u/Evening_Command_8262

During the last few years, I’ve had the opportunity to spend time with apostates, especially after I started lurking around their online communities a few months ago. Honestly, I feel conflicted.

If you judge apostates ONLY by their online activity, you’d probably conclude the GB’s description of apostates is fairly accurate: angry, bitter people who twist the GB’s words and spread unfounded or exaggerated claims about the organization. But the reality is much more nuanced than that.

Apostates are NOT a monolith. It’s true that the more vocal members of their community often fit the stereotype the Watchtower has promoted about them, but not all of them are the deranged enemies we’ve been led to believe they are.

A lot of them have actually been victims of abuse, often at the hands of their overzealous JW parents. Many times, the elders and the rest of the congregation failed to provide care and support when it mattered most. Other times, they were victims of real injustice at the hands of their brothers and sisters. Many of them struggle with mental health conditions, and the congregation simply was not patient or understanding enough. They are not all bitter and angry for no reason. They are hurting, and if we are honest, many times their congregations failed them.

An awful lot of them needed a hug that never came. They needed that one friend they never found in their congregation. They needed better parents. They needed the brotherly love JWs pride themselves on.

It’s easy to be captured by apostasy when you feel like that. It’s easy to become radicalized against the community you see as the source of your pain and suffering. At that point, you become vulnerable to believing anything that validates your feelings. You stop questioning apostate claims. You may even embrace conspiracy theories. The virtual “interest” their community shows you can feel more real than any actual hug you ever received in the congregation. You don’t always become an apostate because you are proud and choose to oppose God and his people. You become an apostate because that’s where your personal experiences led you.

And yes, many of them are angry. They repeat apostate tropes that are exaggerated or twisted versions of the truth, and they refuse to accept logic or nuance. Many of them will hate you for supporting what they see as an evil organization before they even know who you really are.

But remember: they are victims. They are hurting.

So I’m learning to see them that way. Not necessarily as victims of the Watchtower or the GB, but as victims of their personal experiences.

I recently spoke to an Ex-JW advocate. He genuinely could not believe I had a happy childhood as a JW. To him, the idea itself was impossible. He brought up birthdays and Christmas as if those were essential components of a happy childhood. After thinking about it for a minute, I honestly felt very sorry for him. If I had been speaking to him in person, I would’ve given him a hug.

So yes, the Watchtower’s advice to its members makes sense. Apostates can absolutely be a toxic influence for a JW, and association with them is something many would want to avoid if they don’t want to risk their spirituality. But at the same time, they should still be viewed with compassion and when possible it’d be nice to male them feel loved.

If I were an active JW with a friend who had turned apostate, this is what I would say:

“I love you, and I’m here for you if you ever decide to come back to the congregation. But for now, I’m going to follow the Bible’s advice and stop associating with apostates, as painful as that is.”

I’d give them a hug, if they allowed it, and walk away.

The recent legal victories for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway and Sweden appear to have reinforced the organization’s right to socially exclude former members, whether they were formally removed or disassociated themselves from the religion.

These rulings are significant because they may establish a precedent that limits future litigation against the organization on the same grounds. That said, there are still practical and public-relations reasons for the GB to reconsider aspects of what many critics continue to view as a problematic policy.

To be fair, social exclusion is hardly unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. People distance themselves from family members, friends, and former associates for a wide range of reasons unrelated to religion. Conflicts over politics, finances, lifestyle choices, personal grievances, or interpersonal disputes frequently lead to estrangement. During recent election cycles, for example, it became increasingly common to hear about people cutting off relatives over political differences. Social shunning, in some form, exists across many areas of society.

What makes the Jehovah’s Witness situation different, however, is the perception that the separation is institutionally mandated shunning rather than individually chosen. Many exJW do not simply resent losing relationships; they resent the idea that the organization itself dictates the terms of those relationships. In their view, the religion retains the community while they are left to rebuild their social lives from scratch. They have a good point, that dynamic isn't a natural drifting apart, t is imposed social punishment.

As a result, even if the organization currently enjoys legal protection in several jurisdictions, the controversy surrounding shunning is unlikely to disappear. exJW activists will probably continue lobbying lawmakers and advocacy groups in an effort to frame religiously mandated shunning as a broader legal or human-rights issue.

There is also the reputational aspect to consider. Critics of the organization will likely continue using the shunning policy as a focal point in public campaigns against Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whether justified or not, this type of negative attention has the potential to discourage prospective converts and create discomfort or uncertainty among existing members.

Given all of this, it would not be surprising if the organization eventually adjusted its language around the practice, specifically by softening the perception that shunning is formally mandated. One possible approach would be to emphasize that individual members are responsible for deciding the extent of their association with removed individuals, guided by biblical principles and personal conscience rather than rigid institutional enforcement.

Under such a framework, the organization could still encourage members to limit unnecessary association with those who abandon the faith or are removed from the congregations. Members who maintained especially close relationships with removed individuals might still be viewed as lacking spiritual maturity and therefore not qualify for certain congregation responsibilities. At the same time, however, social contact itself would no longer be treated as grounds for formal disciplinary action.

Realistically, even if such a clarification were introduced, the day-to-day culture among Jehovah’s Witnesses might not change dramatically. In practice, many members would likely continue behaving much as they do now. The difference would mainly be in how the policy is framed and enforced institutionally. It would probably be presented not as a doctrinal change, but as a clarification of existing principles.

From a strategic perspective, this kind of adjustment could reduce one of the strongest criticisms used by exJW and apostates while still preserving the organization’s emphasis on maintaining spiritual boundaries within the congregation.

My guess is that something along these lines could happen within the next couple of years. What do you guys think?

I’ve seen the Australian Royal Commission referenced a lot in discussions about Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I’ve also noticed that the conversation often becomes very polarized.

On one side, apostates treat the findings as proof of an irredeemably corrupt organization. On the other, Jehovah’s Witnesses dismiss the criticism entirely as bias or anti-religious hostility.

After taking time to read through the findings, I figured I’d share a more balanced summary of what the Royal Commission actually found and what it didn’t.

This isn’t intended to defend or attack anyone. It’s just an attempt to separate fact from exaggeration.

So here’s my attempt at adding a little nuance while still being honest about the failures.

1. The 1,006 alleged perpetrators number is real but the way it gets repeated online can be misleading

The Royal Commission found 1,006 alleged perpetrators in internal records in Australia. That number is very real but it’s important to be precise: these were alleged perpetrators, meaning accusations, reports, or concerns documented internally. Not 1,006 proven criminals. The fact that the JW kept these records during all that time instead of destroying or concealing them shows actual concern for CSA instances even of they were not handled correctly.

Another thing people rarely mention is the timeframe. That number covers roughly 1950–2015 (about 65 years), which averages to around 15–16 alleged perpetrators per year across all of Australia.

Before anyone jumps on me: I’m not saying that makes it okay. Even one case is awful. I’m just saying if we’re criticizing the organization, we should criticize it accurately. The way apostate share this numbers often make it seem as if there are 1.006 proven rapists at large in the JWs congregations, which is very misleading.

2. The strongest criticism is probably the failure to report to police

This, in my opinion, is where apostates are on the strongest ground and should lean in.

The Commission was very critical that Jehovah’s Witnesses generally did not report abuse allegations to police themselves unless legally required. That’s a serious issue. Full stop.

But one thing I see repeated a lot is: “Not a single case ever went to police.” and that’s not quite accurate either. Some cases did end up with law enforcement because victims, parents, relatives, or others reported them. Some perpetrators were prosecuted.

The criticism is really that the organization itself usually wasn’t the one making the report and honestly I think that criticism is strong enough on its own without needing to exaggerate it.

3. The two-witness rule can be problematic in instances of CSA

The Commission basically concluded that applying the two-witness rule to child abuse cases was a bad fit because abuse usually happens in private.

But we must not forget the two-witness rule is ONLY an internal religious disciplinary mechanism, meaning it applies to whether elders can establish wrongdoing for internal congregational action. Parents, relatives, victims themselves, or anyone else aware of abuse allegations are not bound by the two-witness rule when it comes to reporting to authorities. They are free to go to police, and in many places elders were instructed to comply with local reporting laws. That’s also why some cases did end up reaching law enforcement through victims, family members, or others familiar with the abuse.

The Commission’s criticism wasn’t really that the rule legally prevented reporting. It was that using this kind of internal standard in abuse cases was not sufficient for protecting children, especially given how abuse usually happens without witnesses. And honestly, I think that criticism still lands.

In Summary

While I think the Royal Commission exposed real institutional failures I also think if we care about truth and accountability, we should be careful not to overstate the findings.

While the ARC didn’t prove a centralized conspiracy to protect pedophiles as many apostates claim. It did find that internal policies and procedures failed to adequately protect CSA victims. That finding alone is serious enough on it's own, there’s no need to exaggerate them, but there’s also no reason to dismiss them.

After the ARC The JWs made some adjustments in their internal policies regarding how instances of CSA are handled within the congregation. Whether or not these changes are enough is for each person to judge.

Every crisis comes with an opportunity, you just have to seize it.

A quick research of the most influential exjw content creators shows that the business of creating apostate content can be very profitable. Channels like Lloyd Evans, Exjw Panda Tower and exjw Analyzer monetize their content to the tune of $2,000 to 15,000 thousand dollars every month on YouTube ads alone. That doesn’t even count their Patreon accounts and mentoring ventures.

And now with AI they dont even need to put much effort on their content. AI will write the scrip, create the illustrations and even speak for them with an automated voice that sound warm and loving. The content is the same recycled tropes you find in the JW forums, but in video format. The only real creative work is the clickbate titles. here are some examples:

They are in trouble now! With a picture of some GB members

Panic at Bethel! leaked Video - An analysis of a morning worship talk

It’s Over! - A video about....nothing really.

But these guys are doing the work of the lord. they deserve every penny.

No wonder every other day a new exjw content creator lunches his own channel. I am considering to start my own channel myself Some extra cash

For many years Alex O’Connor was the golden boy of atheist circles. He rose to stardom as a young Oxford philosophy student that would articulate accessible explanations of formal philosophical ideas on YouTube. At that time he identified with the ideas of New Atheism and was at that point considered The Biggest Atheist on Earth, yes, over Richard Dawkins. He held his own in debates against prominent theologians and in no time became an influential philosopher with real engagement with younger and older generations alike.

But with each debate his persona began to change. Early on, he was often seen as a sharp-edged atheist debater. Later, he became more exploratory and less certain in tone. He shifted from “internet atheist” toward something closer to a public philosopher advocating for intellectual humility. After some time he started identifying as an agnostic instead of a radical atheist.

The last few months we have seen and even more dramatic evolution of his beliefs. He has not only admitted that the argument for a creator is more powerful than the arguments against it, but also that Christianity is the religion with the most plausible explanation to the existence of the universe. I wonder how many of his followers joined him in this transition.

It is interesting to see how, even while society is becoming more secular, more and more prominent thinkers and scientists are embracing theology as the most plausible explanation of the human existence and the creation of the universe. Could this be the early signs of the so called “Christian Revival”?

Short answer: Because nothing is gained by doing it.

Long Answer:

Jehovah’s Witnesses critics are very motivated in their activism against the religion. It seems that every day there is a new content creator on YouTube repeating the same talking points other creators before him voiced. They will question the WT financial management, the authority of the GB, their handling of CSA, the practice of shunning, The blood policy, etc. The exjw subreddit approves dozens of post every day with former members sharing their “waking up” journeys and trauma. After I left the religion and started consuming all this apostate content I couldn’t understand why the organization didnt address these allegations.

On the other side, the silence from The Watchtower is deafening. Rather than address this questions the GB has decided to completely ignore them. It is impossible they dont these talking points are being discussed online and promoted by apostates. An organization of their size probably monitor their brand and online reputation. As good a job as the WT has made in SEO, a google search of the Jehovah's Witnesses is likely to deliver at least some apostate content. So, why is the Watchtower being so passive?

While you may think the apostates are doing a great job at persuading people to leave the faith, they really aren’t. Most exjw’s didn’t leave the faith because some apostate opened their eyes on some hidden truths. In fact, the majority don't even leave on their own volition, they are actually removed for their “sinful” behavior and many eventually return. There are those that leave the faith because they reject the JW lifestyle and want to claim their freedom to explore life without the JW constraints. And of course, there are those that feel they were the victims of injustice and go on to become fervent apostates. But those last two groups are a small minority and their departure from the faith is not directly related to the work of apostates.

Online Apostate content is consumed mostly by other apostates and people that are already in the process of leaving the faith for their own personal reasons. Many of them have been PIMQ (Physically In, Mentally Questioning) and PIMO (Physically In, Mentally Out) for some time and come online looking to validate their feelings about the religion. They were already on their way out anyways. I have the feelings that elders much rather have these individuals go completely POMO (Physically In, Mentally Out) instead of having to constantly counsel them and deal with the toxicity they bring to their congregations.

Is some strange way, the apostates play the role of a filter that attracts individuals that could eventually become toxic in their congregations. People that are not wholeheartedly committed to the religion.

And then there is this: Nothing is gained by addressing apostate claims. Apostates have already decided in their hearts the religion and its leadership are evil. There is no argument, no matter how solid, that can persuade them of the opposite. Going down to the level of apostates and addressing their claims gives these claims legitimacy. Dismissing apostate’s claims as “apostate lies” is a genius move. It invalidates the claim using as little energy as possible. It places them in a power position, they dont need to defend themselves. The apostates are the ones that need to prove their points and, because most apostates are poorly equipped to do so, they often fail miserably. In a future post I will talk about how apostates often shooting themselves in the foot when articulating their message both online and IRL.

But what about potential converts researching the religion before joining? The reality is that by the time someone is seriously considering joining the religion they are most likely already in engaged with discussion or a bible study with a JW. Finding criticism of the religion online will generate interesting conversations that allow the JW to inoculate the person against further criticism.

The JW have been very successful in their approach to apostate criticism. Most of the time apostates are preaching to the choir, that is other apostates, and not necessarily persuading active PIMI (Physically In, Mentally In) to leave the faith. Addressing their claims is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

It is very common for former members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to embrace any conspiracy theory that support their feelings that the JW leadership and their followers are evil, especially if they feel they were victimized by the religion.

There are all sorts of conspiracy theories, one of the most often repeated is that the organization is a real state corporation that produces billions of dollars for a selected few, among them the members of the GB. They will talk about the financial investments the organization has around the world, their enormous wealth and the lack of transparency about how much money the WT actually owns.

What they will not talk about is evidence. They will not address the utter lack of evidence of any wrongdoing during all these years. Not even a leaked document or a testimony from a credible source. Nothing. When asked why government audits have never found anything that suggest anything nefarious is going on, sometimes they will claim the government is also complicit. That is all the governments where they have operations and branches. All are either complicit or utterly incompetent to discover what exjw can see a mile away.

When asked: Where is all the money? They will talk about GB wearing what looks like Rolex Watches and gold rings. Yeah...they are spending billions in watches. Where are the yatch, the mansions, the private jets? For some weird reason the GB is stealing billions only to continue living in their small, modest apartments at Warwick. They are not sharing any of the wealth with their relatives either, they continue to live pretty regular lives in their congregations.

When confronted with this questions they will move on to a different conspiracy theory, often equally unsupported.

This is just an example of one Conspiracy theory, there are many more that are regurgitated in exjw circles ad nauseam.

The reason this happens is because former JW that feel victimized by the religion are vulnerable to embrace anything that validates their feelings. It makes their villain uglier and meaner. It makes their cause worthier.

The JW leadership loves it. Exjw embracing conspiracy fits their stereotype of the deranged, bitter apostate. Vulnerable JWs might fall for these tropes but any mature person with a bit of critical thinking will realize these allegations are baseless and unsupported. They will immediately dismiss any argument that comes from someone co-opting these allegations. That’s the trap. There conspiracy theories undermine the apostate credibility.

The GB knows about all this crazy conspiracy theories and allegations and they don't even bother to address them, not even subtly. They know that the louder the apostates shout this theories, the crazier they look. Do you think they didn’t see the shiny watch before the broadcasting was released. They sure did, it is their way to troll the apostate community. They must laugh at every Youtube video speculating which Rolex model it is.

Even my favorite foods that have a lot of flavor taste bland now. I am losing my appetite and too.

I am starting the second cicle, what should I expect in the following days in terms of side effects?