The FAQ section on JW.org has added a new featured post: “Can a Person Resign From Being One of Jehovah’s Witnesses?” In this NEW article dated June 9th 2016, the Watchtower gives their official explanation of how to handle matters when a person no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It is, in my opinion, one of the most calculated, misleading and dishonest articles recently released on their website. The level of deliberate deceit on display is both appalling and astonishing.

Follow along with me as I examine this FAQ article section-by-section, explaining in detail how it is both deceptive and misleading!

Lies of Omission

The FAQ presents itself as answering two questions. The first is:

Can a Person Resign From Being One of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

It clearly targets members of both the public and the media, not rank-and-file Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW’s), and describes what happens when members leave the religion. The actual members of the organization already know what happens when they resign from the faith. For instance, this summer, JW’s are subjected to an extended campaign of shunning training and loyalty indoctrination.

It is vital to keep the following fact in mind. This FAQ is intended for someone who does not know the details about Watchtower’s policies. Therefore, the printed words are just as important as the words omitted or danced around.

The FAQ responds to the question as follows. The first part says:

Yes. A person can resign from our organization in two ways: By formal request. Either orally or in writing, a person can state his decision that he no longer wants to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

By action. A person can take an action that places him outside our worldwide brotherhood. (1 Peter 5:9) For example, he might join another religion and make known his intention to remain part of it.—1 John 2:19.

And…what happens next?

What happens when someone does this?

Hello?

FAQ?

What happens?

Silence.

This part of the FAQ says nothing whatsoever about the implications for a person undertaking the above steps. It makes no mention at all of what the penalty would be.

Why is that important?

It’s a deliberate lie of omission.

Wikipedia defines a lie of omission as:

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

What important fact has been left out? What misconception might this article deliberately be hoping to instill in a reader?

Well, if you were reading this FAQ with no deeper knowledge of Jehovah’s Witnesses (which is the prime and deliberate audience for a write-up such as this) you might well walk away with the impression that such a person can carry on their life without any real interruption.

You would have no idea that the Witness family and friends of this person were now required to completely shun such an individual. Watchtower even recently went so far as to instruct parents to throw mature children out of the family home should one become disfellowshipped, and to not even answer the phone when they call. Disfellowshipping is an involuntary removal due to perceived “sin”, but Watchtower commands Witnesses to treat disassociated, or resigned ones, ones in an identical manner to disfellowshipped ones. See Watchtower Study edition Feb 2011 article Do You Hate Lawlessness. Below are two relevant paragraphs:

15 Do we share Jesus’ view of those who have become set in their lawless course? We need to give thought to these questions: ‘Would I choose to associate regularly with someone who has been disfellowshipped or who has disassociated himself from the Christian congregation? What if that one is a close relative who no longer lives at home?’ Such a situation can be a real test of our love of righteousness and of our loyalty to God. 18 If you face a similar situation, please remember that Jehovah sympathizes with you. By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or disassociated one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome. However, you are also showing that you love the wrongdoer enough to do what is best for him or her. Your loyalty to Jehovah may increase the likelihood that the disciplined one will repent and return to Jehovah.

Clearly, there is a lie of omission, designed to craft a misleading impression in the minds of the general public, as well as any interested media organizations.

But it gets worse!

The next part of the FAQ contains, not only an attempt to casually hide an embarrassing truth with sleight of hand, but an outright lie.

Misleading or Dissembling Lies

Wikipedia defines a misleading or dissembling lie as:

A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth.

The next question in the FAQ is:

What if a person no longer preaches or attends your meetings? Do you view that person as having resigned?

Now, in last years Australian Royal Commission hearings, where the Child Abuse policies of Jehovah’s Witnesses came under devastating scrutiny, this issue arose during the questioning of Governing Body Member Geoffrey Jackson by Senior Council for the Commission Angus Stewart.

It was put to Jackson that if a survivor of child abuse felt so let down by the Organization’s discredited policies (see the full damning report here) that they wished to leave the religion, they had no way of doing so without being shunned by their family. Remember, the two official options for leaving discussed in the FAQ both result in shunning.

What followed was a painful display of Jackson blatantly trying to misdirect the Royal Commission. He implied that someone who wanted to leave could simply stop attending meetings and it would be fine. He gave the impression that they would be viewed as having left or faded, and there would be no shunning.

Angus Stewart, who had clearly done his research into Watchtower’s policies, stood his ground on this point, and using various scenarios he demonstrated that Watchtower viewed a person who simply stopped attending meetings, but did not “disassociate” using the two above methods, as still a Witness, and thus subject to Watchtower’s rules and discipline. If such a person was caught violating any of their vast and controlling web of laws, they would be disfellowshipped or considered disassociated, and then shunned.

Watch the full video footage below and decide for yourself the impression that Jackson is trying to give on this issue prior to being cross-examined by Stewart.

Now, does the FAQ back up what Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson initially claimed under oath, before he started wriggling under cross-examination? Or does it back up Senior Council for the Royal Commission Angus Stewart?

What if a person no longer preaches or attends your meetings? Do you view that person as having resigned?

In answer to this, this FAQ states (bold is mine)

No, we do not. Resigning, or disassociating oneself, is different from becoming weak in faith.

This FAQ backs Stewart, not the Governing Body member who was giving testimony under oath. Was Jackson mistaken, misdirecting, incompetent or lying?

I will leave that to you.

The FAQ answer continues:

Often, those who for a time slow down or stop in their worship have not abandoned their faith but are suffering from discouragement. Rather than shunning such ones, we try to give them consolation and support. (1 Thessalonians 5:14; Jude 22) If the person wants help, congregation elders take the lead in providing spiritual assistance.—Galatians 6:1; 1 Peter 5:1-3.

Hmm.

Did you spot it?

Reading through quickly, you might have missed it. (bold is mine)

Often, those who for a time slow down or stop in their worship have not abandoned their faith but are suffering from discouragement. Rather than shunning such ones, we try to give them consolation and support. (1 Thessalonians 5:14; Jude 22) If the person wants help, congregation elders take the lead in providing spiritual assistance.—Galatians 6:1; 1 Peter 5:1-3.

See how carefully they slipped that in? You might have missed it if you were just scanning through. Additionally, the context is unclear about how shunning is to be interpreted in this text. If someone told me that Witnesses shun members that leave their faith, and then I came to this FAQ, I could easily interpret that sentence as meaning “we don’t shun such ones.”

Remember, there is no mention in the first part of the FAQ that disassociation involves shunning. A person without any knowledge of Witness doctrine, could come away thinking that there was no shunning for the disassociated ones, and possibly no shunning at all.

Now, there IS a hypertext link on the word “shunning.” This takes you to another FAQ here.

More Lies of Omission and Misdirection

You have to notice the hyperlink and click on it to get this extra detail; the reader has to take additional time and effort to get this information. Even a quick scan of the article may not reveal it. But let’s click on it and examine the second FAQ on shunning.

I am going to reproduce the entire second FAQ on shunning below:

Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest. We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. The Bible clearly states: “ Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. ”—1 Corinthians 5:13. What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue. Disfellowshipped individuals may attend our religious services. If they wish, they may also receive spiritual counsel from congregation elders. The goal is to help each individual once more to qualify to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Disfellowshipped people who reject improper conduct and demonstrate a sincere desire to live by the Bible’s standards are always welcome to become members of the congregation again. However, the elders are not authorized to coerce or pressure someone to remain as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Each person makes his own choice regarding religion. (Joshua 24:15) We believe that those who worship God must do so willingly, from the heart.—Psalm 110:3; Matthew 22:37.

What’s the first thing you notice? The article on shunning admits that it happens, but only in the context of disfellowshipping. There is no mention that a disassociated one will be shunned.

Thus, a person, with no prior knowledge of the Witnesses that reads the first FAQ, and follows the reference to the second, will still have no information telling them that a disassociated one will be shunned.

Again, this is a deliberate lie of omission. Watchtower is trying to craft the impression that people are free to leave the religion of their own accord, with no penalty when the exact opposite is true.

What else do you notice? A person reading this will be thinking, “What if a family member is disfellowshipped?”

What scenario does the FAQ present?

What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.

Again, this is a lie of omission, and of misdirection. This scenario only holds true if the father is living at home with his wife or children. If the children grow and leave the family home, or the wife separates from her husband and takes her children with her they are then indeed required to shun him as if he was dead. If children are living outside the home and are disfellowshipped, siblings and parents are required to shun them as if they were dead. And what holds for the disfellowshipped holds for disassociated. By cherry-picking its scenario, and limiting disclosure of information, Watchtower has carefully presented a sanitized version of its shunning policy that simply is not true.

But worst of all is the way that both the first and second FAQ ends; we run crunching into what is nothing less than a barefaced lie.

Barefaced Lies

Wikipedia defines a barefaced lie as

A barefaced (or bald-faced) lie is one that is obviously a lie to those hearing it.

Both FAQ’s end with the following paragraph.

However, the elders are not authorized to coerce or pressure someone to remain as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Each person makes his own choice regarding religion. (Joshua 24:15) We believe that those who worship God must do so willingly, from the heart.—Psalm 110:3; Matthew 22:37.

There is no pressure.

Yes, if the person no longer wishes to remain one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they will never see their friends or family again.

But there is no pressure, you see.

The elders sit there pointing full loaded shun-guns at the individual, ready to fire if they decide to leave.

But there is no coercion. No pressure. We believe you must serve God willingly. It’s just that if you don’t choose to stay, your family and friends will never be allowed to see you again.

Dear JW.org: I think you need to look up the definition of the words pressure and coercion. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.

pressure |ˈprɛʃə| noun [ mass noun ] 2 the use of persuasion or intimidation to make someone do something:backbenchers put pressure on the government to provide safeguards | [ count noun ] : the many pressures on girls to worry about their looks. coercion |kəʊˈəːʃ(ə)n| noun [ mass noun ] the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats: it wasn’t slavery because no coercion was used.

Even Watchtower’s own literature and videos state that a big part of the reason for shunning is to cause such deep emotional trauma to the person who left that they feel obligated to return to the organization.

See, for example, the video (below) that will be played to all of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide this year. What how the shunned person admits that the emotional pressure from being cut off from her family was part of what brought her back.

Also, notice this paragraph from the June 2013 Study Edition of the Watchtower which explicitly acknowledges that emotional blackmail is a key part of the shunning process.

17 Disfellowshipping is another type of discipline from Jehovah. It protects the congregation from a bad influence and can play a role in the sinner’s recovery. (1 Cor. 5:6, 7, 11) Robert was disfellowshipped for nearly 16 years, during which time his parents and siblings firmly and loyally applied the direction in God’s Word to quit mixing in company with wrongdoers, not even greeting such ones. Robert has been reinstated for some years now and is progressing well spiritually. When asked what moved him to return to Jehovah and His people after such a long time, he replied that the stand that his family took affected him. “Had my family associated with me even a little, say to check up on me, that small dose of association would have satisfied me and likely not allowed my desire for association to be a motivating factor to return to God.”

Or this paragraph from the Feb 2016 Study Edition of the Watchtower magazine, which not only proudly presents such emotional blackmail as a positive thing, but even blames the shunning victim for it.

A conflict of loyalties may arise when a close relative is disfellowshipped. For example, a sister named Anne [1] received a telephone call from her disfellowshipped mother. The mother wanted to visit Anne because she felt pained by her isolation from the family. Anne was deeply distressed by the plea and promised to reply by letter. Before writing, she reviewed Bible principles. (1 Cor. 5:11; 2 John 9-11) Anne wrote and kindly reminded her mother that she had cut herself off from the family by her wrongdoing and unrepentant attitude. “The only way you can relieve your pain is by returning to Jehovah,” Anne wrote.—Jas. 4:8.

So, for Watchtower to blatantly instruct its followers to engage in traumatizing emotional blackmail of those who leave, whilst simultaneously having the gall to state in its FAQ… (bold is mine)

However, the elders are not authorized to coerce or pressure someone to remain as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Each person makes his own choice regarding religion. (Joshua 24:15) We believe that those who worship God must do so willingly, from the heart.—Psalm 110:3; Matthew 22:37.

…is nothing less than a bare-faced lie.

A direct, blatant, calculated lie, and one that anyone with any knowledge of its doctrines and teachings can easily spot it as such.

I cannot recall the last time I saw posted on their website such a blatant, disgusting and calculated attempt to mislead the general public and the media as to its practice of disassociation, and its use of shunning to place coercion upon those who leave.

The Governing Body should be ashamed.

I call upon Watchtower to either amend the FAQ to reflect the reality of their polices, or to remove the FAQ altogether.

One last point: If shunning is Scriptural and the Governing Body is so proud to carry out God’s perceived command, why are they so desperate to lie about it and hide it from the public?