Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2002, Page 80
imply exactly the opposite in court of what they actually believe (Walker, 1990, p. 23). In
Tanya A. Stevens v. Max P. Stevens (District Court of the 5th Judicial Court of the state of
Idaho, in the county of Blaine, Case no. CV-96-2858 Judgment 10-17-96 for Max Stevens,
defendant) the Judge ruled:
It is detrimental to the best interest or welfare of the children to teach them
that their father, as a non-Jehovah‘s Witness, is not entitled to the whole
truth, or that it is proper to hide the truth from God‘s enemies (particularly in
a courtroom situation). Neither Tanya nor any other person or party may do
so. (p. 42)
Judge Bouska of Kansas City concluded from his review of this Watchtower booklet as part
of a case before his court, that the booklet ―was designed, and encourages, the Jehovah‘s
Witness to cover up some of their true beliefs and mislead the court as to what their beliefs
and practices are with reference to children.‖ He also concluded that the Watchtower
teaches that ―There is nothing wrong under the religion, as I understand it, in misleading or
even lying to somebody that is not a Jehovah‘s Witness‖ (Witness, Inc., 1994). In short, the
Watchtower ―encourages its faithful to fudge their testimony‖ (quoted in Montgomery, 1992,
p. 14). The concern, as Raines notes, is that:
Judges have ruled in favor of allowing custody and visitation rights to the non-
JW parent or grandparent once the damaging and restricting nature, i.e.,
―cult-like‖ behavior and methods of the group are freely discussed and
documented in court.
This includes the use of ―theocratic warfare‖ by JWs in court. The Society in
their Preparing for Child Custody Cases booklet clearly advocates JWs to in
effect perjure themselves in court by giving false and misleading information
to the court on Witness beliefs and practices. This is easily documented ...
much to the chagrin of the Watchtower. Because of this, the Watchtower
Society is being forced to change their positions. Courts do not look favorably
on groups that limit growth potential in children such as forbidding or
discouraging higher education and involvement in sports and after school
clubs and organizations (Raines, 1996, p. 30).
Witnesses justify this deception in court by the theocratic warfare doctrine discussed above
in which lying (or, in Watchtower words, withholding the truth) is proper if it defends the
interests of the Watchtower. This justification includes efforts to deny their past doctrine, a
tactic that will likely have some effect on their current teaching. For example, the
Watchtower may de-emphasize certain past views, such as only Jehovah‘s Witnesses can
please God and earn the gift of life, and that all governments, religions, and businesses
except their own are controlled by Satan.
When asked if people of other religions will survive Armageddon, the Watchtower suggests
this answer: ―Jehovah makes those judgments, not we.‖ In actuality, although they
attempt not to alienate potential converts and others, the Watchtower teaches that only
baptized members of the Watchtower who are in good standing will survive Armageddon
(Bergman, 1999). The official Watchtower book You Can Live Forever in Paradise Earth,
clearly teaches that only one religion is true, all others are false, and all persons in false
religions will soon be annihilated:
Did Jehovah ever use more than one organization during any period of time?
In Noah‘s day only Noah and those with him inside the ark had God‘s
protection and survived the floodwaters. (1 Peter 3:20) Also, in the first
century there were not two or more Christian organizations. God dealt with
just the one. There was just the ―one Lord, one faith, one baptism.‖
imply exactly the opposite in court of what they actually believe (Walker, 1990, p. 23). In
Tanya A. Stevens v. Max P. Stevens (District Court of the 5th Judicial Court of the state of
Idaho, in the county of Blaine, Case no. CV-96-2858 Judgment 10-17-96 for Max Stevens,
defendant) the Judge ruled:
It is detrimental to the best interest or welfare of the children to teach them
that their father, as a non-Jehovah‘s Witness, is not entitled to the whole
truth, or that it is proper to hide the truth from God‘s enemies (particularly in
a courtroom situation). Neither Tanya nor any other person or party may do
so. (p. 42)
Judge Bouska of Kansas City concluded from his review of this Watchtower booklet as part
of a case before his court, that the booklet ―was designed, and encourages, the Jehovah‘s
Witness to cover up some of their true beliefs and mislead the court as to what their beliefs
and practices are with reference to children.‖ He also concluded that the Watchtower
teaches that ―There is nothing wrong under the religion, as I understand it, in misleading or
even lying to somebody that is not a Jehovah‘s Witness‖ (Witness, Inc., 1994). In short, the
Watchtower ―encourages its faithful to fudge their testimony‖ (quoted in Montgomery, 1992,
p. 14). The concern, as Raines notes, is that:
Judges have ruled in favor of allowing custody and visitation rights to the non-
JW parent or grandparent once the damaging and restricting nature, i.e.,
―cult-like‖ behavior and methods of the group are freely discussed and
documented in court.
This includes the use of ―theocratic warfare‖ by JWs in court. The Society in
their Preparing for Child Custody Cases booklet clearly advocates JWs to in
effect perjure themselves in court by giving false and misleading information
to the court on Witness beliefs and practices. This is easily documented ...
much to the chagrin of the Watchtower. Because of this, the Watchtower
Society is being forced to change their positions. Courts do not look favorably
on groups that limit growth potential in children such as forbidding or
discouraging higher education and involvement in sports and after school
clubs and organizations (Raines, 1996, p. 30).
Witnesses justify this deception in court by the theocratic warfare doctrine discussed above
in which lying (or, in Watchtower words, withholding the truth) is proper if it defends the
interests of the Watchtower. This justification includes efforts to deny their past doctrine, a
tactic that will likely have some effect on their current teaching. For example, the
Watchtower may de-emphasize certain past views, such as only Jehovah‘s Witnesses can
please God and earn the gift of life, and that all governments, religions, and businesses
except their own are controlled by Satan.
When asked if people of other religions will survive Armageddon, the Watchtower suggests
this answer: ―Jehovah makes those judgments, not we.‖ In actuality, although they
attempt not to alienate potential converts and others, the Watchtower teaches that only
baptized members of the Watchtower who are in good standing will survive Armageddon
(Bergman, 1999). The official Watchtower book You Can Live Forever in Paradise Earth,
clearly teaches that only one religion is true, all others are false, and all persons in false
religions will soon be annihilated:
Did Jehovah ever use more than one organization during any period of time?
In Noah‘s day only Noah and those with him inside the ark had God‘s
protection and survived the floodwaters. (1 Peter 3:20) Also, in the first
century there were not two or more Christian organizations. God dealt with
just the one. There was just the ―one Lord, one faith, one baptism.‖
