u/caligula________

Basically, the subject was attendance at the meetings. The elders were expected to set the example by arriving early at the meetings and leaving late. Elders were supposed to be regular in their attendance. Every group overseer was supposed to create a list with the names of the brothers in his group and discreetly keep track of their attendance and absences, without letting the brothers realize that they were being monitored (They don’t give a shit to GDPR/data protection laws - Sorry about the swear word, but this is exactly what they think).

Those who had a habit of missing meetings without a valid excuse, or who attended too many meetings on Zoom, were supposed to receive a shepherding visit so they could “feel the warmth of Christian love.” The brothers were supposed to feel that they were being shepherded by the elders, which meant that shepherding visits to families should be regular. Everyone was expected to make enough effort to pressure those who were absent into attending the meetings.

Honestly, I was extremely bored with the whole thing. On top of that, I thought the whole thing was absurd and cult like (I already knew it is a cult). It is crazy to monitor the brothers in this way.

I almost, almost asked whether they recommended tying the brothers who missed meetings to a straightjacket and forcibly bringing them to the meeting. But I held myself back, because the people who really needed the straightjackets were the elders.

I am nobody special, I don’t have the right to talk about (you have free of speech to use any word you want, that’s not my business), but I will give my two cents on this subject. The ones who label ExJWs as “apostates” are Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves. The term “apostate” is used to refer to anyone who does not agree with the teachings of the Borg.

But think about it… Who calls us apostates? Who says that anyone who disagrees with them is an apostate? Who gets to define who is an apostate and who is not?

In many posts I have seen here, we seem to have internalized the definition of “apostate” and started using it to refer to ourselves. But THEY ARE THE ONES WHO LABEL US that way.

Personally, I prefer the definition of “apostate” that refers to someone who “spreads false teachings.” Now think about it: WHO TEACHES LIES? Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves. By that definition, they are the apostates.

They are the ones teaching falsehoods.

Thank you, that’s my two cents. Let me know what you think.

I posted this open letter 76 days ago. Today, I am still an elder, but next week I won’t be anymore. My entire family will be dissociating (I will tell the full story soon).

And yet, my open letter is still remarkably up to date, even after the latest update.

So, here it is:

I know you read this forum. I know you member of GB read what you call apostate material. In fact, I would go even further: usually, only those who have already read it are able to say so confidently that no one else should.

Since you are reading this, let me ask you one sincere question:

Has your conscience truly been trained?

If it has, then you certainly remember Jesus’ words:

“Whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

If your conscience has truly been shaped by the teachings you proclaim, how do you live with the weight of the responsibility you carry? You teach that the greater the responsibility, the greater the accountability before God. So how do you bear the possibility that people have lost their faith, their families, their mental health, and, in some cases, even their lives as a result of decisions you have made?

If you truly believe in Jehovah the way you teach others to believe, that possibility should fill you with fear, not reassurance. You should be terrified by the possibility that there is blood on your hands.

There is another question that deeply troubles me.

At what point did you become so certain that you speak for God? At what point did you stop distinguishing between what the Scriptures actually say and what is merely institutional interpretation?

Does God truly require His servants to devote their time, money, resources, and conscience to building and expanding a legal corporation headquartered in the United States? Or have you stretched concepts like faith, loyalty, integrity, and righteousness until they became little more than obedience to the Organization?

There is a difference between representing God and occupying His place. To be honest, I really think both does not apply to you.

Some time ago, I made a simple observation that deeply disturbed me. I began replacing every occurrence of the words “Jehovah” or “God” in your publications with the word “Organization.”

The result was astonishing.

In many cases, not only did the meaning remain exactly the same, it actually made more sense. Phrases such as “please Jehovah,” “be loyal to Jehovah,” “obey Jehovah,” “wait on Jehovah,” and “trust in Jehovah” often described, in practice, submission to the Organization.

That made me wonder: are you aware of this substitution? Or has it become so natural that you no longer even notice it?

If, in practice, it is the Organization that occupies that place, why not be honest?

If a direction comes from the Governing Body, say it comes from the “”Governing”” Body. If an interpretation is institutional, say it is institutional. If a policy is yours, then acknowledge that it is yours.

But do not make God the guarantor of human decisions.
Because if God exists, invoking His name to give absolute authority to your own interpretations may be one of the gravest ways of taking His name in vain.

And so I leave you with one final question.

Do you truly believe in God?

Or have you come to live within a reality so delusional and illusory that you can no longer distinguish God from the Organization? Has your psychological and institutional world become so closed in upon itself that every criticism is automatically dismissed as one more lie from Satan, while every confirmation is taken as proof that God approves of you?

If so, then the Organization has ceased to be an instrument of God and has taken God’s place. It has become nothing more than another golden calf: a work of human hands demanding devotion, obedience, and sacrifice while claiming for itself the authority that belongs to God alone.

And perhaps that is the greatest danger of all.

Because when an institution speaks as God, interprets as God, commands as God, and expects to be obeyed as God, it no longer points people toward God.
It points them toward itself.

I was practically raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses from the time I was a child. From a very young age, I believed the lies I had been taught. I was fascinated by My Book of Bible Stories, and I feel that many of the stories my parents read to me when I was little shaped the way I think, act, and speak even to this day, even though I am now in the process of leaving these chains called “privilege.” Leaving the control of a religion is not something that can be accomplished through a mere declaration.

Thinking back to the past: once I asked one of my parents, “Wouldn’t it be easier if Jehovah turned everyone into a robot?” Children are always sincere, and even though I believed everything I was taught, I still asked that question.

They answered no, saying, “Jehovah wants us to serve him from the heart.”

So I replied, “I wish I were a robot, so I could never displease Jehovah.”

Little did I know that decades later, it would finally hit me, and reality would punch me in the face with the realization that I had, in fact, been a robot. Being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is being a robot.

Jehovah did not turn me into a robot. The organization that presents itself as Jehovah did.

“””Jehovah wants you to attend the meetings. Jehovah wants you to study the Bible. Jehovah wants you to clean the Kingdom Hall. Jehovah wants you to become a pioneer. Jehovah wants you to become a Bethelite. Jehovah is proud when children send letters to Bethel. Jehovah wants you to do this or that. Jehovah is happy about this or that…”””

The organization called Jehovah’s Witnesses murdered God. They say that he wants something, that he is happy about something, that he is sad about something, as though they themselves were God.

In the video “Gajus Glockentin: Enter the Door to Activity in Faith - ‘Set Something Aside’ for Jehovah’s Work,” he says:

“Even our young children can learn to set something aside and give to Jehovah. Here at Warwick we occasionally receive notes and letters from these young ones who want to give to Jehovah.”

Look at how interesting this is: the letters children write in order to give something to Jehovah have a postal address in Warwick. It seems we have found a definition of heaven that wasn’t quite so clear before.

And perhaps that is the most disturbing part of all: as a child, I thought becoming a robot would be the safest way to never disappoint Jehovah. I did not understand that the real danger was being taught that Jehovah had already programmed me, that every thought, desire, decision, and action could be labeled as either pleasing or displeasing to him. The robot did not need to be created by Jehovah. It was created through a system that claimed to speak for him.

For years, I thought obedience was the same thing as faith, and that surrendering my own judgment was the same thing as serving God “from the heart.” Now I see the contradiction. If every answer has already been provided, every decision prescribed, every emotion interpreted, and every form of dissent treated as disloyalty to Jehovah, then what remains of the individual?

Maybe I did become the robot I once wished to be. But not because Jehovah transformed me into one. I was taught to become one by an organization that spoke in his name. And perhaps leaving is, in part, the process of becoming human again: learning to think without asking what Jehovah supposedly wants, to choose without waiting for permission, and to discover who I am when no organization is standing between me and my own conscience.

Because when I ask myself, “What does God want?”, who is actually answering me? Is it God, or is it another person telling me that they are speaking for God?

Disclaimer: I know that there are atheists, agnostics, and people with many different beliefs. This text is not an attempt to argue for or against the existence of God, or to tell anyone what they should believe. It is simply a reflection on what I was taught about the will of God, and what happens when the voice of an organization becomes indistinguishable from the voice of God.

My dear GB reader, if you are still here after this week’s meeting, perhaps you are monitoring this Reddit to watch, identify, and punish those who dare to question. But if you are a member of the Governing Body, a helper, a circuit overseer, or simply someone assigned to monitor what is being posted here, I sincerely hope you will read this letter to the very end. I ask you to forward this message to the GB, if you are not one of them.

First, I would like to remind you that, just like me, there are many PIMO elders inside the congregations. And perhaps the number is much higher than you imagine. Recently, I even came across two other elders from my own congregation and, in a rather unexpected conversation, we confessed to one another that we were PIMOs. Yes, we read this forum. Yes, we watch so called “apostate” videos. Yes, we have doubts and disagreements. And despite all of that, we are still inside the organization.

The reasons vary. Some stay because of family. Others because of the social consequences. Others simply cannot face the judgment that would come after spending decades building an identity within the organization. And perhaps some of us, simply have not yet found enough courage to walk away.

I know this situation is not good for you. And it is not good for us either.

We no longer make donations the way we used to. We do the minimum amount of volunteer work necessary. We do not pressure the brothers to participate more. We do not constantly demand more hours, more meetings, more preaching, or more spiritual activity. And, as much as possible, we simply leave people free to decide what they want to do with their own lives.

Perhaps you call that spiritual weakness. I prefer to call it respect for free will.

And that is precisely why I am writing this letter publicly. I have a very simple request: make it easier for an elder to step down without having to invent an excuse, construct a convenient story, or wait until someone realizes that he no longer believes what he is supposed to teach.

For many of us, stepping down is not simply leaving a position. It means potentially risking friendships, marriage, family, reputation, and an entire social structure built over many years. So we end up looking for the perfect excuse. “Personal problems.” “Burnout.” “Health issues.” “I need to take care of my family.” Anything that allows us to leave without having to tell the truth (you don’t tell us the truth, why should we tell you?)

But think about the benefit for everyone.

If stepping down were truly simple, the men who genuinely wanted to serve as elders would remain in those positions. You would have fewer PIMO elders hiding among you, fewer talks being given by men who do not actually believe what they are saying, and fewer people occupying this positions simply because they are afraid of the consequences of leaving.

That should be better for you as well.

And there is something else you may be seeing in the numbers without correctly understanding what they mean.

Recently, I spoke with a circuit overseer who complained that the congregations were weak in field service attendance and meeting attendance. That caught my attention because the explanation I have heard so many times is that the brothers simply need to do more.
More hours. More meetings. More preaching. More effort. More goals. More pressure.

But perhaps you are looking at the effect and not the cause.

Constant pressure is not producing the result you expect. For some people, it is producing exactly the opposite. The more you demand, the more some people withdraw. The more you try to control them, the more they realize that they need to reclaim some degree of autonomy.
And in my case, this was one of the things that woke me up.

Perhaps you think the problem is that the brothers are becoming spiritually weak. Maybe it is simpler than that. Maybe many people are simply tired of being treated as though their faith can be measured by the amount of activity they are able to perform.

So if you really want to understand why there are so many PIMOs, why meetings are becoming emptier, and why enthusiasm is declining, perhaps it is time to stop asking the brothers why they are not doing more.

And, most importantly, perhaps it is time to create an environment where a man can simply say, “I do not want to be an elder anymore,” without having to fear being punished for it.

I do not expect this letter to change the organization. But I hope someone, somewhere, reads these words and realizes that behind the numbers, reports, and statistics are real people.

Some still believe.

Some no longer believe.

And many are simply trying to figure out how to leave without destroying their lives in the process.

We exist. And we are probably far more numerous than you imagine. And there isn’t a NDA for us 😛

This is not a threat. But you know that we are not going to make the slightest effort to keep all of this standing. Bon voyage, until this little Titanic finally meets an iceberg.

I was practically raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses from a very young age. Within that environment, gender and, especially, homosexuality were always very stigmatized subjects for me.

Back in school, whenever someone asked me what I thought about gay people or homosexuality, I would often use an analogy that, at the time, made perfect sense to me: smoking. I would say something like, “I have nothing against people who smoke. I just disagree with what they do.”

I genuinely believed that was how I saw the situation. I thought I was simply separating the person from their actions. But ever since I became PIMO, I started questioning practically everything I had been taught to believe. And that forced me to look at this subject differently as well.

That’s when I realized that the comparison with smoking was never really what I felt.

Deep down, there was prejudice.

It’s difficult to admit that. Especially because it means acknowledging things I’m not proud of. In the past, I acted with reluctance, made judgments, and at times, I even made fun of people. I may have had plenty of justifications for myself back then, but today I can see that it was still prejudice.

And the more I reflect on it, the harder it becomes to ignore a thought that has been weighing on me:
I was judging people whose “only sin,” in my eyes at the time, was loving another person.

And that leads me to an even simpler question:

Since when is loving someone a sin?

That question made me realize how many ideas I had considered completely natural were actually things I had been taught from a very young age. I had never stopped to question them. I had simply learned to see certain people in a particular way, and for a long time, I thought that was simply “the right way” to see things.

Today, I’m not proud to admit that I was prejudiced. But perhaps acknowledging it is an important part of changing.

I don’t want to pretend I never thought that way. I did. I don’t want to erase what I said or did in the past. I said those things. I did those things.

I simply want to be honest enough to acknowledge that I was wrong.

And, above all, I want to keep questioning the things I was taught to consider true whenever I realize they may be hurting or dehumanizing other people.

Because, in the end, perhaps the most important question isn’t “What was I taught was right or wrong?”

Maybe it is:

What kind of person do I want to be now that I’m finally free to think for myself?

I’ve noticed something interesting since I started meeting and talking to more people who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses.

For those who grew up in or spent many years in the religion, the idea of disfellowshipping becomes so familiar that we often forget how people outside the religion perceive it. Some aspects become so normal to us that we don’t even think to mention them, even though they are often the details that make the biggest difference to someone hearing about it for the first time.

Whenever the topic of religion comes up, I usually explain what disfellowshipping and disassociation mean.
Almost everyone initially assumes the same thing. They think that a disfellowshipped or disassociated person simply stops being recognized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. To them, it sounds similar to leaving a club, an association, or another church. They assume the only consequence is no longer being a member.
But that isn’t the reality.

When I explain what it actually means in practice, people begin to understand the full scope of it.

A disfellowshipped or disassociated person is not only no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are also expected to no longer have normal social relationships with other Jehovah’s Witnesses. In practice, this means that Witnesses are not supposed to go out for coffee with you, spend time with you, have casual conversations with you, or maintain what the religion itself describes as “unnecessary contact.”

Even then, that is not the part that surprises people the most.

The moment people truly understand the seriousness of it is when I explain that the restriction does not apply only to the disfellowshipped person.

If a Jehovah’s Witness, even someone who has been my friend for many years, invites me out for coffee or chooses to socialize with me, and other Witnesses become aware of it, that friend may also face consequences within the congregation for not avoiding unnecessary contact with me.

That is the detail that completely changes how most people see the situation.

Until that point, many assume that only the person who left or was expelled from the religion is affected. Once they realize that maintaining a friendship or even a simple social outing can also have consequences for the Witness who remains in the congregation (even if they are your relatives), they begin to understand that the isolation is not simply a personal choice between two individuals.

This is such a familiar part of life for current and former Jehovah’s Witnesses that we often forget to mention it. Perhaps because it has always seemed normal to us. But for people who have never lived in that environment, it is precisely this detail that reveals what disfellowshipping or disassociation actually means.

Of course, anyone is “free” to leave Jehovah’s Witnesses, stop believing, or never return to the religion. That is not the point. What many people outside the religion do not realize is the social cost of that decision. Once they understand that it can mean losing nearly all contact with friends, acquaintances, and, in many cases, even close family members who remain in the religion, they realize that disfellowshipping and disassociation involve far more than simply leaving a church.

It looks like the Elder’s book received an updated. I am checking what changed and I may update this post in the future containing additional information.

I still didn’t download the update (I even didn’t opened it yet), I just saw the elders in my congregation talking about it.

PIMO Elders, if you find what changed, please add your comments bellow, let’s work together to identify it.

——

Edit 1: I took some look to the PDF and still I didn’t find any diferences, but it shows in JW Docs it was updated

Edit 2: The publication date in the pdf is still September 2025. The amount of pages and paragraphs looks the same

Edit 3: They did no changes in PDF yet, only in JWPUB file

Edit 4: They fixed some translation errors in a few languages that could have affected the understanding. No changes were identified in the English version. In the language I reviewed, the only change was a single word used to clarify the subject.

In one guideline regarding the evaluation of cases involving allegations of adultery without direct evidence, the wording was changed from “someone confesses” to “the accused confesses.” The previous wording could have led to a broader interpretation, allowing the understanding that a confession from any person connected to the case could be considered sufficient evidence. The new wording makes it clear that the confession being referred to must come from the person accused of adultery.

For example, under the previous wording, someone might have understood that if a third party told the elders that they “knew adultery had occurred” or that they “were involved in an improper situation,” this could qualify as the confession mentioned in the text. With the change to “the accused confesses,” it is clear that the relevant statement is the one made by the person directly involved in the accusation, not by third parties.

Edit 5: I will do no more edits in this post

Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects a person’s right to have, adopt, change, or abandon a religion. The UN Human Rights Committee states that this right must be protected against coercion.

But what does coercion mean?

Coercion does not necessarily involve physical violence. It involves compelling a person to act against their will through threats or harmful consequences. It may involve force, blackmail, extortion, psychological abuse, or the threat of further harm. Coercion uses a consequence as leverage to induce a person to act in a way contrary to their own interests. The central question is therefore the real freedom of the options available to the person being coerced.

This is where the situation involving Jehovah’s Witnesses raises an important question.

The organization may say: “You are free to leave.” Formally, a person can leave the religion. But freedom should not be analyzed solely by the existence of an exit door. The concrete conditions under which a person is allowed to walk through that door must also be considered.

A person who leaves knows that they may lose important social relationships, and that members who continue to maintain certain types of contact with them may themselves face religious consequences. Thus, leaving is formally permitted, but accompanied by a predictable and institutionalized social consequence.

The organization preserves the signifier “freedom”: “You can leave.” But the practical meaning of that freedom is conditioned by the threat of loss: you can leave, but you must accept ostracism; and those who choose to remain in contact with you may themselves be disciplined.

This resembles the logic of coercion: a person is forced to make a decision within a field of options in which one alternative carries consequences sufficiently serious to influence their will. The question is not whether someone is holding a gun. The question is whether the person has real freedom or is being guided by the threat of social and psychological harm.

The same logic can be observed in the distinction between voting and expressing a political opinion. A Jehovah’s Witness may vote, but is not permitted to freely advocate for a political position. Formally, the right exists. In practice, its exercise is restricted.

Therefore, the question should not be merely:

“Can the person leave?”

It should be:

“Can the person leave without being subjected to a consequence that functions as pressure or coercion over their decision?”

If a person can formally abandon a religion, but the predictable price of doing so is the rupture of fundamental relationships, while those who refuse to participate in that rupture may also face sanctions, then the right to leave exists formally, but the freedom to exercise that right becomes legally questionable.

The central question of human rights is not merely the abstract existence of a freedom. It is the concrete freedom to exercise it.

I am an elder myself, but I have increasingly noticed that some elders are simply so narrow-minded. Yes, they want to know every detail when you miss a “theocratic” activity. They want to arrange a shepherding visit for no real reason, and they constantly keep tabs on you over absolutely nothing.

These same elders then start making derogatory comments and even give “Bible-based advice” to distance yourself from relatives who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses. And the irony is that my family is the only family in my extended family that is made up of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Everyone else is Catholic or Evangelical.

Some elders simply want to find problems where there are none. And I will say this: this suffocating form of so-called “Christian love” was one of the main reasons I began to open my eyes and realize that they were more concerned with mechanical activity and appearing “theocratic” than with my actual love for God.

The BORG is largely responsible for this. They constantly imply that “theocratic” activities are thermometers of one’s faith, as if attendance at meetings, field service, and other organizational activities were reliable measurements of a person’s love for God or spiritual condition.

This organization produces elders who are completely lacking in tact, love, and basic people skills. They simply want to know every intimate detail of your life, interfere in matters that are none of their business, and intrude into your family and your spirituality.

I am part of Generation Z, and I can say this: this organization is not going to last much longer if it continues in the way it is currently operating.

Good luck to those who stay. Or maybe not.

2 - To whom do you belong?

Which god will you now obey?

For one god is false and one is true,

So make your choice; it’s up to you.

Shall Caesar of this world

Possess your allegiance still?

Or will you obey the Organization today

By always doing his will?

3 - To whom do I belong?

Organization I will obey.

My Father in Warwick I shall serve;

I’ll pay my vows without reserve.

He bought me at great cost;

Devoted to him I’ll stay.

His name I’ll honor each day.

—-

Just start replacing the word “Jehovah” with “the Organization,” and suddenly everything starts to make sense

I know you read this forum. I know you read what you call apostate material. I know this because I have proof. In fact, I would go even further: usually, only those who have already read it are able to say so confidently that no one else should.

Since you are reading this, let me ask you one sincere question:

Has your conscience truly been trained?

If it has, then you certainly remember Jesus’ words:

“Whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

If your conscience has truly been shaped by the teachings you proclaim, how do you live with the weight of the responsibility you carry? You teach that the greater the responsibility, the greater the accountability before God. So how do you bear the possibility that people have lost their faith, their families, their mental health, and, in some cases, even their lives as a result of decisions you have made?

If you truly believe in Jehovah the way you teach others to believe, that possibility should fill you with fear, not reassurance. You should be terrified by the possibility that there is blood on your hands.

There is another question that deeply troubles me.

At what point did you become so certain that you speak for God? At what point did you stop distinguishing between what the Scriptures actually say and what is merely institutional interpretation?

Does God truly require His servants to devote their time, money, resources, and conscience to building and expanding a legal corporation headquartered in the United States? Or have you stretched concepts like faith, loyalty, integrity, and righteousness until they became little more than obedience to the Organization?

There is a difference between representing God and occupying His place. To be honest, I really think both does not apply to you.

Some time ago, I made a simple observation that deeply disturbed me. I began replacing every occurrence of the words “Jehovah” or “God” in your publications with the word “Organization.”

The result was astonishing.

In many cases, not only did the meaning remain exactly the same, it actually made more sense. Phrases such as “please Jehovah,” “be loyal to Jehovah,” “obey Jehovah,” “wait on Jehovah,” and “trust in Jehovah” often described, in practice, submission to the Organization.

That made me wonder: are you aware of this substitution? Or has it become so natural that you no longer even notice it?

If, in practice, it is the Organization that occupies that place, why not be honest?

If a direction comes from the Governing Body, say it comes from the “”Governing”” Body. If an interpretation is institutional, say it is institutional. If a policy is yours, then acknowledge that it is yours.

But do not make God the guarantor of human decisions.
Because if God exists, invoking His name to give absolute authority to your own interpretations may be one of the gravest ways of taking His name in vain.

And so I leave you with one final question.

Do you truly believe in God?

Or have you come to live within a reality so delusional and illusory that you can no longer distinguish God from the Organization? Has your psychological and institutional world become so closed in upon itself that every criticism is automatically dismissed as one more lie from Satan, while every confirmation is taken as proof that God approves of you?

If so, then the Organization has ceased to be an instrument of God and has taken God’s place. It has become nothing more than another golden calf: a work of human hands demanding devotion, obedience, and sacrifice while claiming for itself the authority that belongs to God alone.

And perhaps that is the greatest danger of all.

Because when an institution speaks as God, interprets as God, commands as God, and expects to be obeyed as God, it no longer points people toward God.
It points them toward itself.

In the July 2026 JW Broadcasting, at around the 12:30 mark, it is stated that the organization is directed by imperfect men who are doing their best to follow their perfect Leader. Then a Circuit Overseer is quoted, saying:

"This is the best imperfect organization on earth."

Wait... did I hear that correctly?

For years, I always heard that the organization was perfect, even though it was made up of imperfect men. But this seems to be the first time I've heard someone explicitly describe the organization itself as imperfect.

It makes me wonder if significant changes are on the way. There are some interesting Watchtower studies scheduled for the coming weeks, including:

- Bible Principles, Why Are They Important?
- Your Conscience - Use Bible Principles to Train It
- Respect the Decisions of Others
- How to Remain Loyal When We Face Tests of Faith

The last one is especially interesting because it asks:

"How do we react when we learn of an adjustment in the understanding of a Bible verse or of a change in the way that the disciple-making work is organized?"

It even presents that as a test of faith.

Years ago, I used to play Clash of Clans. This was a long time ago. I wasn't baptized yet, and I was very young, but I was part of a Clash of Clans clan made up of JWs who seemed to be PIMIs. I was very PIMI myself.

In that clan, we talked about everything. As early as 2014, we were already discussing how different countries viewed issues like wearing ties, having beards, and even how each person's conscience viewed the game, since it contained (and still contains) wizards, witches, spells, skeletons, and many other things related to the occult.

I remember that at the time I made a promise to two members of the clan, one from Denmark and another from the United States, that even though we were from different countries, we would meet in the New World for a BBQ party (with meat, or vegatables lol).

It's sad that it is a promise we cannot keep. I just hope that at least the resurrection is real, because when I realized the truth about the truth, the ground disappeared beneath my feet.

From JW Pressroom Instagram: on June 26, JW purchased a new property in Warwick. 68 Acres.

On June 26, 2026, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the corporation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, purchased the Sterling Forest Business Resiliency Services Center from Kyndryl, Inc.

The property spans 68 acres in Warwick, New York, and includes a former 433,000 square foot IBM office and data center. It is located directly next to the World Headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which opened in 2016 after relocating from Brooklyn, New York.

It certainly gives the impression that Jehovah has long term plans for this worldly system. Isn’t the end supposed to be near?

One of the most liberating ideas I learned was to separate three things that, for a long time, felt inseparable, institutional direction, social pressure, and my own will.
Within Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is a tendency to treat any direction as if it carries force by itself. Over time, I realized this is not true.

The organization can issue guidance. Elders can advise. Friends and family can insist, pressure, disappoint, or even disapprove. But none of these elements removes my capacity to decide.

The influence of others depends, to some extent, on the permission I give it. This does not mean social pressure is weak. It can be intense, especially when it involves fear of losing relationships, reputation, or belonging. But recognizing that there is still a personal decision space changes the way these situations are perceived.

This understanding also changed my relationship with boundaries.

For a long time, I believed that saying no required a convincing justification, as if I needed to persuade the other person that my decision was valid. Later I realized this only transfers decision power to the listener. If the explanation is considered insufficient, the pressure continues.

I also realized that in this kind of environment, justification often does not work. There will always be a Bible text that, through a certain interpretation, can be shaped into an argument or principle applicable to your case. Even if there is a Watchtower article describing your exact situation, that does not guarantee the discussion will end there. If the other person does not want to accept that conclusion, they will likely respond with many other articles and publications to support a different reading. In this dynamic, logic is not always the central factor. Often the goal is not to understand your reasoning, but to align you with a predefined conclusion.

Because of this, learning to simply say “no” became an experience of freedom. Not because I stopped respecting people, but because I understood that a personal decision does not need to become a debate. Explanations can be given when I choose to share them, not because they are an obligation.

If I am simply being myself and living according to my own choices, what is realistically the worst outcome. Could a shepherding visit be arranged. And if I decline, what changes. Could I receive a lecture or correction. And if I listen without internalizing it, what real power does it have over my decisions. Could there be criticism or indirect comments. And if there are, what actual control do they have over my life choices.

They have no power unless I delegate it to them

1. What is voluntary is not mandatory.
2. The Hebrew word for “truth” is emet, meaning “something absolute, eternal, something that always has been and always will be, something that does not change.” If that’s the case, why did God forbid toasting in the past, but now allows it?
3. If God exists, He cannot be bribed. That means nothing you do guarantees a reward from Him. Paying tithes, making donations, or volunteering as though you were serving God does not buy you a place in paradise.
4. There is no perfect organization made up of imperfect people. Every organization is human.
5. All religions turn God into a puppet. They say, “God wants this,” “God expects that,” “God doesn’t like this,” or “God does that,” when in reality God never said those things. I get very angry when people speak on my behalf, claiming that I like or dislike something when the truth is different. Wouldn’t God feel the same way?
6. Who decided that the Bible is God’s original word? Why should the Bible be considered more authoritative than other books? Even the list of books that make up the Bible is debatable, since the biblical canon was established through centuries of debate, disagreements among Jewish and Christian communities, and human decisions about canonization, without any universal consensus or a list provided by the biblical text itself.
7. Depending on the criteria used (historical, literary, or theological), the Book of Enoch could be considered more significant than the Book of Ruth. Yet most Christian traditions do not include it in the biblical canon, mainly because its authorship is considered pseudepigraphal and because it contains apocalyptic descriptions regarded as speculative, even though it is quoted in the Epistle of Jude in the New Testament. If Jude cites Enoch as an authority, was Jude wrong?
8. If Paul himself sometimes clearly distinguished his own opinion from a command of God (for example, in 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 7:25), why assume that everything he wrote should be read as a direct command from God?
9. Jesus repeatedly criticized religious leaders for placing human traditions above God’s will. How do we know that the same thing is not still happening today?
10. If Jesus summarized the Law as loving God and loving your neighbor, why do so many communities place greater emphasis on rules, positions, rituals, and institutional identity than on those two principles?
11. If Jesus said that the scribes and Pharisees “sit on Moses’ seat” and instructed the people to practice what they taught, but not to imitate their hypocrisy (Matthew 23:2-3), at what point did He command His followers to abandon Judaism and establish a new religion?
12. I was taught that “privileges” were a sign of God’s approval. Losing them does not mean you have lost God’s favor. In many cases, privileges are simply used as a form of manipulation or coercion.
13. Not belonging to a religion does not mean you live an immoral or reckless life. You can still choose to believe in God, develop your own moral and ethical principles, and study the Bible on your own.

You may have already seen this situation. A personal decision, higher education, profession, what to do in free time, going to the gym, entertainment, leisure, cinema, series, music, social media, travel, friendships, dating, marriage, lifestyle choices, diet, hobbies, sports, personal projects, rest, mental health, even small everyday preferences. All of this becomes filtered through the idea that it is necessary to consider the principle of not making the other stumble, as if practically any choice could carry a potential moral impact on someone else.

In practice, anything that resembles “idleness”, entertainment, leisure, the pursuit of pleasure, or activities that are not directly encouraged such as preaching, meetings, study, and spending time mainly with members of the congregation, can be placed under suspicion or questioning by this “other”, as if there is always a possibility that someone could be spiritually weakened by these choices.

But who is this other who always stumbles? Who is this subject who falls repeatedly to the point of becoming a constant reference for so many restrictions?

If this figure influences so many dimensions of life, is it not reasonable to ask why he has no name, face, or concrete location?

This other is not a specific person. He is not someone identifiable in the real world. He functions as a generic idea of “any person who could be affected”, especially someone seen as more fragile in faith, conscience, or decision making. In simple terms, he is a mental form used to anticipate possible reactions of others and transform those reactions into a rule for personal conduct.

The key point is that this other has no clear limits. He can be anything, in any situation. He can be a friend, a stranger, a family member, someone inside or outside the community, someone present or imagined, someone strong or weak, someone real or merely possible. Precisely because he is undefined, he can also demand anything. At one extreme, he may require small adjustments in everyday behavior. At another, he can reorganize an entire life, shaping choices of education, profession, leisure, relationships, and even personal identity.

At the extreme ends of this logic, almost any activity can be seen as a potential stumbling block. Watching a movie, choosing a career, practicing sports, expressing an opinion, dressing in a certain way, or simply seeking pleasure can be interpreted as something that affects this other. Thus, daily life is no longer guided only by personal desire or choice, but becomes constantly mediated by an abstract, flexible, and unlimited figure that expands according to the need for symbolic control.

In this logic, the only thing this imagined other has been trained to accept is the organizational tasks of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The danger of this is that a vague and unbounded idea can end up functioning as a total authority over life, shifting the center of decision away from the individual toward an undefined external expectation. When the other can be everything, it can also justify any restriction, making it difficult to distinguish between genuine care for others and a system of regulation that reinforces itself through guilt, constant anticipation of error, and the progressive limitation of personal autonomy.

This methodology was developed to investigate the different psychological investments involved in the pursuit, maintenance, and valuation of religious privileges. Its purpose is not to judge a person’s spirituality or determine their true conscious intentions, but rather to understand the psychological forces that may be operating in their relationship with positions, responsibilities, and recognition within a religious community.

The model is based on the assumption that human motivation is rarely singular. The same activity may simultaneously be driven by devotion to God, a desire to serve, a need for belonging, a search for recognition, self esteem regulation, or a wish for influence and authority. These motivations may coexist in varying proportions.
From a psychoanalytic perspective, the central concept is that of psychological investment. Psychological investment refers to the allocation of emotional energy, desire, expectations, and identity to a particular object, role, or activity. Thus, a religious privilege may be experienced primarily as service to a spiritual ideal, as confirmation of personal worth, or as a means of gaining influence and social status.

This methodology evaluates three fundamental dimensions:

Investment in Power and Influence
The degree to which an individual values status, authority, leadership, prestige, and the ability to influence others.

Investment in the Religious Ideal
The degree to which an individual demonstrates commitment to service, spiritual values, and religious duties independent of recognition or reward.

Narcissistic Dependence on Recognition
The degree to which self esteem, motivation, and feelings of personal worth depend on approval, praise, and recognition from others.

Response Scale
For each statement, select the response that best reflects your experience:
0 = Never
1 = Rarely
2 = Sometimes
3 = Frequently
4 = Almost Always

Questionnaire
Factor 1: Prestige Seeking (PS)
I feel satisfaction when others know about my assignments or privileges.
I enjoy being publicly recognized.
I consider it important to occupy prominent positions.
I like being viewed as an example by others.
I feel disappointed when someone else receives an assignment that I could have received.

Factor 2: Need for Influence (NI)
I enjoy participating in decisions that affect other people.
I feel a need to guide or direct fellow members.
It bothers me when my opinion is not considered.
I prefer roles that involve leadership.
I feel satisfaction when I realize I have influenced someone.

Factor 3: Narcissistic Competition (NC)
I compare my responsibilities with those of others.
I feel uncomfortable when someone progresses more quickly than I do.
I pay attention to who holds more privileges within the congregation.
At times, I measure my spiritual value by the privileges I receive.
Losing a role or assignment affects my self esteem.

Factor 4: Orientation Toward the Religious Ideal (ORI)
I would continue serving in the same way even without recognition.
Invisible work is as valuable as visible work.
My primary goal is to please God, even if no one notices.
I do not need positions or titles to feel spiritually useful.
I can easily accept others receiving opportunities that I did not receive.

Factor 5: Detachment from Privilege (DP)
I could relinquish an assignment without resentment.
My spiritual identity does not depend on privileges.
I can separate my personal worth from organizational position.
I do not interpret the lack of assignments as rejection.
I remain motivated even when I am not noticed.

Factor 6: Narcissistic Dependence on Recognition (NDR)
Recognition confirms that I am on the right path.
When I am not appreciated, I question my own value.
I need external signs to feel that I am progressing.
Criticism of my activities affects me deeply.
Praise has a significant impact on my motivation.

Global Indices

Power and Influence Index (PII)
PII = PS + NI + NC
Range: 0 to 60

Interpretation:
0 to 20 = Low
21 to 40 = Moderate
41 to 60 = High

Religious Ideal Service Index (RISI)
RISI = ORI + DP
Range: 0 to 40

Interpretation:
0 to 13 = Low
14 to 26 = Moderate
27 to 40 = High

Narcissistic Dependence Index (NDI)
NDI = NDR
Range: 0 to 20

Interpretation:
0 to 6 = Low
7 to 13 = Moderate
14 to 20 = High

Interpretation of Results
Predominantly Ideal Oriented Profile
Characteristics:
High RISI
Low or Moderate PII
Low or Moderate NDI

In this profile, privileges appear to function primarily as instruments of service. The individual remains committed even without significant recognition and tends not to tie spiritual identity to positions or titles. Motivation is mainly directed toward the religious ideal.

Mixed Profile
Characteristics:
High PII
High RISI

In this profile, genuine religious commitment coexists with significant investment in recognition, influence, or status. This is likely the most common configuration, as human motivations are rarely pure or exclusive.

Predominantly Power Oriented Profile
Characteristics:
High PII
Low or Moderate RISI

In this profile, privileges tend to carry substantial symbolic value related to status, authority, and recognition. Positions and assignments may serve as important sources of self esteem and social influence.

High Narcissistic Dependence Profile
Characteristics:
High NDI

Regardless of other scores, a high result on this dimension suggests that external validation plays a major role in maintaining self esteem. Praise, approval, and institutional recognition tend to have strong emotional significance, while criticism, loss of responsibilities, or lack of recognition may produce considerable distress.

Understanding Narcissistic Investment
In everyday language, narcissism is often associated with vanity, arrogance, or selfishness. In psychoanalysis, however, narcissism refers more broadly to the emotional investment an individual places in their own self image, personal value, and identity.

Some degree of narcissistic investment is universal and necessary. It contributes to self confidence, self respect, and psychological stability. The question is not whether narcissistic investment exists, but how strongly personal worth depends upon external confirmation.

When narcissistic investment in religious privileges is high, a position no longer functions solely as an opportunity for service. It also becomes a source of self validation. Titles, assignments, and responsibilities begin to serve as evidence of personal value and significance.
In such cases, losing a privilege may be experienced not merely as a change in role but as a narcissistic injury, a perceived wound to one’s sense of worth. Likewise, receiving additional responsibilities may provide emotional gratification that extends beyond the religious meaning of the assignment itself.

By contrast, when narcissistic investment is lower, individuals tend to maintain a clearer distinction between who they are and the roles they perform. Privileges are experienced as temporary functions rather than proof of personal value.

For this reason, the present methodology does not attempt to determine whether an individual serves God or seeks power. Rather, it seeks to estimate the relative proportions of psychological energy invested in the religious ideal, social influence, and the need for recognition and validation.

The culture of Jehovah’s Witnesses can be understood as a system of cultural coercion that operates through both formal and psychological means. Although sanctions such as disfellowshipping and disassociation are obvious mechanisms of control, the primary form of coercion occurs through the internalization of the belief that spiritual goals are the only legitimate source of happiness, purpose, and divine approval. Individuals learn that their sense of worth, fulfillment, and even their reason for living depends upon their religious performance. As a result, a mistake, a doubt, or a change in conviction can be experienced as the loss of the very thing that gives life meaning. This dynamic requires a constant instinctual renunciation: personal desires, individual interests, irrational passions, and even critical questioning must be sacrificed in favor of religious ideals.

Coercion also manifests through fear of disapproval, concern over what others might say, attempts by others to direct personal choices, and a form of affection that presents itself as Christian love but often functions as a continuous demand to do more and demonstrate greater faithfulness. This system is sustained by several social forces. On one side stands a governing minority that concentrates local instruments of authority and influence, often composed of elders and their families, particularly those occupying key positions within the congregation. There is also the exemplary leader, the highly respected member whose conduct serves as a model for others and reinforces group norms. In opposition exists a refractory mass composed of former members, critics, dissidents, and other groups who resist these mechanisms and push for cultural change, however slow and difficult that process may be.

The prohibition against questioning beliefs reveals a fundamental fragility within those beliefs themselves. That which cannot be subjected to critical examination demonstrates little confidence in its ability to withstand rational scrutiny. Religious answers are presented as final and non-negotiable, making inquiry itself appear threatening. Reason is not the criterion, and therefore any absurdity can be taught, provided it is legitimized by religious authority and accepted by the collective as truth.
I eventually concluded that there are only a few possible responses to such a structure. Many choose to leave permanently and sever all ties. Because of my family, I chose a different path: to dismantle the instruments of domination and coercion operating in my own life. This meant relinquishing privileges and positions that reinforced my submission to the system, recognizing the mechanisms of control at work within the congregation, and defining more clearly what I genuinely want and do not want to do. Above all, it required intellectual honesty. I had to acknowledge that my relationship with the religion was not healthy and that, more often than not, I was acting to satisfy the expectations of others rather than out of a sincere relationship with God.

In its essence, however, this mechanism is not unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses but belongs to the structure of religion itself. Jehovah’s Witnesses often claim that their faith is rational, yet this claim contains a difficult tension. Faith, by its very definition, involves accepting something that cannot be fully established through reason or empirical demonstration. When a belief can be completely demonstrated by reason, it ceases to be an object of faith and becomes an object of knowledge. In that sense, the attempt to present faith as entirely rational appears to contradict the very nature of faith in its purest definition.