Having been a victim of this practice twice, I thought I would see if others had the same experience. On one occassion, I was before the elders being told I was drunk on a certain day at a certain time. ( this was only brought up because when I was pushing for a meeting because of elder Mr x adultery , I was threatened somethings would be brought out about me if I persued the meeting. Mr x knew where the lie came from but would never say. Another time I was invited into the back room- I was informed I had been shacking up in a motel 1.5 hours away...( some sisters told this and they would not give me the names of these liars! ( I would have had them eat their words ) another sister told me these ones were just waiting for the annoucement I was DF. Anyway, why is it allowed you can be accused of wrong doing, but you are not allowed to know the name of your cowardly lieing accusers?
Elders won't tell you who have falsely accused you
by enoughisenough 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Foolednomore
This is very common practice in their "Kangaroo Court" practice. I had three elders accused me of something in my own home office. Little to their known I had A lawyer working in adjoining room who over heard the conversation and stepped in. His first question to them was "Who the he'll are You?" Second question was " Who is this Accuser, so we can cross examine him?" My lawyer started to grill them. They could not take it and left.
-
DesirousOfChange
Matt 18:15 -- the accuser should go directly to the individual first.
Only after that fails should the elders get involved.
-
hoser
It’s just politics. That’s why it’s best to avoid politics in the watchtower and in the real world.
-
Smiles
If the identity of the accuser(s) is being concealed from an accused, the investigation is simply fishing for an easy confession, because if a confession can be obtained, the burden of proof is lifted, rendering an accuser, eyewitnesses and additional evidence to be no longer necessary.
Secularly and scripturally, the accused (if he/she has not confessed) holds the right to know/face the accuser. (Matthew ch18) <edit
If that right to know/face the accuser is denied... then immediately deny the accusation. The case should then go cold and be held abeyance or entirely dismissed.
However, by WT policy, even an innocent person can be viewed negatively because "he should also have a fine testimony from outsiders" 1 Tim 3:7
In some cases, the only path to true exoneration would be to bring a successful countercharge of slander; but in WT world, that option often presents new risks which may not be worth the hassle.
-
enoughisenough
DesirousOfChange16 minutes ago
Matt 18:15 -- the accuser should go directly to the individual first.
Only after that fails should the elders get involve
Exactly! and that didn't happen...Here is a worse true story: a pioneer sister was being accused of causing contentions in the congregationbecause of some conversation if the service. She asked to be told who these people were. Elder Mr X told me there was going to be a meeting with her because she wanted to know who all was speaking against her. If I had anything against that sister, I should go to the meeting and tell it...to which I replied The worst I had ever seen of her she called someone an ass.(and yes, he did report that comment in the roasting they gave her ) Anyway, she was surprised at the people who showed up to speak against because the elders had put out an invitation. They roasted her...Her elder husband who tried to defend her was threatened with loosing his privilege. They moved an hour away to another congregation where they were spied on and hounded. I don't remember is she disassociated or was df...at anyrate, her husband started seeing and doing odd things and accusing her of adultery.( she claimed unfounded) They divorced.
-
Biahi
That happened to me also! When I brought up Matthew 18, they responded that the individual “didn’t feel comfortable “ speaking to me. I then said, Ok, we’re done here then.” I just walked out. The elders mouths hung open lol. Asshats. Truly a kangaroo court. Not true Christians.
-
Longlivetherenegades
@ desirousofchange
Please no where in that account of Matthew 18 that elders were mentioned. Emphasis on your use of elders
-
waton
here is a true story. a couple was to be married in the kh, after a super chaste courtship. He was a scripturally divorced man. They needed approval from his previous congregation. <24 hours through 12 time zones before the ceremony and banquet, there was a sudden delay. One of the elders in his previous congregation asserted that he had, more than a year ago, spend a night in a motel with his former wife and daughter.
The same "spirit appointed elder" had previously at a pre- judicial meeting asserted he had seen a culprit with a boy. (in public but potentially questionable circumstances.) The meeting was about involvement with a female.
In both cases, the accusations were dismissed just in time, the question came up though, if the subject did, or was in danger of committing an offence, why did he not intervene, or scripturally question the culprit ASAP? why only bring up these false accusation at a point where timely refutation was nearly impossible?
wt appointee justice at it's finest.
-
SadElder
Very rarely do dubs apply the principle of Matt. 18. Preferring instead to tattle and gossip. They have some explanation why this doesn't apply in certain cases. I couldn't find the reference in any of my eldub notes.