Interesting question.
The JWs I met and discussed with never gave a full picture. My "study" adventure took more than five years studying with Witnesses from different backgrounds. I never did agree practices regarding the blood doctrine and made that clear; I was required to write a letter of dissociation from the Church, I refused, and clearly; I never did write a formal letter, and did keep the Chirch people as friends. I had two other major issues regarding JW doctrine. No one mentioned the implication of these. No one hinted anything about the Draconian measures that would result from active disagreement.
Disfellowshipping was for serious wicked acts. And I did meet a disfellowshipped lady from a congregation then; I knew her, knew what she'd 'done'; it was sth human; we had a discussion; she poured out her heart. I felt it was human; in my subsequent discussions with my pioneer, JW elder friend with whom I 'studied', his reaction was calm and collected, a picture what a human reaction to such an encounter would be. There were words about watching out so as not to be influenced; I assured that couldn't happen. I'd gotten romantically involved with a non-JW lady; surely mentioned it to my pioneer, JW elder 'friend'; there were long discussions about these things; there were no violent reactions; the good lady later got an invitation to the KH with the support of pioneer Elder 'friend'.
I definitely hadn't been paying attention.
The 'betrayal' came shortly after baptism when some conflict about blood reignited a discussion of the practice on JW practice on blood, and then a little something about talking to a disfellowshipped 'brother'. I'd not been paying attention to the human angle of the JW experience. I'd called the brothers; the reactions were - to put it mildly - disappointing. No more of those 'stimulating' doctrinal discussions; the message was 'you're baptised now, you're responsible for you'; no, the words weren't said exactly, but it was clear what was meant.
I''ll strongly disagree that many would know what they were getting into. And I've one ready example to support this: distant cousin had been studying with JWs and was encouraged by a relative who knew of my JW encounter to call and discuss with me. We did, and he confronted his 'study conductors' with the simple questions: "What will happen if I decide not to be a JW after getting baptised?"; "Can I openly disagree with teachings I don't agree with; I do this at my Church; will there be any problems?"; "What is a Judicial Committee; what happens there; are there documented guidelines for things that may transpire in the context of a Judicial Committee?". "Are some written materials off limits for me as JW?"He had the discussion. Then I sent e-copies of relevant materials, including a copy of the Elders' Manual. A few weeks later, his baptism was called off; it was six weeks away.
It didn't feel like a revenge; it was a feeling of rage. His conductors were intelligent people. How do some JWs, who do appear to know, justify hiding information they're aware would have led one to a different conclusion?
