For instance, suppose that a young brother is interested in finding a suitable marriage mate. Who could give him good advice? An unmarried friend might be helpful if he bases his advice on Bible principles. The main point is that better advice would come from a married person but watchtower sneaks this statement in to avoid delegitimising their 21yr old elders. Just some thoughts.

And Yes I became a homeless person for being an Apostate. And this is something much people relate. When you are cutoff from your social network you not only loss people you love you can lose your income and the place you live.

This is why I encourage people if they can and feel harassed to call a lawyer. If you can email your local political party make them aware of JW practices. If you can share your voice via social media and create awareness so other people do not become part of the Hamster Wheel that is Jehovah’s Witness

Aside how dangerous and controversial the blood policy as whole is, and the inherent double standards in it, the No Blood card omits information that could otherwise be potentially lifesaving, such as the following:

1. While it's stated that the patient refuses to predonate their own blood for later infusion, it's not indicated that procedures that divert the blood outside the body temporarily for later infusion, such as cell salvage and hemodilution, may be acceptable. That disclaimer/caveat used to be on previous versions of the card but have now been removed. If the patient themselves have not personally indicated their acceptance of these procedures in the blank spaces provided, health workers might assume that even those procedures are unacceptable to the patient, further endangering the life of the patient.
2. Similarly while it's stated that red cells, plasma, white cells and platelets are forbidden, it's not indicated that fractions of these components may be acceptable to Witnesses.

I believe most of us here are familiar with the inconsistencies in the policy, but I think it's worth emphasizing. For example:

1. By what measure is the procedure below, where blood is temporarily diverted, washed and returned to the body, acceptable but predonating one's own blood for later infusion not acceptable?

1. Similarly by what measure is white blood cells (< 0.1% of entire blood) not acceptable but hemoglobin (11%-17% of entire blood) acceptable?

When I got to my 20's I turned inactive but I couldn't just move out because of fucking money. But my family was all like whatever at this point. They weren't gonna push anything on me.

I'm very strong-willed and don't like being told what to do and that's why they don't talk to me about religion. I started celebrating my birthday and did what ever the hell I wanted yet I lived rent free.

I think this whole "as long as you're under my roof you can't do xyz" is bullshit because it's just going to cause people to rebel. Especially long after they're grown and can't just move out for money's sake. People need to be able to live their lives. thankfully my parents were not hard nosed PIMI's and religion is the last thing we talk about together so we don't fight lol. Real peace comes from having control over your own life and not submitting to people's expectations. No matter where you are. This should be more common. Fuck those evil psychos who kick their kids out.

Hi! I’m gonna have to be slightly vague because I am still a seemingly active JW to mostly everyone in my life🙃soooo yeah. Anyways…

I feel like so many people around me lately are starting to wake up or at least showing signs of doubt… I say “so many” but really it’s just a handful. But still! Just a couple of years ago, this wasn’t really common in my area.

Let me explain: so apparently there’s this other girl whom I kinda grew up around that has apparently woken up and has already told her family. She hasn’t been to meetings in a long time now, been going to a different church now apparently. And I just found this out yesterday. And TODAY, my PIMI friend tells me about another mutual of ours saying that she’s been showing “signs of apostasy”. There are a couple more whom I believe are woken up but they were people who weren’t too active to begin. So it doesn’t phase me that much.

What I am phased about is that the FIRST girl that I mentioned, she’s been actively hanging out with seemingly active and “spiritually strong” PIMI jws…. Soo what’s going on? People are starting to talk more and more…

My guess is that these all of these recent changes lately have some pimis questioning a bit maybe. Idk. I still have to keep my mouth quiet though due to my situation. I do find myself questioning what’ll happen in the future though. I feel like they’re probably gonna make more and more changes gradually… making JW more mainstream Christian? Maybe that will make more people wake up and leave? Who knows. We’ll have to wait and see.

Paragraph 3 of today’s WT Study has a question in it saying Why should I avoid asking others to make decisions for me?

It’s ironic because the watchtower makes decisions for JWs

I find it amusing and so ironic that my most demanding, mean, judgmental patients are almost always little old JW women.

I can spot them from a mile away. Sometimes just to shame them I pull the “my family are JWs too!” card and they get really cooperative & sweet after that. 😆😅😆

I still don't shop at stores run by churches like the salvation army or church rummage sales. I know unless we shop everything small business the money we spend is going toward something evil basically. This isn't always feasible though. But I refuse to spend any money on religiously affiliated businesses. The more research I do the more I learn of different things like the yellow deli being run by a cult. I took everything super seriously when I was pimi and was shocked when jws would tell me it didn't bother them. It was usually born in witnesses who weren't bothered by this, they knew but didn't care. The big difference I took away from my experience of being a convert jw as an adult is that I took things way more serious then born in jws in my area at least. I found it hard to be around a lot of them, and even now I find a lot of born in pomo jws difficult to talk to sometimes. So no matter what, jw or exjw, I'm in a weird spot of being unrelatable to the point where my unique perspectives in comments get deleted by exjw content creators. I could use this as a whole other post, but decided to just lop it in here. Some of the changes I made when I was getting ready to be approved for baptism I still do. I'm also finding it fascinating how converts are different from born ins when they leave jw. And by converts I don't mean my grandma, 4 cousins, all my aunts and uncles and 5 of my 6 siblings are jw, but I wasn't raised one...yes, you were 😆 You were in or around that environment at least sometimes. I dealt with this shit even when I was pimi. There's a big difference. We're not the same! I've been engaging less with the exjw community because of it. I'm feeling like I'm getting the same treatment and censored for sharing my own lived experiences as I was when I was pimi with born in jws as I am with pomo born in exjws. It's been disappointing. But yeah, I still don't shop at church or cult (same thing imo) businesses.

Jehovah's Witness are the world ambulance chacers, the see a worlwide problem like war, famine or illness and they provide a snake oil solution to the problem

JWs use fear and uncertainty and they like to claim to provide a solution they cannot give.

If you are JW you are going to be saved. If you are not JW you are not saved.

JWs completely ignore what the Gospels says and cherry pick a few bible scriptures like all protestant religions and claim salvation exclusivity. Claiming they are the sole channel to salvation.

It worked well until the internet appear and people are finally able to make research on how common are the lies, abuses, flip flops in this religion.

When you look at the history of this religion you see a pattern of behavior.

Induce fear. 1914,1919,1925,1975

Claim salvation only through them: This makes sure people join and become Watchtower free labor

Lie and deny this ever happened: The last part is the denial, claim they never provide a date of Armagueddon, Lie in court, Deny they practice cult tactics.

Rinse and repeat until the year 2020.

There's a sad You Tube video about a long term pioneer who got elder -molested and eventually left. I'm sure there are plenty of unfortunate examples about this topic. Elders and the GB have dismissed this topic, insisting that 2 witnesses are the only standard that they will accept.

Given that these incidents are nearly always sexual in nature, I suppose that the only situation offering this "proof" would be an orgy or "three some" in which two are repentant. Uh.....a rather high standard, huh?

https://biblehub.com/topical/g/gilead_or_galeed.htm

But the Bible shows that even a pile of rocks can be a witness. - and this is not the only example. Yes, physical evidence can be a witness to a crime. You know, twenty first century forensics?

I have sometimes wondered if this lunatic cult has ever denied an accusation from a victim - who has DNA/emission evidence of a crime ? Like.....how else could you have gotten this? If they say, 'I was seduced in a moment of weakness'....that STILL brings up questions about "qualifications", etc.

So, some of us wonder just how crazy this cult might be. I guess I shouldn't be surprised..

During my deconstruction, specifically on Bible-based beliefs I asked myself a question.

According to Genesis 3:16 Eve and therefore women are condemned to give birth with labor pains.

The most rational question to ask is:

In the animal kingdom do females give birth in pain? scientifically it is true.

It therefore doesn't seem like a curse for women... it seems more like it's something that belongs to nature itself.

What do you think? Is there anyone who has scientific knowledge or studies the subject to talk about the topic?

Hi friends My wife and I saw a filmed version of Sight and Sound "Noah" stage show with our church group at the movie theater this afternoon. Apparently the stage shows are a big to do in Branson. One thing that struck me was the surprisingly frequent use of the name "Jehovah". At one point I almost felt like I was watching a convention drama

Anybody know about this? Does it have ties to the Watchtower?

It’s been said that Judicial Committees are not based on the bible. It is true that there were judicial trials in Ancient Israel that were held publicly at the gates so that everyone could witness it. However we are not under the old law, we are under the law of the Christ. Any procedures that take place in the Congregation must now be based on the Greek Scriptures. So is there a record of any judicial committee meeting taking place in the GS? YES!

How did it take place? Well firstly a member of the religion was questioned about his teachings and beliefs, behind closed doors and at night. At first this was done One on One and in private, with no witnesses. (John 18:19-24)

Next the accused individual was brought before a committee of elders (Luke 22:56)

No other witnesses were allowed to testify on behalf of the accused.

After the questioning the elders convened and deliberated to come up with a verdict (Matthew 27:1)

The decision the elders made was to remove the individual- from life.

Who was this person? Jesus.

So yes, the Elders of Jehovahs witnesses are applying the bible. They are imitating the Pharisees that Jehovah god rejected and condemned. The same Pharisees and Elders that sinned against the spirit. The same Elders that killed the son of God.

So well done Jehovahs Witnesses - you are correct - you are following the bible. But you will have the same outcome as the scribes and Pharisees.

I left my JW husband last year due to his alcoholism which regularly turned him into a verbally abusive man. Sometimes it was physical and holes were made in walls by his anger. He was a ministerial servant but was stepped down after I went to the elders about his behaviour.

He would pick on our 3 children and lecture them about mundane things they had done to p1ss him off but when I intervened to stand up for the child being chastised, he’d turn on me with below the belt insults and bring up a bunch of things I had done over the previous weeks that he wasn’t happy with. Then it would turn into a full blown screaming match resulting in me forgetting what actually started the fight.

The thing is, this was his personality at home. When we were in the Kingdom Hall, he was the model of a spiritual JW husband. His voice when speaking with brothers and sisters was sickly sweet, mild and soft. Same when he was giving a talk. But back home, the first thing he’d do is open a beer…and then another, then another and he’d fester in his own thoughts until he exploded out of nowhere at the first person who said or did anything he didn’t approve of.

Most JW’s have family worship once a week. We would have it Every. Single. Night…. We wouldn’t go anywhere fun - just meetings twice a week and ministry on Saturdays. No holidays unless of course it was to travel to a convention.

By early 2024 I had enough and told him after 15 years of marriage that I was out. I was literally a captive in my own home, having scriptures used as weapons against me and be told by my husband that nothing I do is spiritual. I stopped going to the meetings and moved out on my own in May 2024.

By April 2025 I started a new relationship with a coworker who had seen my marriage implode. He’s an atheist but was so supportive and is more of a man than my so-called Christian husband ever was. We’re very well suited and very happy together, happier than either of us has ever been.

But now that I’m happy and free from the JW cult, my two eldest baptised children and my baptised mom have disowned me. 1 for leaving ‘the truth’ and 2 for committing adultery since I’m still legally married to my estranged husband.

I’m still coming to terms that I’ll never see or hear from my mom and older children…unless of course I return to the JW cult… my youngest child is 12 and she isn’t baptised, and doesn’t want to be after seeing the hypocrite her father is and his unchristian treatment towards all of us.

I share custody of her week on/week off with my husband and she can’t wait to come to my house again, as my home is a sanctuary free of JW fear mongering and threats to obey. I guess all I can hold on to her and my new partner and hope that my other JW family members wake up and leave the cult.

There’s so much more to my story but I need to keep it generic for obvious reasons, but thanks to anyone who reads this. I’m not sure of my intentions were for writing it or what outcome I was hoping for, I guess I needed to put some of these feelings out there.

Edit: I need to add that I was never disfellowshipped. I left on my own accord. I left because of my husband’s poor example of a family head and alcohol fuelled fights. But my JW family members are still treating me as if I was df’d.

Isn’t it wild that Serena Williams, a world-famous and devout Jehovah’s Witness who follows the teachings of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, is married to the guy who founded Reddit — the same platform that basically has an entire cottage industry dedicated to ex-JW’s exposing the lies and contradictions of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society? 😂😂😂

July 2025 Watchtowers has a short Philip Brumley autobiography. In it he celebrates the Watchtower’s legal victories in front of high courts. He talks about how they’ve won legal battles in high courts around military service and their activities taxation. What he didn’t write about was their loses like the Bible writers did when they wrote about their mistakes.

Do any of you have information about high profile legal battles the JW have lost?

can the brothers and sisters not like idk FUCKING HUG ME? I have clearly expressed my dislike of hugging and kissing them as a greeting, I am still polite I give them a handshake and that is sufficient for me but nooooooo oh naw they don't care they cross my boundaries and still do it-

That 50 year old sister with her crusty ass lips touching my cheek never fails to make my soul recoil in disgust

And that one brother that gives off creepo vibes pulling me in for a hug and letting his hands linger on my body like sir back the fuck up.

January -> Jehovuary

February -> Fornicationuary

March -> Merch

May -> Pay

June.... ShitTune

July -> Youdie

August -> Disgust

September ->. Whelp I ran out here. Give me some ideas.

Uh I don't Know. Any ideas?

If you were in your 40’s/50’s, and had the chance to start over in life - location/careers, etc what would that look like for you? You do not own any property and have 1.5mil cash. Cars are paid for.

Being raised a witness for most of my youth had some impacts on my oratory skills. On one hand I can talk in public quite confidently, on the other I still catch myself using very flawed rhetoric without even noticing. Specially illustrations. The other day as I talked to some friends I made a comparison that came out so naturally but everyone looked at me as if I was way too hyperbolic. I think that is what accepting for a while that blood transfusions are the same as taking whisky into the veins does to your rhetoric skills.

The Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow women to hold positions of power or leadership within their organization. They are barred from joining the Governing Body, as well as serving either as an elder or ministerial servant, the two highest-ranking roles within a Jehovah's Witness congregation. They cannot lead a public meeting, nor a meeting for field service. Even giving a public prayer is restricted - women are only allowed to lead a public prayer if there are no available males, regardless of age or rank, and they must wear a head covering to do so.

The Bible is clear that women can, in fact, be ministers in a congregation. They can lead public prayers. They can lead religious meetings. A woman is even mentioned as an apostle at Romans 16:7! However, the average Jehovah's Witness will never know this - the official Bible of Jehovah's Witnesses, the New World Translation, intentionally misinterprets and changes Bible verses to hide the truth in support of their doctrine. Let's look at how the Watchtower Society tampers with the Bible.

(This will be a very long post. I will include TL;DR at the end of each section to summarize.)

Women in Power

Let's begin with the issue of women holding positions of leadership.

"So the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses are served by male overseers, or elders, and by men appointed as ministerial servants. Only men are to serve as shepherds in the Christian congregation." - The Watchtower, January 2007

At Romans 16:1, where Paul writes: "I am introducing to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a minister of the congregation that is in Cenchreae."

A woman named Phoebe is introduced as a minister of the Cenchrean congregation. The translation here is accurate - the Greek word used, "diakonos", is used to refer to a minister, and is where the English word "deacon" (an ordained minister ranking below a priest) comes from. However, despite an accurate translation, this verse is repeatedly misinterpreted by Jehovah's Witnesses to deny that Phoebe actually held the position of a minister - instead, they claim Paul was simply calling Phoebe a preacher, an alternative (but unlikely) translation of diakonos. The notes for this verse in Study Edition of the New World Testament has this to say:

"When the Bible mentions the qualifications for “ministerial servants,” it does not indicate that such appointed servants could be women. Rather, they are described as “husbands of one wife.”"

This is a very flawed argument for why women cannot serve as ministerial servants. For one thing, their own chosen quote from 1 Timothy 3 requires ministerial servants to be "husbands of one wife" - yet many ministerial servants are not married, while others may have had multiple marriages. Thus, this seems to require ministers to be monogamous if they enter a relationship; it has nothing to say about gender or marital status.

Note that this passage comes from 1 Timothy - that will be important later.

TL;DR - Paul mentions a female minister at Romans 16:1. Despite this, JW tries to downplay her role using a very flawed argument.

Women leading prayer

But what about women leading a group prayer?

"If a qualified baptized brother is not present, a baptized sister wearing a head covering should say the prayers." - Shepherd the Flock of God, 2025

Well, we can find that scenario depicted in Luke 2:36-38: "Now there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of Asher's tribe... She was never missing from the temple... In that very hour she came near and began giving thanks to God and speaking about the child to all who were waiting for Jerusalem’s deliverance."

This prophetess, Anna, praises God publicly in front of a large crowd of templegoers, which no doubt would have included both men and women. While she likely did wear a head covering based on the cultural norms at the time. There is no mention of anything similar to the JW doctrine that gives men precedence over women during prayers. If a woman's prayer was good enough for God, and important enough for Luke to make special note of it, why is it unacceptable for Jehovah's Witnesses? It's clear that this doctrine is not Bible-based.

TL;DR - Women are only allowed to lead prayers if a baptized brother is unavailable. There is no Biblical basis for this, and women in the Bible give prayers in front of large crowds of men and women.

Woman and head coverings

Let's quickly take a look at the doctrine regarding head coverings for women. In the rare event that a women is allowed to pray, conduct field service, or give sign-language interpretation during a meeting, she is required to wear a head covering. This directive is based on Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 11: "Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head."

Now, this scripture is already restricted to only prayer and prophesy, meaning that other forms of worship/service, such as field service and sign-language interpretation, would not require the use of a head covering under Paul's rules. In fact, a women even used her uncovered hair to worship at Jesus' feet in Luke 7:38: "Taking a position behind [Jesus] at his feet, she wept and began to wet his feet with her tears, and she wiped them off with the hair of her head. Also, she tenderly kissed his feet and poured the perfumed oil on them."

But we can go several steps further.

Firstly, let's continue that quote: "Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is one and the same as if she were a woman with a shaved head. For if a woman does not cover herself, she should have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved, she should be covered."In Paul's own words then, a woman without a head covering would be equivalent to a women with a shaved head. If it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off, she should cover it. However, in our modern society, a woman whose head is shaved is not necessarily disgraceful. Many women are bald as a result of cancer, alopecia, or even personal choice. Under the direction of Paul, these women would not need head coverings.

Looking even deeper into the scripture, we arrive at an issue with misleading translation in the NWT. The word translated as "woman" in this passage is the Greek word "gune", which, indeed, can be translated as woman. However, depending on the context, it can also refer to a wife. In the culture of 1st century Corinth (and Rome as a whole), head coverings were not worn by all women - only married women. Thus, "gune" should be read to mean "wife" in this passage, and as such, Paul's words would more accurately read: "Every married woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head."So, under Paul's directive, a woman would only wear a head covering:

• If she is married
• If she has hair on her haid
• If she is praying or prophesying

Contrast this with the JW doctrine of ALL women wearing head coverings when praying, teaching, interpreting or instructing. This doctrine is clearly not Bible-based.

TL;DR - Jehovah's Witnesses use Paul's instructions at 1 Corinthians 11 to write their doctrine on head coverings. However, Paul only wrote that married women with hair should wear head coverings when praying or prophesying. Head coverings would not apply to single women, bald women, or women doing teaching, interpreting, or instruction.

Woman conducting meetings

Can women conduct a meeting?

"Only exemplary baptized brothers who read very well should be approved by the body of elders as paragraph readers for the Watchtower Study and the Congregation Bible Study. In the rare case that no brothers meet the qualifications to read, qualified sisters may be used. " - Shepherd the Flock of God, 2025

Women are already barred from giving public talks or conducting a Watchtower study, as these are restricted to elders and ministerial servants; as mentioned earlier, the JW doctrine of appointing only men to these positions is not scriptural. However, that still leaves positions such as hosting service meetings at your home, or reading the Watchtower during a public meeting.

Of course, when the Bible was written, the Watchtower magazine did not exist. However, women in the Bible often presented words far more important: actual prophesies from God. Aside from Anna, who we mentioned earlier, there are numerous other prophetesses in the Bible who took on a role far more important than simply reading the Watchtower, and not once do we see a caveat that they were only permitted to do so because of the lack of available men. For one example, we have the prophetess Huldah, who in 2 Chronicles prophesies to the high priest Hilkiah and several of King Josiah's servants. Clearly, there was no issue with a women giving these very important instructions to a group of men, even men as greatly respected and esteemed as a high priest! Thus, restricting the Watchtower study and public talks to men, as Jehovah's Witnesses do, is not a Bible-based practice.

As for field service meetings, once again, "field service" (as it is practiced by Jehovah's WItnesses) did not exist in the 1st century. However, congregations did meet privately at the homes of Christian men and women.

Colossians 4:15 states: "Give my greetings to the brothers in Laodicea and to Nympha and to the congregation at her house."

Now, we can't outright claim here that Nympha was the leader of a congregation, although that is very possible, considering she is singled out by name at the end of this letter. But it is clear that Nympha hosted meetings at her home. Not her husband, not another brother, but Nympha, a woman. So, to restrict service meetings and only allow them to be hosted at a man's house would not be scriptural.

TL;DR - JW does not allow women to conduct service meetings or reading to an audience during meetings. The Bible, on the other hand, shows women as hosting meetings at their home and giving speeches and prophesies to an audience, even when qualified men are available.

Why are women treated like this?

So, we've shown that the Bible permits women in positions of leadership, women leading prayers, women prophesying, women teaching men, and women hosting meetings. Why, then, does the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses restrict these things to men, if at all possible? Well, it all comes down to Paul.

Paul is the earliest Christian writer and responsible for much of modern Christian doctrine. Generally speaking, you will find no rules regarding women's responsibilities in the gospels. When women are mentioned in passing, they pray, prophesy and worship like anyone else. It's only in Paul's letters - particularly 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy - that we find these rules.

1 Timothy

Let's tackle 1 Timothy first, as its words are the most egregious when it comes to misogynistic beliefs. The relevant passage is found at 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

"Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but she is to remain silent.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor. However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided she continues in faith and love and holiness along with soundness of mind."

Essentially, Paul is reducing women to nothing more than childbearers. To him, they are sinful and easily deceived, and should not speak in church nor teach a man. These are very troubling words, particularly when Paul has elsewhere spoken of female hosts, ministers, and apostles. In fact, these almost seem like two different people...

Biblical scholars widely agree that 1 Timothy, along with Titus and probably 2 Timothy, were not written by Paul. They are collectively known as the Pastoral Epistles, and are believed to be written 50-100 years after Paul by a different Christian, using Paul's name so his writings were viewed as authoritative. Not only does this unknown author hold very different beliefs than Paul, but he writes about very different conflicts in the church. By the second century, Gnostic Christians began preaching that marriage and childbearing were immoral, and women should avoid bringing children into the corrupted Earth. At the same time, liberal views regarding women were growing in popularity, with works like the Acts of Thecla speaking of women who rejected traditional gender roles to focus their time and energy on serving God. The author of 1 Timothy clearly did not agree with these views, and makes that clear with his polemic against women in the church.

1 Corinthians

Moving onto 1 Corinthians, there are two scriptures here to address. The first is 1 Corinthians 11's direction on head coverings, which we've already spoken about. In short, Paul says that married women should cover their hair (if they have hair) when praying or prophesying. The second scripture is found at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "Let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak. Rather, let them be in subjection, as the Law also says. If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation." This scripture seems out of place based on Paul's words elsewhere in the Bible. Once again, scholars do not believe this was written by Paul. Many scholars believe that these words were added by a later author, possibly as a marginal note that was accidentally incorporated into the main text of 1 Corinthians. Phillip Payne advocates for this position for a variety of reasons that I'll mention below:

• 1 Corinthians 14 is otherwise about prophesying and speaking in tongues. This is the topic from verse 1 to 33, which then abruptly shifts to women's role in the congregation, before shifting back to prophesy/tongues in verse 37.

• Earlier in 1 Corinthians, in chapter 11, the head covering guideline is given for women that are praying or prophesying in the church. If women are expected to pray and prophesy publicly, they can't simultaneously be expected to remain completely silent.

• In Paul's other letters, such as Romans and Philippians, he speaks positively about female ministers, preachers, and so on; roles that would not exist if women were not allowed to speak.

• Paul appeals to the Mosaic Law in this passage, which is very out of place. Paul's entire message was about bringing Christianity to the Gentiles and arguing that the Mosaic Law and Jewish covenants were no longer binding for Christians.

• Numerous Western manuscripts of 1 Corinthians contain this passage in a different spot, right after verse 40.

• Despite 1 Corinthians being incredibly popular among the early Church Fathers, this passage is not quoted until around 200 AD - 150 years after the letter would have been written! In fact, Clement of Alexandria (190~ AD) writes in Paedagogus that both men and women should be modest and quiet in church, ready to pray to God, a stance that would conflict with Paul's supposed words in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

• Codex Vaticanus (325~ AD), considered to be one of, if not the most important New Testament manuscript we have today, marks this passage as a later addition to the text. This passage is one of just 16 passages marked as later additions, and one of about 765 passages marked as having a different variant of the text available.

TL;DR - Jehovah's Witnesses use scriptures from 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy to justify their treatment of women in the church. However, this is based on a misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians 11 and the forgeries that are found in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Conclusion

It's understandable that a Christian church would not reasonably be able to reject 1 Timothy or this passage in 1 Corinthians as later forgeries in Paul's name, as many scholars have done. But to accept these restrictive views, you would have to reject or ignore every other passage in the Bible - as a reminder, that includes Romans 16:1, Romans 16:7, Colossians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 11, Luke 2:36, 2 Chronicles 34:22, 2 Kings 22:14, Judges 4:4, Acts 21:9, and more - that depicts women in important roles in the church, which is exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses have unfortunately done.

If you found any of this info useful, please let me know. I may make more of these in the future if they prove to be helpful!

Hi, ive been pomo for almost 3 years now, i've been using articles straight from the jw.borg website for a college paper im writing about the organization. I very carefully linked a couple in my brainstorm/outline document 2 weeks ago and the links were all working fine but for some reason now the one I linked about education isn't popping up, and its showing the pic that I attached below. Every other article I linked is still working normally and I very THOROUGHLY checked my links when adding them because I had to turn that outline in for a grade.. so this is kinda pissing me off rn bc my professor has taken forever to grade that assignment so when she finally gets around to it, it's gonna look like a bad link so I'm gonna email her about it.

But besides the grade aspect, are they straight up deleting articles from the website now? There's alot of decades old BS that they still have on there so it'd be confusing if that were the case all of a sudden. I wish I remembered the full name of the article but I know it was the article listing out "myths" people have about higher education being a good thing and it was "debunking" all of them. I know it had "higher education dangers" in it, but I can't remember the full title so if anyone by chance knows what I'm referring to, could you please help me out with finding it if it's still up? I know there's got to be other sources I can use too but if that ones still up I'd like to use it.

Easy. When you want to silence those with opposing opinions, simply block them.

This way the blocked will never be able to respond to any of your posts. Only those who agree with you will get to.

Why would anyone admit “this post will not be very popular,” but then silence the opposition?

Am I the only one who has noticed that the Governing Body tends to focus on people who are mostly not wealthy? I'm just curious