by IslandWoman 24 Replies latest jw friends
I did miss that, but my conclusion is still correct. Consider:
If upon investigation it should become evident ...
Investigation that doesn't turn up two witnesses doesn't make evident that a sin was committed! At least, that's how a JC will rule.
--
Chip Salzenberg: Free-Floating Agent of Chaos
from pages 144 to 145 of the OM book:
NOT OVERLOOKING SERIOUS WRONGS
"...then do as Jesus said and take one or two others along and speak with him again....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 teh evidence presented in the discussion.
But if you are convinced that your brother has sinned against you and it has not been resolved...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. Having done this, you have taken it as far as you can. Leave the problem in the hands of the responsible members of the congregation and trust in Jehovah that it will be resolved.
HANDLING OTHER JUDICIAL MATTERS
...If it is established that there is substance to the report and evidence is produced showing that a serious sin may have been committed, the congregation's body of elders will assign a judicial committee of at least three brothers to handle the matter.
BEFORE YOU TRY AND REMOVE THE STICK FROM MY ARSE, REMOVE THE TELEPHONE POLE FROM YOUR OWN ARSE.
Grout,
The "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry" states regarding Matthew 18:15-17 that two eyewitnesses while preferred are NOT required.
Therefore, if and when a judicial committee is convened there may or may not be two eyewitnesses to the "sin" being considered.
IW
*sigh* IslandWoman, you're trying to apply Matt18 standards to judicial situations. Nobody can expect that to hold together.
--
Chip Salzenberg: Free-Floating Agent of Chaos
Hi Grout,
"I" am not trying to do anything. What I was trying to point out was that the SOCIETY'S standards or requirements for evidence in a judicial case are not equally applied.
A brother who is accusing a fellow publisher of fraud does NOT have to supply an eyewitness, yet a child accusing a brother of rape does. In each case the accused faces possible disfellowshipping; same punishment but based on DIFFERENT STANDARDS of acceptable evidence!
Matthew 18 is cited on the Society's website as in "principle" supporting the two witness rule, it does not. Their own literature does not apply it that way at all!
The result is that for the child abuse victim the bar is raised much higher than for the victim of fraud or slander!
IW
