Confused

obiwan

I have what I think is a good question. The bible states that we should pay ceaser's things to ceaser, but god's things to god. So this means to me that we should obey the "laws of the land" but gods laws are supreme. So, the wt hides behind the two witness rule for child abuse, but now that it is becoming known to the authoraties there are laws being passed that state that when a crime of child abuse is reported to the cong, it must be reported to the authoraties and dealt with. Since the wt follows "god's law" wouldn't they be going against "gods law" by reporting it to the authoraties? How are they side stepping this issue?

DJ

Hi obiwan,

I think that Romans 13 covers it. Child abuse is criminal and should always be reported to the proper authorities. The two witness rule is not for criminal activity . Otherwise would you think that a murderer should not be handed over to the proper authorities if there weren't 2 witneses to the murder? The jw's have changed back and forth how they interpret the "authorities" in Romans 13 and that is a big part of their problem. We are subject to the ALL of the laws of the land, except a law that would cause us to sin against God. Would turning a child molester over to the police be a sin against God? That is ridiculous.

maxwell

I'm no expert on JW doctrine, but here's my take. I think the two witness rule applies to JW judicial proceedings. They may be required to report an accusation of abuse to the government. The government would then conduct their own investigations to find out if the accusation is true and judicial proceedings if necessary. I don't think that would necessarily conflict with JW judicial proceedings. They wouldn't have to abide by government findings in their own judicial proceedings. It might create some bad situations. For example, the government's investigation finds that abuse has occurred, convicts and punishes the person. The JW don't recognize the conviction and allows the person full privileges after they are out of jail or finished with whatever punishment the government gives them. Of course, from the stories I've heard here, that has already happened.

obiwan

Would turning a child molester over to the police be a sin against God? That is ridiculous.

How can you say it's ridiculous? The wt and the bible clearly say that to question a "brother" without two witnesses would bring reproach on him. So the wt will not accuse a brother of such an act without two witnesses, this would bring reproach on him or her, is this not also a sin?

I was not talking about murder, I was taliking about child abuse/molestation. And if the wt were so willing to hand over a child abuser/molester to authorities, would there be such a backlash now?

You said the two winess rule is not for criminal activity. Is it not a crime to abuse/molest a child? That is exactly what the wt is hiding behind....the two witness rule.

Will Power

confusing maybe but don't forget that the WT and its policies is only accountable to itself. It's a change the rules to suit as you go kind of game. Just like "we have no clergy - everyone is equal" - to "that conversation is protected under clergy confidentiality"

In the bible, how many wars were fought by "the chosen" for selfish reasons? Thank you WT for being the puny org that you are when Hitler came to power and the draft was in place.

Elsewhere

Once there is enough legal pressure on the organization, Jehover will come forth and flash a new light in the eyes of the GB... all of a sudden there will be a new policy.

DJ

You said the two winess rule is not for criminal activity. Is it not a crime to abuse/molest a child? That is exactly what the wt is hiding behind....the two witness rule.

Obiwan,

Yes it is a crime, that is what I stated. That's why it should be given to the governing authorities to handle.

mizpah

The elders often dismiss the testimony of "two witnesses" when it involves different incidences of the same type of abuse. Wouldn't one think that two reports of sexual abuse in two different cases would constitute "two witnesses" to the crime if it involved the same perpetrator? No, the elders were more interested in "not bringing reproach upon the organization" than protecting its victims.

But I do think the pressure being exerted on the Watchtower Society will eventually make a change oinpolicy. Already, it is advising its members to report such cases to the authorities. This is a change from keeping these secrets in order to preserve its own image. There has been too much bad publicity over these cases. And it has put the Watchtower Society in a position of "damage control."

Loris

Will Power said

It's a change the rules to suit as you go kind of game. Just like "we have no clergy - everyone is equal" - to "that conversation is protected under clergy confidentiality"

That reminded me of the San Francisco Chronicle article recently that reported on the lawsuits filed in California

Paul Polidoro, the associate general counsel for the Jehovah's Witnesses, said the staff at the church headquarters in New York had not yet seen the lawsuit and had no comment on the specific allegations.

"The majority of these lawsuits are parishioner-on-parishioner incidents," Polidoro said.

Theocratic Warfare at its finest.

Loris

Confused

Share this