by minimus 43 Replies latest jw friends
Sassy, I agree.
I think the point that minimus is making - and it is well taken - that to establish wrongdoing does not always take two witnesses by their rules. However - as Sassy points out - to have discipline meted out to the perpetrator in anything, they generally expect two witnesses.
Fact of the matter has been in the past that confession is the biggest single tool they employ to accomplish both.
Interesting thread and point, min.
Jeff
Yes, the point is that they CAN change their 2 witness rule for pedophiles IF they want to. If they made it similar to the adultery position, having to mete out disciplinewould not be an issue toward pedophiles because you would need 2 witneeses in the first place, just as you don't need 2 witnesses to establish adultery and possible remarriage.
thank you..
I guess my point is, you really do not establish guilt.. no one says, you are right, they did this wrong.. they just let you write this letter that gets filed and they basically wash their hands of it... I couldn't even tell others about the letter.. it was to be between me and Jehovah..
well i guess I just don't get it..
you can confess all you want but if no one says they believe you, what have you really done? it sure isn't going to make a child feel better if they can write a letter to god saying someone molested them, but still nothing will be done..
its empty if you ask me..
The congregation sees that the elders, for example ,allow you to get re-married in the Hall. They are sanctioning your status by their actions.
The point of this is not about the discipline that should be meted out. The point is that saying they NEED 2 witnesses is simply not true. Once that fact is established their foundation for adhereing to the biblical rule of 2 witnesses go out the window.
The congregation sees that the elders, for example ,allow you to get re-married in the Hall. They are sanctioning your status by their actions.
But they do nothing to sanction the status of the sinning adulterer. What action could be taken, if applied evenly with the way they apply this rule in adultery, that would tell the congregation by what they see that a pedophile is in their midst. No, in the case of pedophiles, discipline would seem to be tied up with keeping these predators out of the congregations, wouldn't it? And along with it, a protective measure to warn parents and others of the danger.
But the point is well taken, that they can change the rule if it would suit them. To me, that was never in doubt anyway. But I see the double standard that you point out.
A side point then; Could both the way they make it so difficult for a wronged mate to get out of the marriage with reputation, and the way they fail to protect children from these monsters within, be an indication of the organizations lack of respect for both children and women? IF it was elders being raped in the bedroom and silenced, or being cheated on by their mates, would they take the same position? I don't think so. The Rutherford Syndrome is at heart here when you get right down to it.
Jeff
Whe are you going to realise that the rules are made up as they see fit because they are in control and you had better just accept it.
Kids and women are second class in the Organization.
the rules are made up as they see fit because they are in control and you had better just accept it.
Bingo!
They do what they want and twist rules to fit their needs.
I was informed about a JW woman who left her husband (an elder) after years of violent domestic abuse, and she sought refuge in the home of friends she knew from work - a gay couple. Her husband learned of her whereabouts and because she was seen coming and going from the house of these two gay men by a couple of good ol' boy elders who were friends with her husband, she was disfellowshipped on grounds of adultery, and the husband was scripturally free to remarry. He did just that, within a week after the ink dried on the divorce decree, and only a few short months after she left him, mind you.
