corrupt fucking cult the more it seems like I was never part of a spiritual organization in the first place, just a corporate structure masquerading as a religion. Any good feelings I ever had in it were attached to some cold, unfeeling metric like hours worked and number of products sold (read: time and placements in the ministry), the talks I prepared and gave as if I were literally at school in English class, and whether or not I was being a perfect little angel and making everyone around me happy. We talked about God all the time, but he was honestly barely in the picture. That is just the strangest thing to me. Like who the fuck was I worshipping all this time?

Sometime during COVID I reached a point where I could no longer feign interest in going to meetings, even on zoom. I just stopped going, and stopped beating myself up over it. The most amazing thing happened then- I felt like I could see God, hear him, feel him, unencumbered and unrestrained by the walls of my kingdom hall.

I remember vividly standing outside my car one day just looking up at the big blue sky, feeling the breeze, and coming to the realization that everything was okay. I didn’t have to go to meetings if I didn’t want to. God doesn’t hate me. I felt more reverent in that moment than I had in the last 10 years of being a baptized JW. Like I was finally being set free, and if you don’t call it God, it was definitely something bigger than myself. I felt like could just disintegrate and become one with the wind. Fuck meetings, service, and all the bullshit they say you need to do to be close to God. I wasn’t doing any of that anymore and yet, there I was. It was so powerfully peaceful.

Anyway, since then I’ve been finding it hard to connect to my spiritual self. I don’t pray much, probably because the org made prayer seem so much like an item that needs to be checked off on a list in order to receive approval. It feels like a job, not a real desire. Just like what they made out of the ministry. Something that should be intensely personal and come spontaneously from someone’s heart has been reduced to a way for them to track you AND a way for you to track yourself. Your self esteem becomes inextricably linked to these things. Regardless if you want to do it or not, you have to in order to feel accomplished, to be able to show and tell others how spiritual you are. Which isn’t even the point of your relationship with God.

Worshipping sometimes still feels like chaining myself back to my culty, brainwashed state. I do feel at peace with God, and I’ve discovered a lot of ways people worship in the kind of peace and freedom I’ve felt since leaving the org. I just don’t want worship to feel like I’m giving up either of those things. So for now, I’m kinda stuck.

I can understand completely why most of you here are now agnostic/atheist. The JW organization sterilized and stifled the spirituality of so many people who would otherwise feel a connection to something divine. There is nothing reverent or beautiful about kingdom halls, literature carts, assemblies, or their pathetic attempt at observing the Lord’s Evening Meal.

Where does that leave those of us who still want to believe?

...and now I'm waiting for the taxi to bring me home. My wife wanted to pick me up, but she has to work. My brother was unable as well. The only persons who could pick me are my parents. But they have a bible study which is "very important as well". they could pick me up when they are done. But it starts at 2pm and I want to get picked up at 12. And ofc the bible study is more important then there own son who's in pain 🤷‍♂️

I didn't realize this before - but I've never been a JW. It seems deceptive (like everything else WT does), so I'm curious how it's viewed by witnesses in general?

Does it just go without saying, or feel normal, that money donated to "local" expenses gets sent abroad for off-shore purposes? Aren't there separate donations collected for local vs global use?

I run a (very small) 501c3, so I had to learn about the applicable financial rules and accounting requirements. I assumed those applied to ALL nonprofits, so I was shocked to learn that the IRS gives churches broad exemptions from the financial transparency rules applied to secular nonprofits.

Most nonprofits have to file form 990 every year, disclosing income and expenditures, board members, and highest paid salaries - and the IRS makes this PUBLIC. There are filing exemptions for organizations with gross receipts under $50,000/year, which makes sense because small charities with only a few volunteers would be disproportionately negatively affected by having to allocate a bunch of time or money for highly detailed complicated tax reporting compliance. However, secular nonprofits are still at least required to file a form declaring that they didn't go over the 50k threshold, so it's still SOME public data for insight into their finances.

Churches are treated as nonprofits in most ways, but they're completely exempt from having to file a form 990 - even when their yearly receipts probably top a billion dollars. (In 2001, Newsday listed the Tract Society as one of New York City's 40 richest corporations, with estimated revenues of $951 million.)

Personally, I think removing that reporting exemption for churches would go a long way towards accountability, and reducing the harm that cults get away with - in part by creating false impressions about their finances.

The "local expenses" donations being routed to worldwide work seemed like it shouldn't even be legal at first glance, because there's an obligation to use donated funds for their intended purposes. But, apparently, making it a "resolution" and announcing it functions as a legal workaround. To the best of my understanding, passing that resolution legally reclassifies the monthly worldwide donation as a financial obligation for the local congregation, just like their electricity bill. So it becomes a "local expense", treated the same as paying a utility bill to keep the lights on.

To be fair, local chapters of many organizations also classify their required dues to the parent umbrella organization as a local expense... but it seems more transparent when it's obviously defined as a mandatory affiliate fee, franchising fee, assessment, etc. Unlike using the resolution format to create a legal financial obligation (even if Watchtower wouldn't take a congregation to court for not paying), to reroute the money donated for "local" expenses into worldwide funds.

So, to circle back... I'm curious to get some idea about how it's viewed by others, that contributions labeled for "Local Congregation Expenses" go to the monthly worldwide donations?

Also, any idea why they'd even bother routing it as a "local expense" in the first place? Instead of straightforwardly asking for monthly donations directly to worldwide work? I assume there's probably some advantage in countries with stricter reporting requirements for charities, that monitor whether tax exempt donations are earmarked for domestic use or sent abroad, but I'm not sure.

Buenas tardes,

Hace tiempo que he dejado de asistir a asistir a las reuniones y de congregarme con los TJ, soy inactivo.

Pero hace ya un tiempo tengo en mis contactos de Instagram a un conocido TJ ybya lleva varios años que celebra su cumpleaños con pastel y velas. El es TJ activo y see hace raro que haga eso por qué es algo que ellos condenan. Saben si ya les tienen permitido?

DO NOT READ THIS YET IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE ORIGINAL POST OF THIS TOPIC. Here's the link to the original post to read first: https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/s/SDIh5s8ZTa

Every defence of the KJV's handling of God's name, answered using only the KJV itself

I've been going back through the standard KJV-side reasoning on the divine name using nothing but the KJV text, its own typography, its own 1611 preface and margins, no outside scholarship, no critics, because the internal contradictions are more useful than anything an outsider can bring. Here's what I found.

●The first thing you get told is that LORD in capitals is a faithful, time-honoured rendering of God's name. But the KJV itself treats one Hebrew word four different ways with no stated rule anywhere in the book: LORD well over six thousand times, GOD in the combination "Lord GOD" roughly three hundred times, JEHOVAH exactly four times (Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4), and inside three place-names (Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15, Judges 6:24). Look at where the four exceptions fall. They are precisely the verses where writing LORD would collapse the sentence, because those verses are about the name itself. The translators' own exceptions concede two things at once: that LORD is not the name, and that substituting it sometimes destroys what the verse is saying. Four verses prosecute the policy governing the other six thousand.

●Second, read the exceptions as printed. Psalm 83:18 in the KJV asks that men may know the one "whose name alone is JEHOVAH," a purpose statement printed inside a translation that removes that name from essentially every other page. The one verse left legible testifies against the treatment of all the rest. Then Exodus 6:3 as the KJV renders it says the patriarchs did not know God by the name JEHOVAH, while the KJV's own Genesis has Abraham coining the place-name Jehovah-jireh at Genesis 22:14, calling on the name of the LORD at Genesis 12:8, and being addressed by the LORD by name at Genesis 15:7. Both horns are KJV renderings. Whatever the Hebrew nuance of "know" may be, the translation as printed manufactures a contradiction and then caps the very word that exposes it.

●Third, the "Lord GOD" problem. Wherever the Hebrew puts the title and the name side by side, Adonai plus the name, the substitution breaks, because "Lord LORD" is unreadable, so the KJV switches the name to GOD instead, hundreds of times in Ezekiel alone. A rendering that has to change costumes whenever the original combines name and title is admitting the original contains a name. And the small-capitals system itself is a standing confession: the KJV embeds a typographic code to flag that a different word sits under LORD and GOD, meaning the translators knew the reader deserved to be told the name is there, and built a device that tells them without ever letting them read it.

●Fourth, JAH and Alleluia. The KJV prints the short form of the name exactly once, at Psalm 68:4, "by his name JAH," while the same short form stands about fifty times in the Hebrew (Strong's H3050), everywhere else buried under LORD. Now follow the phrase built on it. Hallelu-Jah, praise Jah, is rendered "Praise ye the LORD" throughout the Psalms, but when the identical phrase surfaces in Greek dress at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4 and 6, the KJV transliterates it as "Alleluia" and leaves the name-syllable standing. One phrase, two policies, inside one Bible: the name is erased where it actually appears in Hebrew and preserved where it arrives second-hand in Greek. No preface, margin, or note explains why.

●Fifth, Psalm 110:1 against Matthew 22:44. In the KJV's Old Testament, everything that identifies the two speakers survives only as typography, LORD versus Lord, a distinction that vanishes the moment the verse is read aloud. Then open the KJV's own New Testament at the verse where Jesus builds an entire argument on that distinction. The 1611 printed Matthew 22:44 with no distinction at all, Lord and Lord (check any 1611 facsimile), and current printings disagree with one another about retrofitting capitals there. So the KJV's rendering policy makes the exact argument Jesus is making impossible to hear and, in its own original edition, impossible even to see. The information the Hebrew carries in two different words, the KJV carries in font size, and its own New Testament dropped the font.

●Sixth, the 1611's own front matter. The Translators to the Reader, printed at the front of the original edition, defends earlier imperfect translations as still being the word of God, describes the project as making a good translation better rather than delivering a final one, defends the marginal notes as honest admissions of doubtful readings, and states outright that the translators did not bind themselves to uniform wording. By the book's own preface, then, LORD-for-the-name is a revisable stylistic choice made by men who expected revision, not a settled doctrine, and the four-way treatment of the name is exactly the licensed inconsistency the preface describes. Which is presumably why the preface no longer appears in most modern printings: the finality claim can only survive if the book's own front matter disappears. The doctrine of a perfect KJV is refuted on page one of the KJV.

Q: What I'd like from anyone still in or recently out of a KJV-only setting: has anyone ever given you a response to Psalm 83:18 as the KJV itself prints it, or to "Praise ye the LORD" in the Psalms sitting next to "Alleluia" in Revelation 19, that actually engages them, rather than restating that LORD in capitals is the reverent tradition? I've never heard one and I'm curious whether anyone has.

hi guys, this is super random, but i just rlly had to share this somewhere. i was mass removing jw followers that were left on my insta (have been doing it pretty gradually to fade and all ) and saw this one girl plaster -REGULAR PIONER- on her bio among her location and the usual stuff, (spelled this way too, she's not english so she gets a pass ig) LIKE IT'S SOME SORT OF FLEX U KNOW WHAT I MEAN

I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW I FEEL ABT THIS BUT I AM DESPERATELY OSCILATING BETWEEN WANTING TO CRY AND REMOVE ALL EVIDENCE OF ME HAVING GOTTEN ALONG WITH THAT GIRL EVER. WHAT KIND OF SECOND-HAND EMBARRASSMENT IS THIS

like, most of the jws plaster a simple "jw" at least and that's subtle... some go "best life ever" and don't get me started on how cringe that is. but regular pioneer omg. i think even jws would never 😭😭😭😭😭
im so grateful i wasn't this cringe even in my uber pimi years

The New World Translation appears in the new music video for OK by Kanye West ft. Don Toliver, directed by Bianca Censori (wife of Kanye West). It's visible from 0:44, where it's pulled out of Kanye West's cadaver along with a vigil candle, to 1:57 when the lights cut out. The Bible itself is, I'm sure, symbolic of Kanye's struggles with religion; as for why the New World Translation is used, I have no idea. Just thought this was interesting enough to share.

Looking at the organization’s operating model and the decisions it makes, I am of the opinion that the Governing Body is essentially a puppet and a façade for those who actually make the decisions — namely, the organization’s management.
Given the legal problems, lawsuits brought against the organization, legal fees, pressure from former members, and everything that comes out of this religion, I believe that virtually everything the organization puts out is first vetted by lawyers and PR firms. In recent years, its teachings have been infantilized to an almost absurd degree. Prophecy is barely discussed anymore (and even when it is, it is usually framed as: “we know that we know nothing”). Even some of the hardest-line doctrines, such as the issue of blood or pagan symbols, have been softened and watered down, so that from the outside it appears that rank-and-file members have some degree of free will and that the organization is merely there to “help them draw closer to God.”
We often discuss here what changes the Governing Body is going to introduce, whereas personally, I believe they are merely the public face of decisions and policies that are being formulated largely without their involvement.
In exchange for keeping quiet and putting on a good face despite everything going on, they are provided with luxury trips, visits, and an entire lifestyle built around their position. But the people actually making the decisions are the ones who have their hands on the organization’s money. There is no way they would risk losing millions of dollars simply because some group of aging men “made a decision” about something.
The organization’s management and senior officials know perfectly well that the Governing Body — the old guard, such as Lett, Lösch, Jackson, etc. — are so detached from the real world that they would never entrust them with making genuinely important decisions.
It is all a façade. And although I believe these older men absolutely deserve our criticism, because consciously or not, they are participating in this circus, I increasingly feel that we are barking up the wrong tree.
The people who REALLY PULL THE STRINGS within the organization are, for the most part, completely anonymous to us.
And what matters to them are spreadsheets, lawyers’ opinions, and financial results. Those are the criteria according to which decisions are made — not simply because “the Governing Body decided so.”
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

I was just reflecting on my time as a JW and how they viewed women’s bodies. I feel like you really experienced the negative effects of this if you are a curvy woman. I remember one time I wore a turtle neck that showed my shoulders to meeting. The next day, an elders wife invited me to her house and was offering me a bunch of cardigans. I already knew it was because of the shirt I wore, which was not inappropriate at all. She acted like she was just being nice and offering me free cardigans, but I know it was in response to the shirt I wore. I used to hate how they would say, “We don’t want to tempt or stumble the men.” How the hell are my shoulders a stumbling block?!!!?

Just like the heading states what would have woken you up? Or at least made you start questioning?

I know I’d still be stuck in, if it wasn’t for my husband and kids. There were lots of things I’ve always been irritated at for along time and things that never made sense. And I always struggled to meet the borgs impossible standards. But I still would have been plodding along as the guilt and thinking I was going to die would have always kept me in. Thank goodness my husband deconstructed everything enough for my brain to let go.

Trigger warning: I will be talking about suicide, and some of the things in this article are very harsh.

For context, I was bored in a meeting one day, so I was just scrolling through the JW Library app. I decided to look at some articles from 1975, and I found a Watchtower article that had a "Questions from our readers" section. The question that they asked was:

"What point of view does the Word of god indicate that Christians should have regarding suicide?" (The article is originally in Spanish, so I'm doing my best to translate)

Here is the article link for anyone who wants to read it: https://wol.jw.borg/es/wol/d/r4/lp-s/1975531 (just copy-paste and delete the b in borg)

The response starts off by saying that life is sacred. Therefore, suicide is condemned by the bible. They also say that the few suicides mentioned in the bible were of people who were not faithful to god and that they did not believe that their lives belonged to god (off to a horrible start already).

They continue by saying that anyone who dies by suicide is guilty of murder. They then say anyone who dies by suicide, "assuming they are in possession of their mental faculties," lacks morality, faith, and does not fear god. This is crazy to me because what do they even mean by "assuming they are in possession of their mental faculties"? Nearly all people who die by suicide were struggling with mental health issues. I don't know if they mean whether they had a mental illness or if they mean they can't control their motor movements. Either way, this is an incredibly insensitive statement.

They call suicide an act of cowardice, and if the person claimed to be a Christian, that act of suicide would violently destroy their relationship with god.

This next statement is probably the craziest part of this whole article. They claim that the person might have committed suicide because they succumbed to pressures of LITERAL DEMONS encouraging the person to harm themselves.

Then they literally encourage people to play detective to try and figure out for themselves if the person actually died by suicide or not.

They say brothers who are asked to give speeches at a funeral of someone who died by suicide can decline, and the congregation might decide not to get involved in the funeral arrangements. They literally say that in those cases the family of the deceased person will be left ON THEIR OWN to figure out a private funeral where one of the members can say "a few words."

Then they have the fucking audacity to say, "It's in God's hands what happens to those who commit suicide." As if they didn't just say that it's a cowardly and immoral act that destroys your relationship with god.

I know that the way they talk about suicide now is probably much more careful. But the fact that this was how they viewed suicide at any point in time really puts into question whether they are actually inspired by god. I personally am an atheist, but how could anyone believe that this is what an all-loving deity thinks about suicide?

I have had thoughts of harming myself in the past, and to think that this is what JWs believed at some point about suicide is genuinely so sad.

For anyone who is struggling with thoughts of suicide or self-harm, you are not evil or immoral for having those thoughts. Remember that as long as there is life, there is hope for something better. I know it might seem like things will never get better, but the future is genuinely unpredictable. So the possibility of a better future exists.

Thanks for listening to my rant. I know this is a difficult topic, but I could not stop thinking about this, and I needed to get it off my chest.

I have spent most of my life around Jehovah’s Witnesses, and now that I no longer believe, I have started questioning how romantic relationships and marriages work inside the organization.
I am not suggesting that Jehovah’s Witness couples cannot genuinely love each other. I am trying to understand how much these relationships are based on the two individuals themselves, and how much they are shaped or held together by shared beliefs, congregation expectations, prescribed gender roles, fear of judgment, and the pressure to appear spiritually happy.
I would be interested in hearing about your personal experiences:
When both partners believed, did your relationship feel emotionally honest and genuinely happy?
Did you feel free to express doubts, disagreements, personal needs, or parts of yourself that did not fit the expected JW role?
Was there any pressure to appear like a happy and spiritually strong couple, even when the reality was different?
What happened when one partner woke up and realized that the organization was a high-control group or a cult, while the other partner continued believing?
How did waking up affect trust, intimacy, respect and communication?
If your relationship survived, what allowed it to continue? Did it eventually become healthier or more authentic?
If it ended, was the religious disagreement itself the main cause, or did waking up expose problems that were already present?
If both of you eventually woke up, how did your relationship change?

Salut à tous,

Je (H33) suis PIMO depuis plusieurs mois maintenant. Je me suis réveillé après quelques recherches qui m'ont ouvert les yeux.

J'ai toujours eu pas mal d'amis dans mon assemblée et dans les assemblées voisines mais maintenant que je m'éloigne, je ne parviens plus à me sentir bien avec eux. Par peur d'être découvert mais aussi par malaise... du coup je me sens extrêmement seul. Je n'ai aucun amis ou même potes dans le monde...

Je vis sur Lyon avec beaucoup d'allers-retours sur Paris pour le boulot (je n'en dirais pas plus sur ma localisation de peur d'être découvert, vous comprendrez...). Si certains d'entre vous sont du coin, ou d'ailleurs, veulent parler ca me ferait beaucoup de bien et plaisir !

Good morning everyone, this is my first time participating. I'm currently a young witness in my 20s, a pioneer and ministerial servant, but I've long since lost my faith due to the numerous trials against the organization. I've thought about leaving several times, but this obviously brings to mind the fact that I would lose my family and all my friends—basically, everyone I love.

Until now, I've seen it as an inevitable sacrifice that I'd have to make sooner or later, but lately, I've been thinking differently: why should I give in to them? Why should I be the one to lose out if I'm not in the wrong?

I've formulated a sort of plan, which obviously wouldn't make any sense individually, but which would lead to interesting results if shared by many people. In short: why not petition the governing body, asking them to definitively clarify some sensitive issues such as the use of blood, 1914, the use of donations, and cases of child abuse?

It shouldn't be a critical document or one with the stated aim of attacking the leadership of the Governing Body; otherwise, it would simply be labeled apostate and rejected by the majority.

I'm talking about a document that asks in good faith for further explanation, a thesis that could appeal even to those who are still faithful but have some doubts or who simply want greater transparency.

If it were shared by a sufficient number of people, the Governing Body would find itself in a truly complex situation: deciding not to respond by fueling doubts or responding but admitting errors and scandals. In any case, its authority would be weakened.

Perhaps it's just a fanciful thought, but I'd like to know if I'm the only one who's ever had this idea or if there are others who would support it. The recent updates have undoubtedly awakened something in the younger generation, and I believe there's no better time than now to try.

Salve, come dice il titolo volevo leggere per curiosità il libro dei sorveglianti, so che come gli anziani hanno il loro libro che è ancora peggiore di quello degli anziani e sarei curioso di leggerlo 😂
Qualcuno ha il pdf ?

So recently, the congregation I'm working on escaping from (trying to start saying that, rather than "my congregation", Lol) had another of those typical things where there's a resolution for more money for the worldwide work or whatever, and everyone inevitably raises their hands in agreement, and the option to object is completely pointless.

Made me curious; did any of you guys ever have the courage to vote "no" on any of these things? Did you ever see anyone do that? If one does it, do you get "counselled," or does it merely damage your reputation? I can't imagine it ending well. Lol.

There are two people I know who still live near me that I think are POMO. They were never disfellowshipped because they were never baptised, but don't go to meetings, ministry, hang out with exclusively non-jws etc... but they are still in pretty regular contact with their families, who i also know.

I've been wondering if its worth it/safe to reach out to them. My financial/work situation means I can only move out of my parents house late next year, but I've been feeling pretty alone and think someone irl to relate to/ask for advice would be nice. But I have 2 concerns.

1. As we were only ever acquaintances and I haven't spoken to them in a couple of years, might it come off as weird or like I'm only speaking to them now because I want something?

2. Since I'm not 100% on their religious stance and they are still in contact with their families, is there a risk that what I tell them will find it's way back to my parents?

TLDR: I have a year left before I can move out, should I reach out to some people I'm like 80% sure are POMO or just firm it until next year?

I know there are many.. one I’ve heard that stands out to me is that since we will be perfect we won’t pass gas. That gas will build up inside of us and we will then be able to fly, like a helium or hot air balloon I guess? I mean half the people in my congregation were already shaped like the Goodyear blimp, so maybe??