“JW.org” 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 “JW.org.”
“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).
