i need to find wt articles wher it states that even if you know something to be true, unless there is two witnesses etc. you can't say anything, or risk being DF'd. I remember it, but can't find anything of the quotes website.
Need help finding wt articles on slander/two witness rule etc.
by avishai 7 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
XQsThaiPoes
Actually why would you wana find a quote. If you see a murder but the person is aquitted if you say they are a murderer you are liable. If this works out in civil courts why would you need to find it in a Watchtower that is at parity with established the concept of slander?
-
confusedjw
The two witness rule *can* be applied this way as well, according to the elders book. I see you get drunk, but there is no one around, but I report it. Then someone else comes to the elders and they report that they saw you drunk, now two witnesses to the type of behavior have come forward and the elders could proceed with an investigation and JC. To my knowledge that hasn't changed.
-
garybuss
That is a HUGE subject when I do a word search. Here are a few top hits. GaryB
###############
***
it-1 p. 39 Accusation ***One might be called to account and charged with wrong, yet be entirely innocent, blameless, the victim of a false accuser. Hebrew law, therefore, set forth the responsibility each one in the nation had to bring to account wrongdoers, and at the same time it adequately provided protection for the accused. A few examples from the Mosaic Law will serve to illustrate these principles. If a person had any knowledge respecting a crime, he had to bring the accusation before the proper authorities. (Le 5:1; 24:11-14) The authorities, in turn, were to "search and investigate and inquire thoroughly" into the accusations to determine their validity before administering punishment. (De 13:12-14) An observer was not to hide wrongdoing or fail to bring an accusation against a guilty one, even if the person was a close relative like a brother, son, daughter, or marriage mate. (De 13:6-8; 21:18-20; Zec 13:3) The testimony of two or three witnesses was required, and not just the word of a single accuser.?Nu 35:30; De 17:6; 19:15; Joh 8:17; Heb 10:28.
***
w97 8/15 pp. 27-28 Why Report What Is Bad? ***At least two witnesses are required to establish a charge of wrongdoing. (John 8:17; Hebrews 10:28) If the person denies the charge and your testimony is the only one, the matter will be left in Jehovah?s hands. (1 Timothy 5:19, 24, 25) This is done in the knowledge that all things are "openly exposed" to Jehovah and that if the person is guilty, eventually his sins will "catch up" with him.?Hebrews 4:13; Numbers 32:23.
But suppose the person does deny the charge and you are the only witness against him. Could you now be open to a countercharge of slander? No, not unless you have gossiped to those not involved in the matter. It is not slanderous to report conditions affecting a congregation to those having authority and responsibility to oversee and correct matters. It is, in fact, in line with our desire always to do what is correct and loyal.?Compare Luke 1:74, 75
***
w89 9/15 p. 18 Elders?Treat God?s Flock With Tenderness! ***13 Elders are to serve "for justice itself," always being impartial. So they should act on evidence of wrongdoing, not on mere hearsay. Paul counseled: "Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses." (1 Timothy 5:19) According to Jehovah?s standard, in ancient Israel a person charged with a capital sin was to be put to death ?at the mouth of two or three witnesses, not one.? Moreover, the accused apparently had the opportunity to face his accusers, and if the evidence was adequate, ?the hand of the witnesses first of all was to come upon him to put him to death.??Deuteronomy 17:6, 7.
***
w57 4/1 pp. 216-217 The Christian?s Responsibility Toward Others ***11 Timothy?s responsibilities did not end there. The clean organization is what pleases God. A guard had to be maintained so the organization would not become corrupt. Wrongdoing could not be winked at or overlooked. The overseer must "reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear." Surely it was unpleasant to encounter sin in any congregation and to have to give reproof, but the responsibility could not be side-stepped by God?s minister. The reproof was given after having a hearing, as Paul instructed: "Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses." Even though a close friendship may have been built up over the years or the offender might have been a member of the family, the overseer was obliged to see that Jehovah?s law was honored, "doing nothing according to a biased leaning." No servant or any Christian may shield a wrongdoer from deserved punishment and expect Jehovah?s blessing. It is not a question of butting into the personal business of another, but when any uncleanness is permitted in a congregation or country the work does not prosper. Remember Achan had to be cleaned out of Israel before prosperity was restored and victory won. So for the sake of the organization and for the salvation of one who may have started going in the wrong way, never shield a wrongdoer, even though he be a close friend or member of the family. It is part of the Christian responsibility to keep the organization clean.?1 Tim. 5:19-21; Josh. 7:25, NW.
-
blondie
good job, gary.
-
avishai
If you see a murder but the person is aquitted if you say they are a murderer you are liable. If this works out in civil courts why would you need to find it in a Watchtower that is at parity with established the concept of slander?
It's not the same. This goes to them breaking the law by non-reporting and using star chambers to intimidate folks into not reporting heinous crimes like child abuse, understand?
Thank you Gary and Blondie
-
XQsThaiPoes
It's not the same. This goes to them breaking the law by non-reporting and using star chambers to intimidate folks into not reporting heinous crimes like child abuse, understand?
No. Those are diffrent things you need proof of racketeering which is covered under RECO. Unless I am mistaken the FBI is not pursuing a racketeering case against the Watchtower.
-
Lehaa
I'm sorry forgive me if i sound bitter but it depends who you are as to what sticks. My brother in law was accused of being drunk (a JW), only one person saw him, and although his wife and friends testified that he was miles away, the elders believed the one person and was stripped of his privelidges. Yet an elders son( a MS) was photographed and put on the front of the local paper being at a new years eve party and that was ignored.
where is the justice in that.