Lying about Shunning! conceals the "truth"

by Skinnedsheep 45 Replies latest jw friends

  • Vidiot

    Once again, for the lurkers, newbies, and trolls...


    ...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.

  • steve2

    As EdenOne said, "It's a piece of public relations...."

    Right or wrong, correct or incorrect, public relations (PR) is the buzz term to describe an organization - any organization - concerned with impression management.

    • Got a difficult spot in your history? Dress it up with PR.
    • Got a teaching or policy that has caused controversy? Dress it up with PR.
    • Someone in your organization behaved badly? Dress it up with PR.

    When truth alone would be incriminating, use PR and then more PR and more and more and more.

    It's the world of, not exactly a lie and not exactly a truth. Welcome! It's a middle ground of creating and managing impressions by your deft choice of words.

    Does it work? For newbies perhaps.

    But for those who read more than the blurbs, who rub shoulders with rank and file Witnesses, who listen to what is actually spouted from the platform? They cannot claim they were lied to about the applications of shunning.

    Let him or her who has a brain use it.

  • bennyk

    "[We] might be tempted to mention only selected details, editing them to color the facts. Hence, what we say might technically be true yet give a totally different impression. While this may not be flagrant lying, such as is common in the world today, is it really 'speaking truth each one with his neighbor,' or brother? (Ephesians 4:15,25; 1 Timothy 2:1,2) When a Christian phrases things in such a way that he inwardly knows is leading brothers to a wrong conclusion, to believe something that is really not true, not accurate, how do you think God feels?" (Live With Jehovah's Day In Mind, p.115)


  • steve2

    Pertinent quote bennyk - although I note that the reference is to communicating with "brothers". I love their snootily judgemental comment about "flagrant lying, such as is common in the world today...." Talk about rafter in their own eye!

  • SAHS
    SAHS” Web site heading: “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Former Members of Their Religion?”

    This is definitely intentionally misleading. Why? Because anyone from the outside looking at that Web page would see the words “Former Members” and naturally relate it to those no longer JWs for any reason, including those disfellowshipped, disassociated, or those simply weak and chronically absent. Indeed, all those members who formally become former members (platform announcement) are basically to be abhorred, loathed, demonized, and completely, . . . . what’s that word? . . . . oh yah, SHUNNED. (And no doubt physically stoned to death if it was legally allowed.)

    “Skinnedsheep”: “. . . drifting away from association with fellow believers, . . .”

    I remember the two pertinent terms which the Watchtower has used are “drift away” and “draw away,” stating that someone can “drift” away before he realizes it but that someone who “draws” away is more or less intentionally pushing himself away from God and the Christian congregation and is thus culpable for doing so. (That is, according to the WTS.) The illustration they use is that of someone gradually and imperceptibly drifting away, as in a subtle water current, versus someone who consciously and deliberately “turns away.” The case of “drifting away” implies simply fading, whereas “drawing away” supposedly involves deliberately turning away – however, the reader of the outside general public may very likely not make such a distinction and just assume that both scenarios are of those who “are not shunned,” as stated in the first paragraph under the above heading on “”

    “EndofMysteries”: “A man cheats on his wife, has sex with another women. She asks him, "Did you cheat on me?" He says no. He did NOT lie. He didn't behave dishonestly with her to gain some advantage, he merely had sex with another women. If she asks him, "Did you sleep with another women", he says no, he did NOT lie, he didn't sleep at all, he had sex.” . . . “To me lying is knowing what somebody is asking and giving an answer that you know they are understanding to be completely different from how you are presenting it.”

    Good illustration. Half-truths can be used to intentionally mislead, knowing full well the context and scope of the issue. A truthful answer should be what is naturally and generally implied by the question. In the above example quoted where a man says that he did not “cheat” on his wife or “sleep” with another woman when he actually did have extra-marital sex, consider this: If you provided such an answer to, say, a police officer, federal official, or a judge under oath, what do you think the outcome would be? It kind of reminds me of how Charles Taze Russell and Fred Franz tried to use this type of misleading answering under oath to dodge the issues, especially when asked about their prowess in Hebrew and Greek scholarship, and whether the Watchtower Society was “a religious organization” (i.e., in the trial of Douglas Walsh of Dumbarton, Scotland).

  • JW GoneBad
    JW GoneBad

    Vidiot says: '...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.'

    One word to .........OUCH!!!

Share this