JW are instructed to perjure themselves in Nov 15 WT
In the Watchtower November 15, 2004 article "The Tent of the Upright Ones Will Flourish" pg 28, the old policy of "theocratic warfare" is freshly confirmed.
Remember that in US courts (a principle that mosts for most of the world's courts), a witness swears to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." It is recognized that withholding information would be the equivalent of lying or perjury.
What are JWs instructed to do? My comments are in red.
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. (was Abraham or Isaac under oath when they "withheld facts"?) (Genesis 12:10-19; 20:1-18; 26:1-10) Rahab (a non-Isrealite prostitute) of Jericho misdirected the king's men. (Joshua 2:1-7) Jesus Christ himself refrained from divulging total information when doing so would have caused needless harm. (again, not under oath) (John 7:1-10) He said: "Do not give what is holy to dogs." Why not? So that "they may never...turn around and rip you open." (context please?) - Matthew 7:6
So there you have it: JWs official policy is to hide the truth if it would result in "harm" to their group.
Is it reasonable this would apply to:
- Child abuse allegations, especially if the organization were to be found at fault in a court-of-law?
- Tax evasion, or to hide the real assets and income of WTS?
- Any JW corruption or illegal practice identified in a law suit?
Any judge should have this article in front of him/her when hearing testimony from a JW. Will the "whole truth" be told? I think not.
So this is basically re-stating the long-standing policy on Theocratic War Strategy?.
Ain't that special?
As you point out, this instructive quote needs to be widely broadcast to legal authorities
in regard to the lack of honesty demanded by the Watchtower Society. It's good evidence.
Last litigation I had with a Jw... some of the lit from past WT's got into my lawyers hands.... and I am sure it made it into chambers during a conference.... what can I say. SLAM DUNK!
dont be afraid to let lawyers and judges and the media see things like this, especially when your back is against the wall with a JW adversary in a legal setting.
Ahhh... the "Rahabian Lie!"
I'd forgotten all about that one. If you got caught in a lie, but you could come up with a good reason for it, you could usually get out of trouble pretty easily.
I always understood the WTS position to be that JWs cannot lie on the stand after having taken an oath to tell the truth but that doesn't mean they have to answer. They can remain mute and take the punishment from the court.....not the WTS.
***w03 1/15 p. 21 Questions From Readers ***
When courtroom procedure involves either raising a hand or placing it on the Bible when swearing, a Christian may choose to comply. He may have in mind the Scriptural examples of accompanying an oath with a gesture. For a Christian, more important than making a certain gesture when taking an oath is that he remembers that he is swearing before God to tell the truth. Such an oath is a serious matter. If a Christian feels that he can and should answer a question put to him in such circumstances, then he should bear in mind that he is under oath to tell the truth, which, of course, is what a Christian wants to speak at all times.
***w76 7/15 p. 448 Questions from Readers *** (deja vu?)
When the courtroom procedure is that of raising a hand or of placing a hand on the Bible when swearing, a Christian may choose to comply, having in mind the Bible examples of accompanying an oath with a gesture. But more important than whether a person makes a certain gesture with his oath is the fact that he is swearing before God to tell the truth. Such an oath is serious. So if a Christian feels that he can and should answer a question put to him in such circumstances, then he is under oath to tell the truth.
The WTS does not bring out the point about not answering in the 2003 WT but here:
***w54 10/1 pp. 597-598 Christians Live the Truth ***
Even in court under oath circumstances arose in totalitarian countries, such as under Hitler?s rule, where the brothers were faced with two evil alternative courses. One course was to tell everything one knew and incriminate and expose brothers to persecution and punishment and also bring sentence upon oneself. The other course was to refuse to answer questions while on the witness stand and be held for contempt of court. In similar circumstances today it is up to the individual to choose whether he wants to answer or not. Refusal means punishment. He can choose to stay silent and go to prison or speak and multiply his punishment or place his brothers in danger. He has no choice on lying but he does on refusing to answer, remembering that he must pay the penalty that Caesar imposes, which may be years of imprisonment. A Christian will not lie under oath, and therefore those in Nazi Germany had to suffer the consequences of living where there was no justice, where it was a crime to be a Christian.
It appears to have been changed. Now, they can lie in court under oath as well.
Thanks for posting this, if anyone I know has to be in court with a JW you can be sure this will get into the hands of the lawyers.
There is also a WT publication which instructs families on how to answer questions in family court. It specifically directs the minor children to mislead the Judge - which is lying.
I have also been personally told by an elder that lying in court is acceptable because it is equivalent to lying to Satan (since the court is an instrument of Government). His justification was that "Satan (the court) does not deserve to know the truth". This particular elder was one of the more active ones in testifying in court on behalf of others.
Ezekiel... can you by any chance post the whole article? Based on the quote you provided, it certainly does sound like a change in position... from condoning lying, to condoning perjury.