by neat blue dog 17 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Shows they take notice of criticism. ......they are responding hurt like a teenager who is abused on Twitter!
In reality , their Scriptural reply does not address the issue. I have not seen criticism of the 2 witness rule for normal sins . It is in respct of child abuse which of necessity takes place in secret.
All that people ask is that all accusations are turned over to the Police, who can expertly investigate.
Since it is a serious crime, that is where it belongs.
This criticism is being voiced for the long time, it does not need necessarily to be based on the 5th Nov protest. The same question was raised many times in the kingdom halls/literature carts - see youtube videos.
Their reaction is classic straw man. People would not criticize judicial committee procedure if only the matters were reported to the police. In other words, it is okay to have the 2w rule, but it cannot prevent the matter from being reported to the authorities. This is something the WTS do not explain to their sheep and they build a straw man. They do not separate 2 things:
1, how a religious community "punishes" somebody
2, police investigation of the matter
The speaker mentions that the apostates are challenging the scriptural position of the “two witness” rule as it pertains to establishing a judicial committee and that the media has discussed this as well.
He does not mention at all that the criticism over this “two witness” rule is in regards to child molestation, he conveniently leaves that part out. Courts all over the world have agreed that this type of activity is considered a crime to be reported immediately to the authorities and is usually engaged in secrecy with no witnesses present.
With the escalating number of child abuse cases worldwide and particularly the negative assessment of WT policies on this matter from the Australian Royal Commission, many here were eager to see some reasonableness or reform on this subject from the WT leaders.
Instead, the speaker concludes after reading two scriptures showing the Biblical necessity of “two witnesses” as it applies to taking judicial action by saying “…we will never change our scriptural position on that subject.”
Im sorry baldeagle but your wrong. They HAVE to change the two witness rule. They are afraid of the vast apostate army. Havnt you been reading what all 10 members of the vast army are telling you???? The gb fears them.
Was their program was impacted by the "apostates?"... of course. They're among the most reactive -- and least proactive -- people on the planet.
"WE will NEVER" change our scriptural position on this subject" -- or for as as long as the settlement money runs out.
Their intransigence will doom them eventually.
Splane is the most wooden presenter imaginable.
The later speaker says:
"The apostates are talking about, the media has picked it up, others have also picked it up..."
I wonder who he means, "others have also picked it up" apart from "apostates" and the "media". The Australian Royal Commission, maybe? Or maybe he didn't have anything in particular in mind. Just a sentence filler. JW speakers have a distinctive way of speaking that is especially devoid of actual information.
JW speakers have a distinctive way of speaking that is especially devoid of actual information. -- SBF
In creative writing class, we discuss (I harp on) crucial elements to effective writing, viz., clarity, concise content, correct information, etc.
Yes, having actual information is a plus!
Evidently™ the conflict between the 2-Witness Rule and the reporting of child abuse is becoming better known even among active JWs so that the GB determined they needed to address the flock and put their own "spin" on it.You should expect that they will spin it that "we follow the higher authority -- GOD". Remember that their public spin does not necessarily reflect what they do behind the scenes. (ie, we do not break up families.)
However, from some personal experience, it's my understanding that elders are instructed to report any "whiff" of abuse in the States that have mandatory reporting laws (which is the situation in this State).
