If we just suddenly start talking to DFed people again and use the Canada court video as our argument, what would happen?

by Isambard Crater 23 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Saename

  If we just suddenly start talking to DFed people again and use the Canada court video as our argument, what would happen?

  You could be counseled, reproved, or even disfellowshipped for either brazen conduct (continued unnecessary association with a disfellowshipped individual) or a critical attitude towards the judicial decision of the elders (being critical of the disfellowshipping decision), both of which are reasons for judicial action as listed by Shepherd the Flock of God.

  What David Gnam said is not true. We all know that. I'm wondering, though, how (and if) David would defend his words...
• 

  incognito2014

  I hate to say it but the lawyer is correct in certain circumstances.

  If the person lives at home with the family then normal family relationships continue. For example if a father is disfellowshipped his family do still talk to him while he lives in the house. It's only the spiritual stuff that stops

  Of course the odds are his wife will leave him with the kids and then they won't be allowed to speak to him at all but they can claim to be telling the truth in some circumstances.
• 

  incognito2014

  In some instances, the disfellowshipped family member may still be living in the same home as part of the immediate household. Since his being disfellowshipped does not sever the family ties, normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue. Yet, by his course, the individual has chosen to break the spiritual bond between him and his believing family. So loyal family members can no longer have spiritual fellowship with him. For example, if the disfellowshipped one is present, he would not participate when the family gets together for family worship. However, if the disfellowshipped one is a minor child, the parents are still responsible to instruct and discipline him. Hence, loving parents may arrange to conduct a Bible study with the child.*—Proverbs 6:20-22;29:17.

  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102008083

  
  
  
• 

  Saename

  incognito2014 - If the person lives at home with the family then normal family relationships continue.

  Yes, that's true, but the exact point is that David (the lawyer who lied) never specified that and therefore misled the Supreme Court.
• 

  George One Time

  So two lies actually: (1) JW's do refer to it as shunning and (2) normal family relationships do not continue.
  
• 

  BluesBrother

  He was referring to the situation if an adult is permitted to remain in the family home ( not always recommended ) . But he declined to explain that . At best he was "economic with the truth" , which is in fact a lie by omission.
• 

  MrRoboto

  If I tell you something but I am actually thinking every other word to myself, am I lying or just omitting some truth?

  Consider the following sentence

  #1 Jehovah's Witnesses always lie about everything. You can't believe everything they say, ever.

  Compare with what I REALLY was saying (bolded words are my own thought words, omitted from verbalization)

  #2 Jehovah's Witnesses don't always lie about everything. You can't always believe everything they say.

  Now, would I be a lying sack of spit if I were to contend that I didn't mean to mislead you, by telling you the first sentence, and saying that what I really meant was sentence #2?

  That guy is a lying sack of spit if he's really a JW and should be D/F'd for lying about "Gods Organization™"

  Omission of truth is no defense for lying.
• 

  Incognito

  the exact point is that David (the lawyer who lied) never specified that and therefore misled the Supreme Court.
  

  Not necessarily a lie, but more didn't tell the Whole (complete) Truth.

  Consider, when a witness is sworn in to the witness stand, the person is to vow to: 'Tell the truth, the whole truth ...' The court makes a distinction between truth and whole truth.

  Example:

  Q: When you entered the room, did you turn on the four lamps?

  A: No! (when the person did perform that action)

  While that answer would be technically true if one of the lamps was already burned-out so only three came on, it would not be the whole truth.
• 

  Finkelstein

  If this guy is a JWS then he is instructed to tell half truths when protecting the namesake and sanctity of the WTS Org.
  

  Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding
  
• 

  MrRoboto

  Incognito, its quite likely that the reason for the distinction is so that people don't try to play word games such as what you have put forward - Oh I didnt lie, I simply did not tell the WHOLE truth. Please see my example above.

  This guy lied. By not qualifying his statement, it became a false statement. The fact that he knew it was false and was using it against his opponent (misleading the court) makes it a lie.

  I know lawyers are not legally bound to be truthful but this guy lied and if he's a JW, he lied to the world about the bORG and should be D/F for that, especially now that it is somewhat infamous. But the 7 Kings already ruling from Kings Drive won't ever let that happen to their golden gooses.