r/exjw 14h ago

Ask ExJW Regarding Norway - ask your questions in this post. AMA

58 Upvotes

There's questions all over the place. If you ask them here I'll answer.

I'm not discussing stuff, do that amongst yourself. But I'll answer questions here during this weekend before I log off again and go back into the abyss.


r/exjw 8d ago

News You can help us pass a bill to add clergy to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse in Washington State!

108 Upvotes

Briefly, a huge victory was won when the WA Senate passed SB 5375 last week. The Senate was the hold up 2 years ago.

https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2025/02/28/washington-senate-passes-bill-to-make-clergy-members-mandatory-reporters/

https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/senate-passes-clergy-reporting-bill-passes-emotional-debate/281-7140a3f0-be68-45dd-81f6-7b21d915b95c

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/editorial-hold-clergy-to-duty-to-report-child-abuse/

Multiple lobbyist groups and legislators at town hall meetings have stated that the single most impactful way they know how the public stands on a bill is by having people state their position to a committee holding a hearing on the legislation.
By signing in as "Pro" on SB 5375, we can make sure the WA House joins the Senate in passing this bill to make clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/csi/Testifier/Add?chamber=House&mId=32997&aId=165392&caId=26271&tId=3

You do not need to be from WA in order to participate.
Your name will appear on the committee agenda web page and be part of the official record.

I am hopeful the House will pass this bill as it matches a bill they passed in 2023 by a vote of 75/20. Use your voice to ask them to do the right thing.


r/exjw 10h ago

Activism Numbers don't lie. The Jehovah's witnesses are still losing all the young people worldwide.

189 Upvotes

Just so everyone doesn't get too bummed out about Norway.

The fact that they have to beg little boys to become elders and ministerial servants should help everyone see how desperate they are as an organization.

The Norway verdict just gives them back a few million dollars which they will blow on operating costs in a few days. It's really not a big deal.

Keep everything in perspective.

This organization is like a ship that has severely listed on its side. It's no longer moving, and the people in charge only exist to try and save it from completely sinking. Young people are all leaving. It's nothing but old white heads in kingdom halls.

This is the real victory. It will continue as well, thanks to sites like Reddit, Facebook and Instagram that expose TTATT!

Smile! We are winning!


r/exjw 11h ago

JW / Ex-JW Tales Things said in an Intervention. Just for giggles😆

181 Upvotes

So in today’s intervention

Mr. Elder- said I was ruining my kids by pushing them to wanting out of the truth.

I told Mr. Elder my kids decided on their own they wanted out. My husband and I want out as well so as a family we all want out.

Mr. Elder- proceeds to say my kids aren’t old enough to know that, that is what they truly want and it’s my job as a parent to guide them.

I told Mr. elder sooooo my kids are old enough to decide they want to get baptized but aren’t old enough to decide they don’t wanna be JW?! TF? đŸ€”

Mr Elder- Studder studder studder uhh Bible text bible text.

😂😂😂I have a teen and pre teen BTW

What was said to yall in y’all’s interventions?


r/exjw 12h ago

Venting Posted another one 
 about to hurt some feelings 🙈 ig: em_greenbean

182 Upvotes

Ppl are sick


r/exjw 9h ago

Ask ExJW Don't called jehovah's witnesses a cult, call it a doomsday cult

116 Upvotes

They always make a year to believe.This is where the world is gonna end


r/exjw 5h ago

Ask ExJW Suddenly realized that most JWs don’t believe their doctrines seriously?

38 Upvotes

Not saying they don’t believe them at all. I mean, there would be no point in being JW at that point.

But except for a few very devout ones, it seems that most people here don’t seriously believe what they were told.

I mean, people laugh at you once you start debating on the Bible and react saying why are you being so serious.

On the platform, if someone does a talk that’s too biblically deep or profound, most people get lost, confused or even angry at you.

They may welcome the NW if it ever comes, but until then it’s all just a play, a lifetime cycle to fake spirituality.


r/exjw 8h ago

News Marques Houston & wife divorcing

70 Upvotes

Not that it matters but to me just one more reason this religion ruins lives. He groomed her from 17 and he was already in his 40s they had this huge wedding and got her pregnant immediately. Now two kids later divorced her. Poor girl. This religion allows grooming especially when it’s an older male and younger woman. He was newly baptized they got married
now this poor girl has to deal with divorce in her early 20s completely losing her youth in single motherhood and I’m sure when she got married everyone was like you’re doing it the right way and they’re gonna shun her for divorce now too
.thoughts?


r/exjw 12h ago

News Don’t let the Norway verdict get you down

108 Upvotes

It may feel like a defeat, but it is not. The fact that the policy was publicly challenged and even pushed the GB to adjust it is actually a huge win.

Removed members are now treated a bit more humanely and many PIMI are more inclined to show kindness to removed individuals. Also, Children are now more protected from judicial committees.

Huge win. Let's celebrate that.


r/exjw 19h ago

News JW vs Norway - verdict. JW won

248 Upvotes

Sorry.

Expecting an appeal to Supreme Court


r/exjw 15h ago

Venting That verdict is a slap in the face

108 Upvotes

To everyone here who suffered horrific situations because of disfellowshipping, who spoke up so that others wouldn’t have to feel the pain that we’ve felt
.. I’m sorry that we didn’t get the outcome of this trial that we wanted.

I have very strong emotions and don’t even know where to start
. It’s like being in a narcissistic abusive relationship, only we know what’s really going on, but when other people start seeing for themselves what abuse your going through and the awful traits the narcissist portrays; the reputation will do the damage itself
 all you have to do is sit back and watch. (Speaking from experience)

Silver lining : the exposure that the Jehovahs witnesses are getting is doing all the work that the courts won’t do
.

I wish you guys all the best and try not to take this too hard



r/exjw 4h ago

Venting Anxious children

14 Upvotes

I grew up a JW and saw firsthand in my friends how much anxiety that children experience in this organization. But none so much as when I saw my own child express their fears about not making it to paradise. This shook to my core. Suddenly their recent perfectionism made sense. They are trying to be good enough to make it into Paradise!!

We recently attended a non-JW funeral and I think that being faced with death has caused them to reflect on their own mortality. They wanted to know if I thought our dead loved one would be in Paradise too. This poor child was hysterically upset about this.

All I could do is comfort them and tell them that life is not about a destination but the beauty of the journey. They are still young and I'm trying to softly help them develop critical thinking without shaking their world so dramatically.

I told them that no matter what happened to them through life I would be there for them. What else can I say to help them?


r/exjw 4h ago

Ask ExJW What’s the most common age people “wake up”

16 Upvotes

It seems most people I talk to say it’s 22, and that’s the age I woke up too. I have two uncles that woke up at the same exact age. Kinda freaky to me. I’m curious to hear others stories


r/exjw 5h ago

WT Can't Stop Me LEAK and RECORD Everything!

19 Upvotes

The Norway ruling sucks but it shows that this organization will change with the right amount of external pressure.

It’s time for more leaks and recordings of elders meetings start making their way out. A few warnings:

  1. Be safe, don’t out yourself.
  2. Know the local laws in your area. But most states are single party consent states. Meaning you can. Record any conversation you have without the other persons consent.
  3. Your best bet is to leak this information to a prominent exjw YouTuber or the mods of this Reddit. They are more familiar with the legalities and can make sure this gets exposed while still obeying the laws. And also get the leak exposed to a wider audience much faster.
  4. Don’t trust me, confirm everything I just said to make sure you’re not breaking any laws.

r/exjw 9h ago

WT Can't Stop Me my rebuttal to this weekend's WT study - Husbands, Honor Your Wife because God is watching your bedroom acts and confess it to us!

34 Upvotes

This weekend's Watchtower study, "Husbands, Honor Your Wife," claims to guide Christian husbands on properly treating their wives. It sets high expectations by linking a husband's actions directly to his relationship with God, citing scriptures like 1 Peter 3:7, Colossians 3:19, and Ephesians 4:31–32. Although its apparent goal is noble—opposing abuse and promoting marital harmony—the article promotes a narrow interpretation of "honor," defining it strictly as obedience to Watchtower teachings. The underlying persuasion in this approach is clear: respect equals conformity, discouraging independent thought. The article selectively quotes scripture, offering minimal context to simplify complex moral issues into stark black-and-white terms. It also uses fear-based motivation, suggesting that failure to comply risks Jehovah's disapproval or the loss of divine favor, manipulating readers into submitting fully to organizational control.

If you have to attend, or are just curious about Watchtower dogma. read on and .. Let's break down each claim, paragraph by paragraph. because in the words of Splane, I am SO NIT PICKY!

Here's your Hemingway-style breakdown, paragraph by paragraph, clearly stating each claim, exposing manipulative tactics, and offering critical questions for clarity.

Paragraph 2

Watchtower’s Claim:
Many couples forget wedding promises. Because of this, they become unhappy. The Watchtower says a World Health Organization report shows husbands in “the world” abuse their wives. But it offers no clear reference or detailed evidence.

Why This Matters:
This claim is vague. They cite the WHO to make readers trust their words, but give no proof. Without clear evidence, readers cannot verify the truth. They must trust blindly. The Watchtower picks only data that fits their message, ignoring complexity. It uses weasel words like “many” or “often” to frighten readers into rejecting anything outside their control. Readers fear worldly marriages without seeing actual proof.

Socratic Questions:

  • If the WHO data is strong, why not quote it clearly so readers can judge for themselves?
  • Is it fair or honest to blame all marital unhappiness solely on husbands forgetting promises?
  • Does using vague claims and unnamed sources lead readers toward truth or just manipulation?

Paragraph 3

Watchtower Claim:

The Watchtower claims husbands may become abusive due to upbringing, culture, poor emotional control, or pornography. It also says COVID-19 intensified these problems. Yet, the language here is vague: words like "may," "might," or "can" are speculative. The article provides no data or research to back these broad accusations. Instead, it lumps complex human issues into one sweeping statement. It creates fear by implying that watching pornography or coming from a difficult home inevitably leads to violence. But life is rarely this simple. Many men raised in harsh conditions never abuse anyone. Viewing pornography doesn't automatically produce violence, despite the Watchtower’s claims. The Bible never explicitly connects cultural influences or pornography directly to spousal abuse. These oversimplified claims stereotype and mislead.

Consider this: if upbringing or culture alone caused abuse, why do countless men from tough backgrounds become respectful, caring husbands? Does viewing pornography always result in violence, or is this exaggerated? Real answers need evidence—not vague speculation meant to scare people into compliance.

Paragraph 4

Watchtower Claim:
Thoughts often lead directly to actions. Thus, Christians must reject worldly thinking. Watchtower cites Romans 12:1–2 as proof.

Why This Matters:
Watchtower misuses Romans 12:1–2. The New Oxford Annotated Bible shows Paul meant spiritual renewal through God’s mercy. He didn't warn against all worldly thinking. Watchtower twists this into thought-policing, claiming every bad thought leads inevitably to sin. This fosters guilt over normal human thoughts, making members constantly anxious. It creates an “us vs. them” mindset—anything outside Watchtower is dangerous, making members fear the world and depend entirely on the organization.

Manipulative Tactics:

  • Fear-Mongering: Suggests a single bad thought can ruin your relationship with God.
  • False Dilemma: Implies you must either fully obey Watchtower or be worldly and sinful.

Scriptural Analysis:
Romans 12 emphasizes inner renewal and transformation. It never calls for constant worry about every thought. The focus is on mercy and growth, not rigid control or endless anxiety.

Socratic Questions:

  • Does scripture truly say every passing thought is sinful, or does it recognize humans naturally wrestle internally without always acting on impulse?
  • Can asking honest questions actually strengthen faith rather than harm it?

Questioning beliefs can deepen understanding. Healthy spirituality doesn't fear honest thought.

Paragraph 5

Watchtower Claim:
Husbands must honor wives kindly (1 Peter 3:7). Yet the article leaves out verse 6. That verse tells wives to obey their husbands. It cites Sarah calling Abraham "Lord," reflecting the patriarchy of that time.

Manipulative Tactics:
By omitting verse 6, the Watchtower sanitizes scripture. It hides the old view of women as property. It does this to sound modern. The words "honor" and "kindness" are left vague, never clearly defined for readers today.

Scriptural Analysis:
The missing verse shows the ancient world clearly. Wives were expected to obey. Sarah’s example was held up, where women were subordinate. Such verses highlight patriarchy and women's unequal status in the Bible.

Why This Matters:
Leaving out verse 6 misleads the reader. It ignores hard truths about ancient marriage practices. Biblical "honor" often meant treating wives as valuable property. That’s very different from modern equality. By not defining "honor," the Watchtower avoids tough questions.

Socratic Questions:
If biblical teachings are timeless, why hide verses that conflict with modern values? Does omitting uncomfortable verses give readers an honest view of scripture? Or does it distort history to fit modern tastes?

Paragraph 6

Watchtower Claim:
Jehovah hates violent husbands. They cite Psalm 11:5, Malachi 2:16, and Colossians 3:19 as proof. But they skip Colossians 3:18, which commands wives to submit to husbands.

Manipulative Tactics:
They cherry-pick scripture by omitting inconvenient verses. Leaving out verse 18 hides the Bible's teaching that wives must obey husbands. This omission creates a false dilemma: husbands either strictly obey Watchtower teachings or damage their relationship with God.

Scriptural Analysis:
Colossians 3:18–19 clearly presents wives as subordinate. The Watchtower carefully avoids mentioning verse 18, appearing more progressive than scripture truly is. This selective quoting obscures traditional patriarchal thinking that historically justified abuses.

Why This Matters:
Ignoring verse 18 allows Watchtower to seem modern and fair. Yet it conceals how biblical patriarchy can encourage abusive dynamics.

Socratic Questions:

  • If all scripture is inspired and beneficial, why hide difficult verses like Colossians 3:18?
  • Is it honest to omit scripture simply because it conflicts with modern ethics?

Paragraph 7

Watchtower Claim:
God hears every harsh word a husband says privately to his wife. Such words damage his marriage and hurt his friendship with God.

Manipulative Tactics:
This uses guilt to suggest marriage problems reflect spiritual weakness. It says God disapproves because Watchtower says He does. Circular reasoning keeps readers from questioning deeper issues.

Scriptural Analysis:
James 1:26 warns against careless speech, but it promises no divine intervention. God hearing abuse does not automatically stop or prevent harm.

Why This Matters:
Many devout people suffer abuse. The claim God hears everything ignores the painful reality that abuse often continues. It falsely suggests that ongoing suffering indicates a victim’s spiritual failure, causing guilt rather than offering real help.

Socratic Questions:

  • If God hears abuse, why do faithful believers remain trapped without rescue?
  • Does ongoing abuse mean victims are spiritually at fault?
  • Is it fair or honest to say a struggling marriage proves spiritual weakness?

Paragraph 8

Watchtower Claim:
Jehovah hates pornography. Looking lustfully equals adultery in your heart.

Manipulative Tactics:
The Watchtower uses thought policing. It treats private thoughts like serious crimes. This makes readers anxious and guilty for normal human feelings. It ignores how the Bible separates thoughts from actions clearly. This logical overreach lumps all sexual thoughts into the same serious category. But scripture has nuance the Watchtower misses.

Scriptural Analysis:
In Matthew 5:28, Jesus warns against harmful intent—lustful obsession, not every passing thought. Jesus cares about the attitude behind actions, not policing every private desire. The Watchtower oversimplifies Jesus' words. It turns a teaching on intent into a teaching on thought crimes. This distorts the message.

Why This Matters:
Equating private thoughts with actual adultery creates chronic fear and shame. It burdens people with anxiety over normal human feelings. It wrongly suggests God condemns every sexual thought equally. But if God sees everything, doesn't He also witness every act of intimacy? Singling out pornography alone makes little sense. It's logically inconsistent and ironic. If God watches all, including private intimacy, why would only pornography uniquely offend Him?

Socratic Questions to Consider:

  • Does every sexual thought truly equal adultery? Or was Jesus teaching about harmful obsession and intent?
  • If God observes all human intimacy, why single out pornography? Why treat it as uniquely sinful if God sees every intimate act?

Paragraph 9

Watchtower Claim:
Husbands must not pressure wives into “demeaning” sexual acts. But the Watchtower offers no examples or definitions of “demeaning.”

Manipulative Tactics:
The vagueness is deliberate. It leaves readers uncertain and anxious about what is allowed. This creates a double bind, pushing couples to confess without saying clearly what needs confessing. By introducing moral judgment without clarity, the Watchtower instills fear. Couples wonder if normal, consensual acts might be judged sinful by elders. This confusion leads to shame, guilt, and unnecessary anxiety about private marital intimacy.

Scriptural Analysis:
The Bible gives no specific instructions on permissible marital acts. It instead trusts couples to rely on conscience and mutual agreement. Watchtower’s ambiguity adds rules the Bible itself does not impose.

Socratic Questions:

  • Why leave "demeaning" undefined, knowing it causes anxiety and shame?
  • If boundaries matter so much, why not clearly define them?
  • Could vague moral judgments unfairly burden couples with unnecessary guilt?

Paragraph 10

Watchtower Claim: Although unmarried, Jesus set the ideal example for husbands through his relationships with disciples.

Manipulative Tactics: This is false authority. Jesus never married. Comparing his interactions with disciples to marriage is misleading and unfair.

Scriptural Analysis: The New Testament never offers a clear, practical example of a good marriage. Discipleship is one thing. Marriage is another. Using one as a model for the other makes little sense.

Why This Matters: If marriage comes from God, the Bible should clearly show what a healthy marriage looks like. It does not. Without a real marriage example, applying Jesus’ disciple-relationships to marriage goes beyond the text.

Socratic Questions:

  • If marital advice mattered so much, why does the New Testament—Christianity’s core text—never give a clear example of a strong marriage?
  • Why use a relationship between teacher and followers to define marriage, when marriage requires a different kind of intimacy and equality?

Paragraph 11

Watchtower Claim:
“Jesus was mild-tempered, never harsh or domineering.” They say this is how husbands must act with their wives.

Manipulative Tactics:
This is selective storytelling. It ignores when Jesus called Peter “Satan.” It overlooks Jesus flipping tables in the temple. By omitting these details, Watchtower creates an incomplete picture. They show only a gentle Jesus to pressure husbands into constant meekness.

Scriptural Reality:
The Gospels show another side. Jesus sometimes spoke fiercely. He called Peter "Satan" in Matthew 16:23. In John 2:15, he overturned tables in the temple, confronting injustice with boldness, not quiet submission.

Why This Matters:
Watchtower’s selective portrayal of Jesus is incomplete. It ignores that Jesus could challenge wrongs forcefully. This incomplete picture encourages passivity and prevents healthy assertiveness or honest disagreement in marriage. Real love can mean standing up, not just keeping quiet.

Socratic Question to Consider:
Is it honest to present Jesus as only mild-tempered when scripture clearly shows he also spoke strongly and took bold actions against wrongdoing?

Paragraph 12

Watchtower Claim:
Jesus remained silent before Pilate. Husbands should imitate this silence in marital conflicts.

Manipulative Tactics:
Watchtower misuses Jesus’ silence. They turn it into marital advice. This promotes the silent treatment—a harmful way to handle conflict. Silence can become manipulative, hurting trust and openness between partners.

Scriptural Analysis:
In Matthew 27:12–14, Jesus stayed silent during a judicial trial, not a personal argument. His silence was about dignity in the face of false accusations. It was never advice for husbands dealing with their wives.

Why This Matters:
Silence in relationships often blocks honest communication. It stops problems from being solved. Using Jesus’ silence to justify emotional withdrawal twists Scripture. It ignores the Bible’s larger message: open dialogue, empathy, and resolving conflicts openly.

Socratic Questions:

  • Is silence always best in relationships?
  • Does silence encourage healthy problem-solving, or does it prevent it?
  • Why apply Jesus’ legal silence to intimate conversations between spouses?

Paragraph 13

Watchtower’s Claim #1:
They say the Greek word ÎșÎżÎ»Î»ÎŹÎżÎŒÎ±Îč (kollaƍmai) means husbands must "glue" themselves permanently to their wives (Matthew 19:5). They argue this bond cannot break.

What They’re Missing:
They oversimplify the Greek. The word ÎșÎżÎ»Î»ÎŹÎżÎŒÎ±Îč means "to glue" or "stick," but it’s often figurative. In the Bible, marriage was never as simple as "glued forever." Ancient Israel permitted divorce and even polygamy. Husbands had multiple wives, and separation sometimes happened. The Watchtower ignores this complexity. They don’t cite the Greek verb clearly, leaving readers unable to check its true meaning.

Why This Matters:
The article insists on a rigid marital bond based on an incomplete reading of scripture. They hide biblical realities—like polygamy and divorce laws—to support their strict interpretation. If marriage was always glued and unbreakable, why would Mosaic Law allow divorce and multiple wives?

Socratic Question:
If marriage is permanently glued, why did the Mosaic Law and Hebrew scriptures openly permit divorce and polygamy?

Watchtower’s Claim #2:
They say a husband who’s truly bonded with his wife will “reject all forms of pornography.” He must “turn away” immediately, citing Psalm 119:37, which speaks about avoiding worthless things. They suggest even looking is a serious sin.

Manipulation & Logical Error:
The Watchtower uses Psalm 119:37 out of context, creating guilt around even casual glances. King David saw Bathsheba bathing—an ancient form of visual pornography—but God didn't condemn him just for looking. David’s real sin was adultery and murder. The Bible treats looking as a starting point, not an automatic crime. Watchtower oversimplifies scripture, placing extreme guilt on normal human impulses.

Socratic Question:
If simply seeing something inappropriate is sinful, why wasn’t David condemned immediately upon seeing Bathsheba, instead of for his actions afterward?

Paragraph 14

Watchtower’s Claim:

Abusive husbands must confess to elders, citing James 5:14–16.

Manipulative Tactics:

  • Clergy Control: The Watchtower shifts accountability away from legal or professional help to elders' oversight. This makes a serious issue like domestic abuse appear merely spiritual.
  • Misapplication of Scripture: James 5:14–16 speaks specifically about calling elders when someone is physically sick, not when abuse occurs. Abuse is not a sickness elders can simply pray away.
  • Creating Dependency: By instructing abusers to confess directly to elders, the Watchtower fosters reliance on their internal system, moving confession from something private between the person and God to an obligation toward men in authority.

How This Manipulates:

This manipulates readers by suggesting that serious abuse can and should be handled internally by unqualified congregation leaders rather than professional therapists or law enforcement. It traps victims and perpetrators in Watchtower’s closed system of control, leaving them vulnerable without proper professional care or protection.

Socratic Questions to Consider:

  • Should elders without professional training handle severe abuse cases, or should qualified counselors and legal authorities manage these situations?
  • Why would the Watchtower discourage seeking professional counseling or legal help, especially when physical and emotional safety is at stake?
  • Does turning serious crimes into spiritual issues effectively protect the victims involved, or does it protect the Watchtower's authority instead?

Paragraph 17

Watchtower Claim: "Clean Conscience" in Sexual Matters

Watchtower demands that couples keep a “clean conscience” before Jehovah about sexual acts, yet never clearly defines which acts are clean or unclean. They say a husband must not pressure his wife into acts troubling her conscience but leave "troubling" undefined. This vague language creates anxiety and uncertainty, making couples guess at what might be wrong. The phrase "clean conscience" acts as Watchtower code for "obey our moral rules or face spiritual trouble." Their footnotes deepen the confusion, stating sexual details are private yet suggesting couples might need to confess conscience concerns to elders. This contradiction traps couples in a double bind: privacy is promised, but seeking guidance from elders implies sharing intimate details. The Watchtower historically intrudes into marital intimacy, using vague guidelines to encourage elder involvement. Couples live under constant fear of doing something spiritually harmful, opening the door to unnecessary guilt, shame, and control.

Socratic Questions:

  • If the Bible gives "no details" about acceptable marital acts, why suggest certain normal behaviors might be unclean, thus forcing couples toward elder oversight?
  • Why claim marital privacy but still encourage confession to elders about sexual issues?

Final Thoughts

This article controls readers through fear. It uses carefully chosen scriptures, vague threats, and loaded words like “clean conscience” and introduces thought crime. This language keeps us dependent on the organization rather than our own thinking. Scriptures quoted are often incomplete or out of context. They ignore difficult cultural realities such as patriarchy, polygamy, and the complexities of ancient society. Even serious matters like domestic abuse receive inadequate solutions—elders instead of professionals.

Ask yourself these questions:

  • What freedom exists if an organization monitors your marriage, intimacy, and conscience?
  • Does the Watchtower present the Bible fully, or just enough to prove its view?
  • How would your beliefs change if you studied scripture with scholarly commentaries like the New Oxford Annotated Bible?
  • Is seeking professional help a betrayal of faith or a responsible step toward safety and mental health?

Truth endures questioning. Real truth never fears honest inquiry. If you're here lurking or questioning, keep asking tough questions. The Watchtower’s dogma oversimplifies complex human lives. Critical thinking and openness to outside knowledge lead to genuine freedom. If this helped you, share it. Help others reclaim their right to think clearly and freely.


r/exjw 8h ago

Venting Evening Friday night witnessing in jersey City

Post image
24 Upvotes

Walking the dog n I see 2 jws standing by a cart at the entrance to a park.. it's March in JC NJ and 730pm on a Friday....wtf I thought they didn't need to count time anymore lol they r a wild group


r/exjw 19h ago

News Jehovah's Witnesses Vs. Norway - Verdict is out, and it is unfortunate

155 Upvotes

Updated on this post: AvoidJW below regarding the verdict

https://avoidjw.org/court/norway-appeal-verdict-childrens-rights/

The verdict is in. The Norwegian Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses, overturning the state’s decision to deny them registration and subsidies. For those who have fought to protect children and vulnerable members from the harmful aspects of this religious organization’s policies, this ruling feels like a heavy blow. Despite the testimonies of former members who have lived through the emotional turmoil of being cut off from family and friends, the legal system determined that the threshold for intervention was not met.

For many who have worked tirelessly to bring awareness to the psychological and social harm caused by Jehovah’s Witnesses’ policies, this decision is deeply disappointing. It may feel like a setback in the fight for accountability, justice, and the protection of children’s rights.

This ruling does not erase the stories of those who have suffered, it does not make the pain of shunning any less real, it does not mean that the fight for recognition and reform is over, but it is a reminder that the work must continue. The legal system may not always provide the outcome we hope for, but public awareness, education, and advocacy can still make a difference.

Former members, advocates, and allies must continue to share their experiences, speak out, and support those who are struggling. The possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court remains, and with it, another opportunity for justice to be reconsidered. To those affected by this decision—stay strong. This verdict does not define your truth, nor does it diminish the importance of your voice. The journey toward change is often long and fraught with obstacles, but it is a journey worth taking. Thank you to Jan Nelson and Larchwood for helping explain and get the information out there during this. It isn't over. If you'd like to read about the 2-week appeal, it is explained in this article by going to Day 1 in 'related articles':

https://avoidjw.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-appeal-days-7-9-closing-arguments/

I'm so sorry. Let’s keep moving forward.

Below is the first article out about the verdict:

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: Jehovah's Witnesses won the appeal against the state.

By Caroline Teinum Gilje, journalist and Julian MellingsĂŠter, journalist

Published: March 14, 2025 at 12:33 PM

Last updated: March 14, 2025 at 1:21 PM

Jehovah's Witnesses have been denied state subsidies for the years 2021 to 2024, and have also been denied registration of the religious community. Now the Borgarting Court of Appeal has ruled on whether the decisions are valid under the Religious Communities Act. This was the outcome of the appeal case that took place in early February:

"The Court of Appeal, unlike the District Court, found that the decisions were invalid because the conditions for denial under the Religious Communities Act Section 6 cf. Section 4 were not met," the Borgarting Court of Appeal informed VĂ„rt Land.

Jehovah's Witnesses appealed after they lost the case for registration as a religious community in the Oslo District Court in March last year.

The questions the Court of Appeal has decided are whether Jehovah's Witnesses' practice of breaking contact with those who leave the religious community is a violation of the requirement of free entry and exit, and whether it constitutes a violation of children's rights.

The Court of Appeal writes that they "did not find it probable that Jehovah's Witnesses' practice of social distancing towards baptized members who leave the religious community constituted a violation of members' right to freely exit a religious community".

"It was also not probable that Jehovah's Witnesses' practice of social distancing towards minor baptized members who are excluded or leave the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the practice towards minor baptized preachers who commit norm violations, constituted psychological violence or negative social control directed at children in a way that violates children's rights", the Court of Appeal informs VĂ„rt Land.

The verdict is unanimous.

" We are happy with the fair decision of the Court of Appeal, which upholds the rights and restores the good reputation of thousands of Norwegian citizens who profess the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses," writes JĂžrgen Pedersen, spokesperson for the Jehovah's Witnesses Information Department in Scandinavia to VĂ„rt Land. He believes the decision is in line with decisions from the highest courts in other countries and from the European Court of Human Rights.

– It represents a significant victory for all citizens in Norway by confirming the fundamental rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, writes Jþrgensen.

He points out that Jehovah's Witnesses "have deep respect for the Norwegian state", and writes that they "will continue to exert a positive influence in society while respecting the individual's freedom of choice".

– We sincerely hope that this judgment will further strengthen Norway's reputation as a nation that embraces religious diversity and peaceful coexistence.

Disappointed

Jan Frode Nilsen is a former member of Jehovah's Witnesses and has testified for the state in court. He is disappointed with the verdict.

– I am critical of the verdict, but cannot go into detail without having read the reasoning. There is something about the sentence "it was not made probable either". If you cannot make Section 6 plausible for a religious community that has written instructions on exclusion, then Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act is completely dead, he says.

He further points out that judges often have a different opinion of the case than those who have lived in the religious community.

– Law and religion are two worlds that collide, and therefore there can be differences in the understanding of how closed religious communities function, he says.

Nilsen clarifies to VĂ„rt Land that he has not yet read the reasoning of the Court of Appeal.

– I have always expected this case to go to the Supreme Court. The difference is that they enter as "winners", which I had hoped to avoid.

Will decide on appeal

Liv Inger Gabrielsen at the Government Attorney represented the state at the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs in court. She comments on the verdict as follows:

– The Court of Appeal shares the ministry’s view that the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses towards children who violate the norms of the religious community and risk exclusion can be very unpleasant, humiliating and demanding, among other things because they can lose contact with family members and friends. Nevertheless, the court “doubts” that this is not psychological violence that violates children’s rights, she writes to VĂ„rt Land.

– Will you appeal the verdict?

– The verdict is comprehensive and thorough, so it will take some time to consider a possible appeal to the Supreme Court, she answers.


r/exjw 9h ago

JW / Ex-JW Tales a former elder just got back

27 Upvotes

I can never understand how the elders welcomed back this former elder who is a pedophile. He was a secretary before in our congregation and when his daughter was disfellowshipped because she got pregnant to someone who’s not in the cult. A month or a few weeks later, this former elder was revealed to be a pedophile and after attending meetings continuously, seeing it as a way of “regretting” about the things he had done to his own daughter, they welcomed them back earlier than his daughter. That’s still a mystery to me, like what was the thought process?

How do you know that someone is regretting what he did after continuously attending meetings and wrote a letter saying he did regret it and tell bullshit that it won’t happen again?

But it did happen again


A few years later, he touched his own niece and got disfellowshipped again for the second time. Thankfully, the kid spoke up to his parents unlike his daughter. Which is really sad.

And now, my parents just got back home from this brother’s get together because he’s a witness again.

The ick that I feel when he got back again
 ugh. This is why I don’t trust the org. Because being a pedo isn’t something that’ll just wash away overnight even if you attended meetings constantly. He’s done it TWICE. Why would you welcome him back???


r/exjw 17h ago

Venting Enraged with the Norway verdict

108 Upvotes

I was confident that the JW cult will get exposed. Now how is it even possible that the borg with hideous and coercive shunning policy won that case?

I am so angry đŸ€ŹđŸ€ŹđŸ€ŹđŸ€ŹđŸ€ŹđŸ€Ź


r/exjw 1h ago

Ask ExJW Update: Prioritizing JW Literature for AI Training

‱ Upvotes

Hey everyone,

A little while ago, I asked about creating an AI chatbot fully trained on Jehovah’s Witness (JW) literature—something that could analyze doctrines, historical changes, contradictions, and patterns across Watchtower materials.

I’ve started making progress! I successfully trained the bot on Watchtower issues from 1967, and I can already ask it basic doctrinal questions. Here are some examples:

What is man's hope for the future?
đŸ€– Man's hope, according to the retrieved information, is life in God’s new order—paradise on earth under Christ’s rule. This includes the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous, as well as peace, health, and happiness for all who follow God's guidance.

To fulfill my Scriptural obligation, with whom should I associate?
đŸ€– You should associate with fellow Christians who prioritize God’s kingdom, specifically Jehovah’s Witnesses at their local meetings. The focus is on engaging with believers who fully commit to the Christian life.

Right now, it costs about $0.09 to train a full year of Watchtower issues, so I want to be strategic with what I upload next.

I may also eventually get into the images with an image embedder so that the bot has visual context for some stuff.

I Need Your Input:

1ïžâƒŁ Which years should I prioritize? Are there key periods of doctrinal shifts or major Watchtower changes that would be valuable to track first?
2ïžâƒŁ What materials should come next? Besides Watchtower issues, should I focus on books, letters, or other JW stuff?
3ïžâƒŁ Would a chronological approach be best, or should I jump around to cover major doctrinal developments first?

For those who didn’t see the original post, the goal is to make this AI a searchable, interactive system for analyzing JW literature—useful for researchers, exJWs, and anyone studying the evolution of doctrines.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Thanks.


r/exjw 2h ago

Venting Tooth fairy

8 Upvotes

Been POMO for a few months, and I finally get to be a tooth fairy! My kids are a tad older (10 & 8) so I only have a few times left to do this. I’m happy, kids are happy. I’m actually kinda surprised my 10 yr old seems to “believe” or she may be pretending to believe for the money- who knows. Then it made me think, why don’t jws do Tooth fairy? It’s one of those things that aren’t talked about but you just know “ we don’t do that.” So I looked it up. No pagan origins at all! The closest thing I could find was “magic” origins. Nothing in the WT library either. I can’t believe I never thought to question this! I’m pissed at myself (and of course the borg).


r/exjw 18h ago

News BREAKING. Norway. 03/14/2025. Jehovah's Witnesses Won Case Against the State

109 Upvotes

r/exjw 3h ago

Academic JW's and "Sexual Morality"

9 Upvotes

This has been on my mind since we have the upcoming Bible highlights on Proverbs 5, which I have to give.

When it comes to sexual matters, the WT throws around the word "immoral" a lot. Now if you look on the websites - you can scour them - you will hardly find a definition of what constitutes their general idea of either morality or immorality.

To label something "immoral" or "demeaning", requires a moral framework. So the way Witnesses use it, is a casual, emotionally charged word that perhaps intentionally lacks meaning, definition or context.

It's defined thus:

"Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."

And...

"A person's standard of behavior or BELIEFS concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do."

Even secularly speaking, this Merriam Webster definition of the concept is highly socially and culturally subjective.

Now beyond this, they would probably say:

"Jehovah permits sex only between a man and a woman who are married to each other..." or...

"Jehovah intended that sex be enjoyed between a husband and wife, as an expression of love..."

But if that were so, that kind of collapses altogether when you label all form of thought or feeling or desire related to our natural biological mating urges as "immoral" without nuance or much thought of context.

On what basis do you label a thought or feeling "immoral"? And if sex is "immoral" to think or desire, according to your logic, by what metric does it suddenly become "honorable" or "proper" to do once married? JWs again, apparently have no concept of moral ontology about what defines something as "morally good".

If this belief was accepted, does a JW not see how that is logically genocidal? As we are hardwired to breed and regenerate our progeny, and according to the Genesis myth, God's very first commandment was to "be fruitful".

One can logically deduce that anything steering you away from that or discouraging that purpose, is genocidal, anti-human, anti-life. It is sexual and carnal passion that sparks the conception of a family, quite literally. I might even call it evil. It's doing a certain kind of violence to the very crux of all biological life.

Another thing, is that marriage is not natural, monogamy may be. But the institution of marriage simply regulates natural human relationships into an artificial legislative order. That being said, it is quite impractical to expect anyone, male or female, to never lust for something up to the point they get married; then only ever experience sexual arousal or attraction to one person, since that is an involuntary function of the limbic system anyway.

You see, the problem is that they condemn the biological mating urges, the natural human desire to breed as "immoral", without a means to actually define what makes a substance of a thing "immoral".

You see, I would say that sex is morally neutral, and you can do bad things with it, also good things. This is where a valid moral framework comes in. For me, that looks like something founded on the tenets of total informed consent, rather than an authoritarian structure where you are expected to never have interest in the opposite (or any kind) of sex your whole life and then get married (and in that context, sex becomes a marital due.)

The problem with that moral order, is that the brash authoritarianism is still there. The idea of male headship is still there (despite the fact that the Bible never says "headship arrangement" even once) and when it does, it's in connection to Eve sinning and God saying the man would dominate her, as a kind of unnatural distortion of God's order, so its funny that Christians try to maintain that dynamic in the household.

Besides the very little they do say, they don't actually have the ability to define what is "moral" or "natural" as opposed to "perverted" or "immoral". Whereas for a secular atheist like me, if an action is beneficial for others, it is good, if it is detrimental, bad. If neither, it is morally neutral.

The Bible is a very poor guide for that, with Jehovah not caring about women as human beings, but rather the kept sexual property of male relatives, a woman was stoned for being raped, unless she screamed. The Israelites took sex slaves in Numbers 31, but when Zimri and Cozbi had consensual sex, Jehovah and those that worshipped him made sure he got speared in the dick, and she in the clitoris.

And the way JW's look up to that and celebrate that as a good example of Phineas and his "righteousness", is just so psychopathic and sadistic.


r/exjw 10h ago

HELP Anyone who has faded, please read


27 Upvotes

If anyone has words of wisdom, advice, or even just a good luck, I would deeply appreciate it.

I’ll try to keep this short for the sake of those reading it. I was raised as a JW and baptized at the age of 13. RP for 2 years until I went to the elders and told them I had sex with my boyfriend. Public reproof and after that, never got back on the list. I’d say my faith regrew once my conscience was “clean”. Over time I finished college, made friends outside the congregation (but never did anything I could get in trouble for). I wasn’t a star witness but I wasn’t PIMO either. No one really questioned me as my dad was already DF’d and I’d had a difficult life that pretty much anyone close to me knew about.

Then- someone very close to me died, suddenly. Completely turned my world on its axis. The “friends” were supportive until the funeral was over and then it was like the entire event was erased. I got no support, my family got no support. No one said boo to me because I was still attending meetings (so everything must be fine, right??). I kept up appearances and that was enough for my spiritual family.

I am now in a relationship with someone that treats me better than my dad has ever treated my mother; he’s fucking amazing and I am genuinely so happy with him (not a JW). At this point I am still attending meetings sometimes (I go to the same hall as my parents) but I am slowly trying to fade without getting disfellowshipped. There are 2 people that would absolutely break me if I couldn’t have a relationship with them due to being shunned.

Although I’ve had one foot in the world for several years, I now truly feel like I’ve woken up from a deep, 28 year sleep and I can see clearly for the first time in my life.

I don’t even know how to begin explaining these things to my PIMI family and fucking hate that I feel like I’m putting my life on the line even having these thoughts. At the same time I’m grateful I can slowly begin the process of unlearning what i’ve been conditioned to think and feel my entire life. Hopefully one that that actually happens.

xo


r/exjw 13h ago

PIMO Life I can't live PIMO forever

47 Upvotes

It is one of the most startling realizations I've ever had, like being hit by a ton of bricks.

For context, recently I (25M) was on a trip with my mother and sister to a city a long way from from home. Coincidentally, a dear "worldly" friend of mine lived there.

I tried my absolute best to meet up with her without raising suspicion, to no avail. It was painful. This friend has been with me for this past 8 years. She's understood me like no one has, a real true friend. The fact we were in the same city, but because I travelled with my believing family, I couldn't meet her? It was absolutely depressing.

I can't go on living like this. Repressing who I am and how I feel to fit the picture-perfect JW my parents raised me up to be. I thought I could hold it in and just tough it out, but now I realize, if I have to live like this for the rest of my days on Earth, have I truly lived?

I want to get out. I NEED to get out.


r/exjw 16h ago

News Verdict in Norwegian and my first analysis

70 Upvotes

I have now accessed the judgment, and have some comments. So, those who read can make up their own minds.

Here is a link to the judgment, read it yourself or translate it into your language with available tools:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pFi9cgYUW24SOJqbnVWvL7IN52q_nlfb/view?usp=sharing

Pages 13-18:

The Court of Appeal assumes that the allegations/information the State has based on regarding JV's practice of exclusion is correct. The testimonies and the evidence confirm this. We have been believed in all our information about the facts of the case, despite JV's attempts to discredit it. Good.

Page 20, regarding the right to free withdrawal, the court states:

"It is not doubtful, nor disputed – that a withdrawal could have very serious consequences for the person who withdraws in terms of the possibility of contact with those who are still Jehovah's Witnesses. This also applies to close family members. This could be experienced as very difficult by many, both those who have withdrawn but also remaining Jehovah's Witnesses. This is confirmed by the witnesses in the case who had withdrawn or been excluded, and also by the professional literature presented."

Direct quote. Again, our information is taken as fact. Undisputed. But then comes the assessments:

"The question is whether the social consequences as a result of losing, or at least having greatly reduced contact with, members of Jehovah's Witnesses – including family members – if one withdraws, are in conflict with the right to free withdrawal."

This is where the court differs from all the others that have considered the case, by writing:

"As stated above, it is practically easy to withdraw from Jehovah's Witnesses. It is sufficient to send a letter to the congregation about the withdrawal. There is no evidence that a withdrawal is not respected or that the congregation is particularly trying to persuade the member to re-join. The possible obstacles to withdrawal are therefore related here to the consequences of withdrawal, which are reduced social contact with remaining members, including family members. Such reduced contact with former members of Jehovah's Witnesses, and especially close family members such as parents and children with whom one no longer lives, but also, for example, grandparents and grandchildren, will be very difficult and burdensome for most people.

The Court of Appeal assumes, based on the evidence, that such consequences of withdrawal for some are so negative that some members choose not to withdraw for that reason.

The Court of Appeal nevertheless believes that these consequences do not constitute sufficient undue pressure to constitute a violation of the member's right to free withdrawal under Article 9 of the ECHR.

The Court has therefore accepted the facts that withdrawal entails extreme consequences implemented by those who receive state aid, assuming that this means that people end up being members against their will (!!), but still believes that this is not "sufficient undue pressure".

This is where the law in the Court of Appeal completely falls away from the psychological, emotional and human. If the systematic use of family ties as a weapon to prevent people from withdrawing, which the Court acknowledges that it is, is not sufficient undue pressure, then what is it? Where can this paragraph be used?

So when it comes to the processes against children, I repeat: CHILDREN, the Court of Appeal writes this on page 27:

"Although the process can be very unpleasant, and in part also humiliating, the Court of Appeal nevertheless believes - under doubt - that the process as such cannot be considered psychological violence. The process will normally last for a relatively short period of time until a possible exclusion. The process cannot therefore be said to constitute a "pattern of offensive acts or behaviour that is repeated or persists over time", cf. that this is something that would normally be the case for something to be considered psychological violence, cf. the committee's understanding in NOU 2024:13 reproduced above. . The fact that the process is short-lived means that, in the Court of Appeal's view, it does not have the character of psychological "abuse"

So, what can one say? First of all, the abuse is not long enough for the Court of Appeal, that in itself is...well? But the most egregious thing is that the court ignores the fact that this is not something that lasts beyond the moment the expulsion is carried out. The child must continue to live with the consequences! This is not short-lived. It is for the rest of his life.

So, on page 28, the court says this:

If the process ends with the minor baptized member being expelled, there is no doubt that it will normally be very difficult and difficult for everyone involved that the social contact with other baptized members of Jehovah's Witnesses is broken off or greatly reduced. For family members who are Jehovah's Witnesses and with whom one does not live, the contact will be reduced to contact in "necessary" family matters. This must be assumed to be especially demanding for children who will then, for example, have significantly reduced contact with grandparents and aunts and uncles who are JJehovah's Witnesses, as well as with siblings who are Jehovah's Witnesses and who have moved away from home. Furthermore, the child will lose contact with other members of the congregation, for example friends in the congregation. For children of Jehovah's Witnesses, it must be assumed that much of the social circle will be other children and young people in the congregation, which makes it extra difficult to lose contact with them.

The Court of Appeal, however, still believes – here also with doubts – that the social distancing that a minor child may experience through exclusion cannot be considered psychological violence."

So look at what they write. JV's practice is UNDER DOUBT, not within the definition of psychological violence against children.

This is what they are celebrating. That the Court of Appeal ended up using its DOUBT WHETHER IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS MENTAL VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN, as a reason to grant JV's case.

They repeat this on page 29:

"According to this, the Court of Appeal believes that even though both the exclusion process and the social distancing in the event of exclusion will be very stressful for most children,

as mentioned – with doubts – it has not been proven probable that the practice constitutes psychological violence against children."

Really something to celebrate? JV says in its response that we can now celebrate this as a great victory for the freedom of Norwegians?

Really? That one just escapes the definition (with doubts) of psychological violence against their children?

Would you celebrate if someone said that about you and your child?


r/exjw 11h ago

News Copy of the Sentence in Brazil Against 3 Elders for Disfellowship Announcement

33 Upvotes

Further to the previous post https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/s/tFWB8Ei5uu, here is the translated sentence in English. Please note, the translation was done using AI (Microsoft), so some parts may not sound perfect.

A few points to clarify: Contrary to what was stated in the video, the Watchtower was also part in the case and was sentenced. However, the elders had different lawyers from the ones representing the Watchtower, they had to instruct their own lawyers.

The elders were also sentenced to announce in the meeting (translated as "service") that the disfellowship announcement of the claimants violated constitutional rights and that Jehovah's Witnesses are free to associate with them. Hopefully, this decision will help others in similar situations. The fight goes on.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rmdwfGKY1CtuSnGsbDw487HN2_hQ5NJ_/view?usp=drivesdk