Jehovah’s Witnesses are Taught to Lie but to then Lie about Lying
First off, let’s define what it means to tell a lie.
I prefer the definition offered by Aristotle way back in 4th century B.C.E.
“To say the opposite of what you hold to be the truth is to tell a lie.”
________________________
Parsing the definition of “LYING.”
In a court of Law, a witness is required to swear not just to “Tell the truth.”
Something more absolute and comprehensive is required.
“I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
Why should this be necessary?
We all know the answer to that. It is possible to answer a question in a deceitful way and “technically” give no further information, and thus hide the truth.
But, a person on the witness stand swears not to engage in this cat and mouse game of not completely revealing what is asked.
This topic applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses because the Watchtower leaders came up with a controversial lesson to teach centering around something they called THEOCRATIC WAR STRATEGY. (Search in vain in your Bible for that one!)
I ran across a JW apologist Blog wherein excuses were offered to get the bad taste of “Liars” off their tongues.
_______________________
Let me quote in part from the Blog:
In the May 1st, 1957 Watchtower, in the article, "Use Theocratic War Strategy", it gave the example of a sister who was in her ministry in Eastern Germany. When she saw a violent opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses, she immediately went around the corner and changed from a red blouse to a green one. When an officer stopped her and asked if she saw a woman with a red blouse on, she said, "No." Was she lying? No. She had seen no woman walking around with a red blouse on. She, in fact, was the woman, but chose not to reveal that matter. Then the article tells of several examples where such strategy was appropriately applied.
“Did the woman lie about doctrine? No. Did she lie at all? No.”
_________________________________
Let’s probe this opinion to a greater depth, shall we?
Move slowly through the following reasoning because it has subtle snares.
A faithful witness does not love a false oath. So he tells the truth as he swore to do.What he does speak will be the truth. If he speaks at all he will tell the truth. To the extent that he chooses to talk he will state the truth. If for conscientious reasons he refuses to tell everything he will be willing to suffer the consequences if he be judged deserving of a penalty. He refuses to tell everything, not to escape punishment, but facing punishment for conscientious reasons. Even Jesus kept silent before Pilate, refusing to answer though knowing Pilate’s power.—John 19:8-11."
Did you catch that? ”If for conscientious reasons he refuses to tell everything. . .”
Isn’t this a shady way of simply saying, “If you lie for the right reasons. . .”?
Let’s go back and finish the thought started. . .
“ If for conscientious reasons he refuses to tell everything he will be willing to suffer the consequences if he be judged deserving of a penalty. “
In plain language: If you lie for the right reasons and get caught be ready to pay the price.
__________________________________
Let’s pause for a moment to reflect. . .
Imagine an Elder on the Witness Stand in a court of law. Imagine a trial concerned with child molestation by a JW accused of this crime. Imagine a looming multi-million dollar penalty hanging over the head of the Watchtower corporation and the bad publicity at stake.
With those in place, read the following . . .
The 1960 Watchtower, p.352, emphasized, "Should circumstances require a Christian to take the witness stand and swear to tell the truth, then, if he speaks at all, he must utter the truth. When faced with the alternative of speaking and betraying his brothers or not speaking and being held in contempt of court, the mature Christian will put the welfare of his brothers ahead of his own, remembering Jesus’ words: “No one has greater love than this, that someone should surrender his [life] in behalf of his friends.”"
Can you see what advice is being given?
LIE on the Witness Stand even if it means the death penalty!
Sneaky and above all unethical and illegal. In short: suborning perjury.
In American law the subornation of perjury is the crime of persuading a person to commit perjury — the swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, be it spoken or written.
________
What does the apologist JW conclude?
“What this is saying is that if the judge orders him to betray his brothers, he must hold his tongue. It does not say to lie.”
Oh my! Your ethics are showing! (Actually, your lack of. . .)
_________
Let’s move forward. Another subtle scenario is presented.
In the May 1st, 1957 Watchtower, in the article, "Use Theocratic War Strategy", it gave the example of a sister who was in her ministry in Eastern Germany. When she saw a violent opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses, she immediately went around the corner and changed from a red blouse to a green one. When an officer stopped her and asked if she saw a woman with a red blouse on, she said, "No." Was she lying? No. She had seen no woman walking around with a red blouse on. She, in fact, was the woman, but chose not to reveal that matter. Then the article tells of several examples where such strategy was appropriately applied.
The Blogger presents a rhetorical question;
Did the woman lie about doctrine? No. Did she lie at all? No.
The Blogger is correct!
The woman knew what complete information would reveal and she concealed it for self-protection.
You see, we have switched context from LYING to protect others at a cost to yourself to that of concealing the whole truth about yourself to protect yourself.
So what?
In this case, the technicality of the “lie” is self-preservation solely.
______________
Now our JW apologist moves to the most recent instance of Theocratic Strategy. Give careful and specific attention to contexts and exemptions.
Does "Theocratic War Strategy" Teach Lying?
By C. J. Williams
The term "theocratic war strategy" has not been officially used in our publications since 1968. (Though a 1988 life experience article referred to its use during World War II.) Some of our opposers seem to be very fixated on this term even today, while referring to this doctrine that we still hold to. However, rather than sticking to what Jehovah's Witness publications state about the subject, many use erroneous statements from misguided individuals as proof of the meaning of the publications, as well as performing their own omissions of the facts. So let us examine the facts in their contexts.
Sources of "Theocratic War Strategy" Doctrine
When the term was used, here was the direction in the Watchtower:
February 1st, 1956 Watchtower says, "Never swear falsely in Jehovah’s name.Jehovah declares that at his temple he will be a “swift witness against . . . the false swearers.” (Mal. 3:5, AS) Never take an oath in his name and then tell lies as a sworn witness. Rahab of Jericho was under no oath in Jehovah’s name to tell the facts to the king’s officers and hence was not a false swearer or a false witness. “A faithful witness will not lie; but a false witness uttereth lies.” (Prov. 14:5, AS) A faithful witness does not love a false oath. So he tells the truth as he swore to do.What he does speak will be the truth. If he speaks at all he will tell the truth. To the extent that he chooses to talk he will state the truth. If for conscientious reasons he refuses to tell everything he will be willing to suffer the consequences if he be judged deserving of a penalty. He refuses to tell everything, not to escape punishment, but facing punishment for conscientious reasons. Even Jesus kept silent before Pilate, refusing to answer though knowing Pilate’s power.—John 19:8-11."
The 1960 Watchtower, p.352, emphasized, "Should circumstances require a Christian to take the witness stand and swear to tell the truth, then, if he speaks at all, he must utter the truth. When faced with the alternative of speaking and betraying his brothers or not speaking and being held in contempt of court, the mature Christian will put the welfare of his brothers ahead of his own, remembering Jesus’ words: “No one has greater love than this, that someone should surrender his [life] in behalf of his friends.”"
What this is saying is that if the judge orders him to betray his brothers, he must hold his tongue. It does not say to lie.
In the May 1st, 1957 Watchtower, in the article, "Use Theocratic War Strategy", it gave the example of a sister who was in her ministry in Eastern Germany. When she saw a violent opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses, she immediately went around the corner and changed from a red blouse to a green one. When an officer stopped her and asked if she saw a woman with a red blouse on, she said, "No." Was she lying? No. She had seen no woman walking around with a red blouse on. She, in fact, was the woman, but chose not to reveal that matter. Then the article tells of several examples where such strategy was appropriately applied.
Did the woman lie about doctrine? No. Did she lie at all? No.
Modern Discussions of Omission
The latest discussion of this "strategy" is found in the November 15th Watchtower, 2004. It states:
"The faithful witness does not commit perjury when testifying. His testimony is not tainted with lies. However, this does not mean that he is under obligation to give full information to those who may want to bring harm to Jehovah’s people in some way. The patriarchs Abraham and Isaac withheld facts from some who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 12:10-19; 20:1-18; 26:1-10) Rahab of Jericho misdirected the king’s men. (Joshua 2:1-7)
_______________
The above statement is very carefully worded as a manipulation for coercive reasons.
There are 3 parts to this manipulation.
Part 1:
this does not mean that he is under obligation to give full information
Part 1 is clearly false. The Witness has sworn to tell “the whole truth.”
Part 2:
to those who may want to bring harm to Jehovah’s people
Part 2: implies once again a kind of noble perjury for the benefit of religious allies. Perjury is illegal. For the Watchtower writers, it is suborning that perjury.
Part 3: in some way.
Part 3: This is wickedly vague! It leaves the door wide open to include child molesters!
______________
What conclusion does the Blogger himself make?
Yes, the doctrine holds today. But it is very succinctly spelled out here that we are never to lie under oath
______________
This Blogger is either a dimwit, incapable of reasoning, or deliberately misrepresenting reality.
He finishes his presentation vapidly:
Jehovah's Witnesses are, in fact, the most honest people you will ever come across. We are neither in the practice of lying, nor do we lie to suit our own purposes.
_______________
Let us ask ourselves where the Watchtower leaders got this idea? The history of the Organization is rife with cherry-picking ideas from other religious groups, is it not?
Take a look at taqiyya, a strategy in Islam for our answer! (Sounds like Tequila)
Define taqiyya: In ISLAM, a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny their faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4wBeshTsw
