ONE-WITNESS POLICY

by UnDisfellowshipped 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  RevMalk

  What difference does this make? Who are we to tell them who they can disfellowship and who they can't?

  Again, we're barking up the wrong tree, instead of trying to get them to change their policy on who they DF and who they don't, we should be encouraging them to do the right thing and to call the authorities who are qualified to handle a real investigation. And on top of that, since we know we'll be unsuccessful in those regards, we should be working to change the laws to force them to turn these cases over to the authorities.

  Come on guys, why can't anyone see that trying to get them to change this 2 witness policy will not make a positive difference, even if they did?

  If they changed that policy and started DFing people with only one witness, it still doesn't help the child......the child is still lost in the shuffle.

  Besides the fact, as we've plainly seen, they're aloud back in within the year and even able to grow into an authority position.....and still no-one will be told in the congregation and the children will not be protected.

  If anything, changing that 2 witness rule will make it worse. How?

  Because then these stupid parents will be satisfied with their decision to DF and less cases will go the the public and less children will be helped, on top of the fact that innocent people will be found guilty. Maybe not many, but one is too many and it could be someone we know and love.

  Frankly, there's probably a ton of Pedophiles out there that are right with you on this crazy idea. Then they know for sure they're not going to be turned in and go to jail. What's a little bit of time being DF'd going to do to them? Nothing, because they know when they come back, everyone will be so happy for them and jump right on the bandwagon associating with him, and it's exposing our children to even more risk.

  I'm asking that everyone stop this crazy idea, and work on what will really help. This is counter productive and God forbid the society ever did cave, we'll have done a horrible horrible thing!

  I'm sorry, but we've spent years going about this all wrong.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  RevMalk,

  Thanks for your comments.

  However, I do need to explain some details about the Two-Witness Policy.

  First of all, if the Elders report the pedophile to the Police, it does not matter whether or not they Disfellowship the pedophile because the Police will handle it.

  That part of the "Two-Witness Policy" is not the problem.

  Did you know that Elders have been using the "Two-Witness Rule" to forbid Jehovah's Witness victims from going to the Police and then to punish them if they do?

  I have proof of this, taken from a Newspaper Article:

  Quotes from "Christianity Today" - February 2nd 2001:

  Witness Leaders Accused of Shielding Molesters

  By Corrie Cutrer | posted 2/2/01

  Jeff Tucker, one of the Mount Shasta Kingdom Hall elders, says there were not enough eye-witnesses to go to the police.

  The Elders claim that they must go by this Policy because it is in the Bible.

  You see, the Elders' actions prove that J.R. Brown is lying when he claims that the "Two-Witness Policy" does not stop victims from going to the Police.

  Also, did you know that if there are not 2 eye-witnesses, the Elders may not even investigate at all? I have proof of this:

  Quote from "The Paducah Sun" (Kentucky) Newspaper - January 28th 2001:

  Moreno agrees with Bowen's claim that no investigation is initiated in the church if there is only one witness and the accused denies the charge, but he said elders have the responsibility to watch the accused more closely. He added that elders sometimes advise the accused to not put himself or herself in suspicious situations.

  Here is how this Policy works:

  This is what happens in a State that does NOT Require Clergy to Report Sexual Abuse to the Police, and the Child Molester DENIES the charges:

  1: The Child is Unfortunately Molested.

  2: The Child talks with the Elders.

  3: The Elders call the Bethel Legal Department for instructions.

  4: The Bethel Legal Department tells the Elders that they are NOT in a Mandatory-Reporting State, so they are not required to report it to the Police, and the Bethel Legal Department tells Elders not to report because you would not want to get yourself in a jam.

  5: The Untrained Volunteer Elders "Investigate" the charges.

  6: The Elders interrogate the Child about all of the details of the abuse, and they ask questions to make sure the Child did not "enjoy" the sexual act.

  7: The Elders then ask the Child, Do you have a 2nd witness to the act of abuse?

  8: The Child, of course, says No.

  9: The Elders may decide to have the Child accuse the Molester while the Molester is in the SAME ROOM with the Child! The Elders may even tell the Child to accuse and confront the Molester ALONE, because of their "Matthew 18:15 Policy".

  10: The Elders then ask the accused Child Molester, Did you sexually abuse this child?

  11: The accused Child Molester, of course, says No. (MY COMMENT: I have heard that 98% of Child Molesters DO NOT confess!)

  12: The Elders tell the Child that they cannot do anything, and that the accused Molester should be treated as INNOCENT because there were NOT 2 eye-witnesses to the act, and that this is Jehovah God's Policy so it MUST be followed.

  13: The Elders also tell the Child that, since there were NOT 2 eye-witnesses, if the Child , or the Child's Parents, try to warn ANYONE, even other Parents or Children about the Molester, that the Child or the Child's Parents will face a Judicial Hearing, and will most likely be Punished and Shunned for "Slandering an Innocent Man", and that this is Jehovah God's Policy so it MUST be followed.

  14: The Child and the Child's Parents are told by the Elders that, going to the Police or taking the accused Molester to Court would be "Bringing Reproach on Jehovah's Organization", and some Elders forbid the victims from going to the Police, because "there were not enough eye-witnesses to go to the Police".

  15: The Elders tell the Child and the Child's Parents to "Wait on Jehovah" and "Jehovah will bring it all out someday" (at Armageddon).

  16: If the Child was molested by her/his Father, Mother, or other immediate Family Member, the Elders send the Child back home to the "innocent" Family Members so the Child can be molested again.

  17: Then the Child decides to warn another Child or Parent about the Child Molester.

  18: The Child is then brought before a Judicial Hearing and the Elders Disfellowship and/or Shun the Child for "Slandering an Innocent Brother".

  19: The Child is Shunned by all of the Jehovah's Witnesses, including Jehovah's Witness friends and family (if they are not living in the same household).

  20: Meanwhile the Child Molester is "Innocent" and a "Brother in Good Standing" who is going Door-To-Door, Pioneering, giving Talks, and is on his way to becoming a Ministerial Servant and possibly an Elder!

  21: The Child's Parents then decide to go to the Police to turn the Child Molester in, and they also go to the Media to speak out about this Policy.

  22: The Child's Parents are brought before a Judicial Hearing for "Causing Divisions" and "Undermining the Authority of the Governing Body" and "Undermining the Arrangements of the Organization".

  23: The Parents are Disfellowshipped and Shunned by all Jehovah's Witnesses, including family and friends.

  24: Meanwhile, "Brother Innocent Molester" has just been promoted by "holy spirit" and is now your Ministerial Servant!

  25: Any Jehovah's Witnesses who talk to the Victim or the Victim's Parents will also be Disfellowshipped and Shunned!

  Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 6 February 2003 21:43:50
• 

  RevMalk

  UNDF'D, I always enjoy your posts, and I appreciate your perseverance, dedication and knowledge on all the topics you touch on, and we miss you over there you know! :) I am fully aware of the 2-witness rule, how it works, the good sides and the bad (as with everything in life). But IMHO the good far outweighs the bad.

  First of all, if the Elders report the pedophile to the Police, it does not matter whether or not they Disfellowship the pedophile because the Police will handle it. Correct.

  Did you know that Elders have been using the "Two-Witness Rule" to forbid Jehovah's Witness victims from going to the Police and then to punish them if they do?

  If the elders didn't use the 2-witness rule for this reason, they'd have another. JR Brown himself said that parents are more than welcome to go to the authorities, even before calling the elders, but it generally doesn't happen this way. Why? Because there is an unwritten rule that you don't do this. So if their policy requires 1 witness (the victim) 2 witnesses, or 50 witnesses, it will not make one difference in their unwritten rule concerning the victim going to the authorities. Take a look at every case we know where the victim has gone to the authorities on their own. Why did they go? What caused them to rebel against their elders? The fact that the elders did nothing. The fact that the elders did not punish the accused, nor take the investigation further than their 2 witness rule. What would have happened (and this is purely speculation) had the elders gone ahead and DF'd these people? What if they DID have a 1 witness rule? Do you think those families would have become outraged enough to have gone against their church? Probably not! Not in most cases anyway. They went to their elders because they THOUGHT the elders would do something. They THOUGHT the elders would have DF'd the guilty. They THOUGHT they were going to be satisfied with these results. they THOUGHT they'd be safe in the hands of the elders. They THOUGHT the elders would believe them. These people, for the most part, only went to the police because they didn't get what they wanted at church. They only went to the police because the guilty was not punished. If they cave and institute a one witness rule, mark my words and you'll see a 90% (at least) decrease in civil investigations of JW child molestation cases. We hear it over and over and over: "We went to the police because our elders did nothing". Come on! If they would have been satisfied with a DF'ing, and the Watchtower changes their policy, that's exactly what we'll get. Satisfied JWs. A whole bunch of stupid brainwashed parents that think DF'ing was enough! This is how the process should work: 1. Child is unfortunately molested 2. Child informs parents 3. Parents call Police (with no repercussions from Joe Elder) 4. Get the Child help 5. Call the Elders (I guess) If the parents are stupid enough to waste the time of calling elders first, this is how the process should work: 1. Child is unfortunately molested 2. Child informs parents 3. Parents Call the Elders 4. Elders call police, or at the very least instruct the parents to do so 5. Get the Child help We can't make them change. We can only make the law change. It should be mandatory in every state for parents AND Clergy to report. It should be a class "A" felony for parents to neglect this moral, ethical, and legal obligation. Run of the mill parents start going to jail, and you'll see some things change, that's for damn sure! And when that system fails, we need to be here to expose them, and we need to be here to support those that we failed. We can sit here and fantasize about changing the Watchtower until the cows come home, and it won't do a damn bit of good. We can march on Brooklyn when we should be marching on Washington, and it won't change a thing with these people. I'm not saying marching in Brooklyn and getting the word out via the media is bad, on the contrary, it's good, but our main purpose here should be to change the law, and to change the minds of the general public......make them aware that this is a serious problem that every human being faces. This has nothing to do with 2 witness rules, and if they cave and they change this rule, it will only make it worse! edited - forgot quotes

  Edited by - RevMalk on 6 February 2003 23:54:17
• 

  Brumm

  Deuteronomy 22:25: If an engaged woman is raped out in the country, only the man will be put to death.
  Deuteronomy 22:26: Do not punish the woman at all; she has done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing deserving death. This crime is like murder,
  Deuteronomy 22:27: because the woman was ALONE out in the country when the man attacked her. She screamed, but there was NO ONE to help her.

  What a gem! I missed it before. Might not change the Society but it sure is a good one to show the individual witness how wrong they are.

  Thnx UD
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  I absolutely agree with the following statements by RevMalk:

  This is how the process should work:
  
  1. Child is unfortunately molested
  2. Child informs parents
  3. Parents call Police (with no repercussions from Joe Elder)
  4. Get the Child help
  5. Call the Elders (I guess)
  
  If the parents are stupid enough to waste the time of calling elders first, this is how the process should work:
  
  1. Child is unfortunately molested
  2. Child informs parents
  3. Parents Call the Elders
  4. Elders call police, or at the very least instruct the parents to do so
  5. Get the Child help
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  RevMalk said:
  

  UNDF'D, I always enjoy your posts, and I appreciate your perseverance, dedication and knowledge on all the topics you touch on, and we miss you over there you know! :)

  Thank You Very Much for your kind words!

  I am definitely planning to post on LambsRoar very soon, and I am planning to post A LOT of info on LambsRoar.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Brumm said:
  

  What a gem! I missed it before. Might not change the Society but it sure is a good one to show the individual witness how wrong they are.

  I agree.

  That is the number one reason why I have been posting information about the "Two-Witness Rule" -- it shows the wickedness and hypocrisy and deception of the Watchtower Society to the individual JW's.

  Thnx UD

  You are very welcome and I hope this info helps everyone.

  Actually, the "Matthew 18:15 Policy" is much more dangerous for Children.

  In that Policy, the Elders tell the Child that they must confront and accuse the Molester ALONE.
• 

  RevMalk

  I am definitely planning to post on LambsRoar very soon, and I am planning to post A LOT of info on LambsRoar.

  That's great to hear. I don't want to sound desperate, haha, but here's some reasons why that is great news. We get a TON of traffic, mostly readers/lurkers. we get alot of hits from Google and Yahoo, for general molestation queries. And although we are still growing in the dialogue department, we're trying to make sure we have lots of information for the 'readers', if you know what I mean. I try to pull some of your stuff over there when I can, I hope that's ok (nice time to ask right:)

  I noticed we get a ton of hits from universities around the world......Harvard quite a bit, U of Prague constantly....I assume students doing research? Alot of hits from Oxford, and all over the UK, and more and more Gov't servers. Alot of hits from social service depts in many many states and around the world. Our hit rate from Canada has grown by 90% since the fifth estate program. Again, great work Bill and everyone else. I'm proud of you all!
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  RevMalk said:
  

  I try to pull some of your stuff over there when I can, I hope that's ok (nice time to ask right:)

  Absolutely!

  You (and anyone else) can freely distribute anything that I post on this Website to anyone and anywhere you want to.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  RevMalk said:
  

  It should be a class "A" felony for parents to neglect this moral, ethical, and legal obligation. Run of the mill parents start going to jail, and you'll see some things change, that's for damn sure!

  I agree -- and it should be the exact same for every person -- Clergy, Doctors, Teachers -- everyone.

  I'm just going to comment some more on the Two-Witness Policy of the Watchtower Society:

  RevMalk, I do not agree with you when you say that it would be "worse" for JW Victims if the Watchtower Society changes to a "One-Witness" Policy.

  If the Watchtower Society actually starts to listen to and believe Children, I believe it would be much, much better for the Victims, as I will explain below.

  First of all, as was established at the top of this Thread, The Two-Witness Policy for Child Abuse is absolutely 100% ANTI-CHRISTIAN!

  The other "Rule", besides the "Two-Witness Rule", that the Elders use in order to tell the victims not to go to the Police, is found in the following Watchtower Quote:

  The Watchtower, November 15th 1973 Issue, Pages 703-704:

  Questions from Readers

  Do Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a Christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?-U.S.A.

  The apostle Paul's inspired admonition is: "Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you unfit to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that you put in as judges? I am speaking to move you to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among you that will be able to judge between his brothers, but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers? Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for you that you are having lawsuits with one another. Why do you not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?"-1 Cor. 6:1-7.

  Here Paul was showing the Corinthian Christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between Christians before secular tribunals. The judges would be men who were not governed by the lofty principles of God's law and whose consciences were not trained through a study of his Word. As many of the judges at that time were corrupt and accepted bribes, Christians had little reason to believe that their judgment would be just. Paul referred to them as "unrighteous men." Were Christians to take their disputes before such men, they would be 'putting in as judges' men whom the congregation looked down upon as lacking integrity.

  Then, too, in taking matters before unbelievers for judgment, they would, in effect, be saying that no one in the congregation had the wisdom to judge "matters of this life" among Christians. This was wholly inconsistent with the fact that spirit-anointed Christians as heavenly associate rulers of the Lord Jesus Christ would be judging, not only men, but also angels. And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God's name. As outsiders would be led to believe that Christians were no different from other people in being unable to settle differences, the interests of true worship would be injured. It would have been far better for individual Christians to take personal loss rather than to injure the entire congregation by bringing their disputes to public notice.

  In view of the foregoing, would dedicated Christians today go before secular courts if that were to injure the advancement of true worship or misrepresent it in the eyes of outsiders? No. Of course, as all other people, true Christians are still imperfect humans. They make mistakes, and problems arise in connection with business matters and the like. But differences of this nature ought to be settled within the congregation, for God's Word provides the needed guidelines and there are men in the congregation who are well grounded in the Bible.

  However, if a Christian refuses to correct a serious wrong when it is made clear to him by elders serving in judicial capacity in the congregation, such a one would be expelled. This is in line with Jesus' words: "If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector." (Matt. 18:17) Thus, for example, one who defrauded his Christian brother or who failed to provide materially for his wife and children would find himself outside the congregation if he did not repent.-1 Tim. 5:8.

  The injured party could thereafter decide whether legal action should be taken in an attempt to force the guilty one, now disfellowshiped, to rectify matters. Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members. If the wronged Christian conscientiously felt that God's name would not be reproached and legal action was definitely needed, he would not necessarily be acting contrary to the spirit of Paul's counsel if he were to take to court one who was no longer a part of the Christian congregation. Jehovah God has permitted secular authority to serve as his instrument in bringing lawbreakers to justice, and in this case the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected.-Rom. 13:3, 4.

  There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts. But this does not create adverse publicity or bring reproach upon the congregation. In handling such legal matters that would not affect the congregation adversely, Christians can be governed by what they consider to be best under the circumstances.

  However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God's Word on this matter, such one would not be "free from accusation" as a Christian. He would not be one who has "a fine testimony from people on the outside" of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.
  ____________________________________________________

  The Elders use this same "Rule" and also apply it to going to the Police.

  The determining factor is, "Will going to Court or to the Police make the Congregation look bad?" or "Will going to Court or to the Police bring reproach upon God's name?" -- and if so, the Elders will forbid the Jehovah's Witnesses from going to Court or the Police.

  That "Questions From Readers" above, which is still in effect, says that Jehovah's Witnesses CANNOT take another Jehovah's Witness to Court, unless that Witness has been Disfellowshipped [Excommunicated].

  That is one reason why a "One-Witness Rule" for Child Abuse would help the victims, because then, after the pedophile has been Disfellowshipped, according to the "Question From Readers" above, the Elders are supposed to "allow" victims to take the pedophile to Court or to the Police.

  Of course, the Elders could still threaten the victims anyway.

  Here is another BIG REASON why a "One-Witness Policy" for Child Abuse would help:

  The Elders have been punishing children victims of pedophiles for "slandering an innocent brother", because the "Brother Pedophile" was never Disfellowshipped.

  If the Pedophile had been Disfellowshipped, there should have been no way that they could accuse the children of "slandering an innocent man".

  Also, if the pedophile was Disfellowshipped, other Jehovah's Witnesses in the Congregation would be much more likely to believe what the child tells them about the pedophile, instead of accusing the child of being a liar.

  I will post more soon.