They do it all the time. They are encouraged to do it by the WTS. Think about the strategies that are used in Field Service™ to Overcome Objections™.
Is it true that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they are the only ones who will survive Armageddon™? Among JWs, the answer is "Yes". But what are they supposed to say when they are going Door-To-Door™? They are supposed to say "That isn't for us to decide, only God can read peoples' hearts and determine whether they will survive" or something to that effect.
When faced with pointed questions from someone who is Studying™ with JWs, they avoid answering the questions. For example, if the Student™ were to say something like "I heard that I will have to limit contact with my friends and family if I become a Jehovah's Witness, what is that about?" The JW will respond by saying that they can associate with anyone they choose. This is very subtle, because it gives the impression that the JWs have freedom to mingle with anyone without reprisal, while in reality when someone is No Longer One Of Jehovah's Witnesses™ (having been Disfellowshipped™ or Disassociated™) they cannot have free association without risking the consequence of being Disfellowshipped™, even when a family member is involved. As well, when someone is considered to be Weak In The Truth™ or Bad Association™ JWs are strongly encouraged to limit association with them, and often choose to do just that. So, using the phrase anyone we choose is in fact very misleading, because it gives false reassurance to the individual asking the question.
Another instance where dual word meanings came into play was in the mid-90s, when Bulgaria was denying JWs application to become a bona fide religious organization in that country (with all the Government benefit$ therein entailed), due to JWs blood transfusion policy. The government stated, in essence, that in the case of minor children, parents could not be pressured by the organization to withhold medical treatments that could save a child's life. In an amazing statement before the European Commission on Human Rights, the WTS claimed that the Society would not sanction any member who allowed a blood transfusion for themselves or their children.
"The applicant undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association." (Emphasis added)
"Sanction" is an interesting word. Of its various meanings, two are diametrically opposed to each other. One meaning entails a punitive measure against an individual, organization, or even a nation as a matter of disagreement on principles (think: trade sanctions). The other meaning refers to an authoritative body allowing an activity (such as: the Province of Ontario sanctions - i.e., allows - gay marriage).
In this instance, the European Commission on Human Rights determined that the wording meant that there would be no punitive measures taken against members of Jehovah's Witnesses who accepted blood transfusions for themselves or on behalf of their minor children, and therefore granted the WTS's petition to receive legal status as a religion in Bulgaria. In truth, the WTS put in place a policy that basically automatically terminated a JW's membership should they voluntarily accept a blood transfusion for themselves or for their children. You see, they decided that a person could Disassociate™ themselves by virtue of their actions, no longer would a letter be required for a JW to Disassociate™ him or herself. The action itself was taken as an automatic voluntary termination of membership initiated by the member him or herself, and therefore met with the criteria that the WTS was not taking "punitive measures" (sanctions) against an individual for exercising their free choice in the matter of blood transfusions.
This is also why the trend is not to Disfellowship™ people publicly, but to announce that So-and-So Is No Longer One Of Jehovah's Witnesses™. There is a lack of clarity as to whether the individual has been removed by the so-called authority of a Judicial Committee™ or whether the individual Disassociated™ voluntarily (either by their actions or in writing).
The WTS thrives on this kind of double-talk and ambiguity. But it's not "lying" if the person "misunderstands" the meaning that is really intended.
Why do you think the Legal Department at WT-HQ is so very much alive-and-well?
