Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2002, Page 88
The example Witnesses use of Abraham lying to Pharaoh, stating that Sarah was his sister
and not his wife, may prove to be prophetic here. Watchtower dissidents widely cite the
doctrine as an issue that was part of their decision to leave the Watchtower, and opposers
commonly tout this doctrine as partial justification for their condemnation of the
Watchtower. Their lack of honesty is often noted by their critics (for example see Branden,
1988, and Dahlin, 1988, and most of the references noted in this paper).
Openly reversing the doctrine is unlikely because a reversal will support the conclusion that
it was taught and commonly practiced. Furthermore, and most important, reversing it
would also be an admission that it was wrong. The Watchtower, in view of their expectation
of the imminent Armageddon, is hoping that this predicted battle will save them from
having to deal with this problem. No need will exist for the theocratic warfare doctrine in
the new world since there will be no opposition to the Watchtower because all non-
Witnesses will be destroyed at Armageddon. In view of the repeated failure of the
Watchtower‘s prediction of the ―great day of God the Almighty,‖ they may be forced to face
the doctrine and either quietly let it fade away (which does not seem to be the case—the
doctrine has been reiterated in the most current Watchtower publications) or face up to
their exegetical mistakes and develop policies involving functional ethics.
The Ohio Supreme Court Rules on Lying for Religious Reasons
The author served as an expert witness in a case in which a jury agreed with a family‘s
claim for reversal of the will of their family member, Otterbein Duesler, who unexpectedly
and abruptly changed his will and left most of his $338,000 estate to the Watchtower
Society (Redman et.al., vs. WTBTS Appeals No. 91 WDO 71, Trial Number C-88-835).
Duesler was not a Witness, and had expressed some dissatisfaction about the Watchtower
when alive. The family claimed that he left his money to the Watchtower Society because
they convinced him that if he did not, he might lose out on everlasting life (W. Caughey,
personal interview, Feb. 3, 1991).
The Wood County Court of Appeals reversed this decision (Court of Appeals for Wood
County, No 91-WD-07 Decided Aug. 14, 1992). The appeals court ruled that the expert
witness's ―testimony would allow one to conclude that: (1) Attorney Walter Kobil was a
believer (2) the church theology encourages perjury to protect the church (3) Attorney Kobil
was willing to lie to protect the church and (4) therefore Attorney Kobil is not credible.
Evid. R. 610 prohibits this type of attack on the credibility of a witness. The admission of
the evidence was, therefore, error" (p. 11) and "required a new trial" (p. A-19). The
appeals court ruled that if a church teaches its members to lie or withhold the truth in order
to defend the interests of the church, and if this fact is brought out in court, it is a reversible
error.
The Wood County Court of Appeals decision was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court
(Redman v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of Penn. 69 Ohio St.3d 98, 630 N.E.2nd 676
reh. denied, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1445 (1994) 632 N.E.2d 913). The Ohio Supreme Court ruled
that ―Questions concerning a witness‘s religious beliefs [including if his religion teaches its
members to lie] are not an additional permissible method to test truthfulness‖ (Redman v.
Watchtower, supra, p. 101). The court also appeared to question the existences of the
theocratic war doctrine even though the Watchtower authorities in this case admitted it
exists, as will be explained below. On its face, then, this ruling openly protects lying if it is
done for religious reasons and if this doctrine is noted in court by the opposing party.
The case involved an older mentally borderline-functioning man, Otterbein Duesler, who
also had emotional problems. According to Mr. Caughey, the attorney for the family, the
Jehovah Witnesses would not accept Mr. Duesler as a member because his behavior violated
Watchtower policy, and they concluded that he would not convey the image the Watchtower
is trying to present to the public. Had they genuinely endeavored to help him as a person,
The example Witnesses use of Abraham lying to Pharaoh, stating that Sarah was his sister
and not his wife, may prove to be prophetic here. Watchtower dissidents widely cite the
doctrine as an issue that was part of their decision to leave the Watchtower, and opposers
commonly tout this doctrine as partial justification for their condemnation of the
Watchtower. Their lack of honesty is often noted by their critics (for example see Branden,
1988, and Dahlin, 1988, and most of the references noted in this paper).
Openly reversing the doctrine is unlikely because a reversal will support the conclusion that
it was taught and commonly practiced. Furthermore, and most important, reversing it
would also be an admission that it was wrong. The Watchtower, in view of their expectation
of the imminent Armageddon, is hoping that this predicted battle will save them from
having to deal with this problem. No need will exist for the theocratic warfare doctrine in
the new world since there will be no opposition to the Watchtower because all non-
Witnesses will be destroyed at Armageddon. In view of the repeated failure of the
Watchtower‘s prediction of the ―great day of God the Almighty,‖ they may be forced to face
the doctrine and either quietly let it fade away (which does not seem to be the case—the
doctrine has been reiterated in the most current Watchtower publications) or face up to
their exegetical mistakes and develop policies involving functional ethics.
The Ohio Supreme Court Rules on Lying for Religious Reasons
The author served as an expert witness in a case in which a jury agreed with a family‘s
claim for reversal of the will of their family member, Otterbein Duesler, who unexpectedly
and abruptly changed his will and left most of his $338,000 estate to the Watchtower
Society (Redman et.al., vs. WTBTS Appeals No. 91 WDO 71, Trial Number C-88-835).
Duesler was not a Witness, and had expressed some dissatisfaction about the Watchtower
when alive. The family claimed that he left his money to the Watchtower Society because
they convinced him that if he did not, he might lose out on everlasting life (W. Caughey,
personal interview, Feb. 3, 1991).
The Wood County Court of Appeals reversed this decision (Court of Appeals for Wood
County, No 91-WD-07 Decided Aug. 14, 1992). The appeals court ruled that the expert
witness's ―testimony would allow one to conclude that: (1) Attorney Walter Kobil was a
believer (2) the church theology encourages perjury to protect the church (3) Attorney Kobil
was willing to lie to protect the church and (4) therefore Attorney Kobil is not credible.
Evid. R. 610 prohibits this type of attack on the credibility of a witness. The admission of
the evidence was, therefore, error" (p. 11) and "required a new trial" (p. A-19). The
appeals court ruled that if a church teaches its members to lie or withhold the truth in order
to defend the interests of the church, and if this fact is brought out in court, it is a reversible
error.
The Wood County Court of Appeals decision was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court
(Redman v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of Penn. 69 Ohio St.3d 98, 630 N.E.2nd 676
reh. denied, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1445 (1994) 632 N.E.2d 913). The Ohio Supreme Court ruled
that ―Questions concerning a witness‘s religious beliefs [including if his religion teaches its
members to lie] are not an additional permissible method to test truthfulness‖ (Redman v.
Watchtower, supra, p. 101). The court also appeared to question the existences of the
theocratic war doctrine even though the Watchtower authorities in this case admitted it
exists, as will be explained below. On its face, then, this ruling openly protects lying if it is
done for religious reasons and if this doctrine is noted in court by the opposing party.
The case involved an older mentally borderline-functioning man, Otterbein Duesler, who
also had emotional problems. According to Mr. Caughey, the attorney for the family, the
Jehovah Witnesses would not accept Mr. Duesler as a member because his behavior violated
Watchtower policy, and they concluded that he would not convey the image the Watchtower
is trying to present to the public. Had they genuinely endeavored to help him as a person,
