ORG. BOOK CANCELLED TWO WITNESS RULE!

IslandWoman

This is a little long, but I think you will find it interesting!!!

The book "ORGANIZED TO ACCOMPLISH OUR MINISTRY" (1989) written by the Watchtower Society has this to say about Matthew 18:15-17 starting on page 142:

"When giving counsel, Jesus outlined some specific procedures for resolving problems of serious wrongdoing, such as fraud or slander, that may arise between fellow Christians........

"If someone in the congregation has committed such a serious sin against you personally, do not be hasty to turn to the overseers, or someone else, requesting them to intervene in your behalf. First of all, as Jesus counsels, speak with the one against whom you have a complaint. Try to resolve the matter between just the two of you without involving anyone else at all. If the matter can be straightened out in this way, the one who has sinned will certainly appreciate the fact that you have not told others about his sin and have not marred his good reputation among others in the congregation. You will have "gained your brother".

"Where the sinner accepts reproof, seeks forgiveness and straightens the matter out, Jesus states there is no need to carry the matter further. This fact shows that, although serious, the offenses here discussed were limited in nature to such as could be settled between the individuals involved. This would NOT include such offenses as FORNICATION, ADULTERY, HOMOSEXUALITY, BLASPHEMY, APOSTASY, IDOLATRY AND SIMLAR GROSS SINS that should be reported to the elders and handled by them. When the Law covenant was in force, these sins required more than forgiveness from an offended individual.

"In view of this and in view of the illustration that Jesus subsequently gave, as recorded at Matthew 18:23-35, the sins considered in Matthew 18:15-17 evidently were sins such as those involving financial or property matters-failure to make proper payment for something or some action involving a measure of fraud......

"If the one who sinned against you cannot be convinced by your reasoning with him alone, then do as Jesus said and take one or two others along and speak with him again. The one or two you take with you should have the same objective, that of gaining your brother. Preferably they should be witnesses of the alleged wrongdoing, BUT IF THERE ARE NO EYEWITNESSES, YOU MAY CHOOSE TO TAKE ALONG RESPONSIBLE BROTHERS WHO BECOME WITNESSES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE DISCUSSION.......

"But if you are convinced that your brother has sinned against you and it has not been resolved either when you spoke with him alone or when you went to him with one or two others, and if a serious sin is involved so that it would be wrong just to let it pass, then you should report the matter to the overseers of the congregation.......

"If upon investigation it should become evident to the shepherds of the flock that the brother has indeed committed a serious sin against you and yet has been unwilling to repent and make appropriate amends, it may become necessary for the overseers to EXPEL THE UNREPENTANT WRONGDOER and in that way protect the flock and safeguard the cleanness of the congregation." (caps mine)

The Watchtower has cited Matthew 18:15-17 as supporting in "principle" their two eyewitness rule requirement. Yet, their own congregation manual does NOT require the witnesses to be eyewitnesses, they can just as well be witnesses to the presentation of evidence that a sin was committed!

In addition, the elders can move to disfellowship someone just on the basis of the evidence provided though there were NO EYEWITNESSES!

HOW IS IT THEN THAT A BROTHER CAN BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED FOR FRAUD THOUGH THERE WERE NO EYEWITNESSES, YET ANOTHER BROTHER CAN ESCAPE DISFELLOWSHIPPING BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EYEWITNESS TO HIS RAPE OF A CHILD???!!!

IW

dungbeetle

You have it backwards I'm afraid.

The org book , up at Kent's site, was published in 1983.

in 1995, Watchtower produced the 11/1/95 Watchtower saying specifically with application th child abuse with no corraberating physical evidence:

During the time that the one experiencing "memories" is healing, awkward situations may arise. For example, an individual may have vivid mental images of being molested by someone he or she sees every day. No rules can be laid down for handling this. "Each one will carry his own load." (Galatians 6:5) Sometimes one may feel that a relative or a member of one's immediate family is involved. Remember the dubious nature of some "repressed memories" when it comes to identifying the one suspected of being a perpetrator. In such a situation, as long as the matter has not been firmly established, keeping contact with the family—at least by occasional visits, by letter, or by telephone—would show that one is trying to follow a Scriptural course.—Compare Ephesians 6:1-3.

What if the sufferer decides that he wants to make an accusation? Then the two elders can advise him that, in line with the principle at Matthew 18:15, he should personally approach the accused about the matter.

Or perhaps the one accused will confess, and a reconciliation may be achieved. What a blessing that would be! If there is a confession, the two elders can handle matters further in accordance with Scriptural principles.

If the accusation is denied, the elders should explain to the accuser that nothing more can be done in a judicial way. And the congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person.

Even if more than one person "remembers" abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence.

BEFORE YOU TRY AND REMOVE THE STICK FROM MY ARSE, REMOVE THE TELEPHONE POLE FROM YOUR OWN ARSE.

IslandWoman

Dungbeetle,

I don't rely on Kent's site. I have my own personal copy of the "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry", it IS dated 1989 updated from 1983.

IW

Cassiline

ORGANIZED TO ACCOMPLISH OUR MINISTRY" (1989)

Thanks Island Woman!!! Beetle the book IW is quoting from is 1989 perhaps a litle more new light??? Is it possible that in a 89 reprint it states something different from 1983?

I would love to see if they have indeed condricated themselves yet again, thus letting little ones go on to get man handled because of the 2 witness rule.

C

When the pain of being where we are, becomes greater than our fear of letting go...we will risk and heal and grow.

IslandWoman

Hi Cassiline,

I don't know if there is a difference in the two printings. My point was though, that the Watchtower Society in their Organization book stated that 2 EYEWITNESSES were not necessarily required all the time, that a brother could be disfellowshipped without 2 eyewitnesses to his sin.

Why do they apply a different standard to child molesters?

IW

Cassiline

Hello IW,

I really wish I knew why whey seem to have a different policy for different acts of 'sin'. It really pains me to know they do. The entire 2 witness B/S rule IMO is antiquated. How or when does a molester EVER let himself have a witness in an act of pedophilia?

I'm sorry IW this subject gets to me and I'm going off on a tangent on your thread I apologize to you.

C

When the pain of being where we are, becomes greater than our fear of letting go...we will risk and heal and grow.

deddaisy

at times one has to wonder if the WTS itself knows what its policies are...

I spoke with a former "elder" regarding the Silentlambs website months ago and he made the comment that there was no "two-witness" requirement in molestation allegations...This was in defense of WT policy.......

It's no wonder they have to call the legal dept...Is calling "legal" the example Jesus set? just curious.....

IslandWoman

It should be remembered that the Watchtower uses Matthew 18:15-17 as support for its 2 witness rule policy for child molesters!

Yet, their own publication states that an eyewitness to a sin is not absolutely required, even in disfellowshipping matters!

Again, a child molester is given a free ride, while someone who has committed a far lesser sin is not!!!

IW

BluesBrother

Dedaisy is right in one thing. The average dub knows or cares lot less about such things than the users of this board. Ostrich mentality?

Regarding Mathew 18, without quoting directly, my understanding is that the two "Witnesses " are to witness to the discussion with the accused - not the action itself.

Suppose a business or trade contract is disputed. During such a conversation things would be said which may clarify the matter one way or the other. The witnesses would then confirm what was said, no going back on it.

I am afraid it is a different circumstance.

IslandWoman

Hi BluesBrother,

Here is a quote from the Watchtower's Official Site, the Media section.

"When any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused of an act of child abuse, the local congregation elders are expected to investigate. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the accuser to see what each says on the matter. If the accused denies the charge, the two elders may arrange for him and the victim to restate their position in each other's presence, with elders also there. If during that meeting the accused still denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time. Why not? As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say, namely, "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." (Deuteronomy 19:15) Jesus reaffirmed this principle as recorded at Matthew 18:15-17. However, if two persons are witnesses to separate incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing, their testimony may be deemed sufficient to take action."

___________________________________________________

As you see they are using Matthew 18:15-17 as support for their position on the two eyewitness rule. Yet their own publication does not support the strict application of an eyewitness rule for the very scriptures they are citing!!

More importantly, a child molester can go free from blame in the Society if his victum cannot supply an eyewitness yet a brother who defrauds another brother can be disfellowshipped with no eyewitness to his "crime"!

This makes no sense!!

IW

ORG. BOOK CANCELLED TWO WITNESS RULE!

Share this