Two Witnesses Rule hypocrisy

by confusedjw 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  confusedjw

  Isn't it interesting that if two people see someone leaving someone?s house at 5am, thus they stayed all night, that is grounds for DFing. (see elder's book)

  Yet, when a child says something happened - even if it can be verified that the person was alone with the child at the time - unless there are two witnesses to the ACTUAL CRIME nothing can happen in the way of DFing.

  Why do you have to "see the actual molestation" in the case of a child, but don't have to "see the actual fornication" in the case of an adult?

  Just wondering.

  Wish I had thought of this when I was an elder.
• 

  Poztate

  Why do you have to "see the actual molestation" in the case of a child, but don't have to "see the actual fornication" in the case of an adult?

  You make a very good point with this arguement.The reality is that the WT makes up the rules as they go along.This has nothing to do with justice or fair play. If they want to get you they will and since fornicating is more regarded as a sin than a crime it is easy for them to DF you for it no matter what the evidence is.

  Child molestation charges on the other hand gets them involved with the legal system,lawyers and police. As you know they have always tried to duck and hide from this issue. With Bill Bowen and Silent Lambs this attitude is coming back to haunt them in a big way. I hope all the lawsuits BLEED them to death. It would be a fitting end for them.
• 

  Elsewhere

  Because Brother Perv would NEVER to anything like that!
• 

  SwordOfJah

  It is a good point and one I had not thought of. I would always tend to believe a child because of their innocence in regards to sexual matters. I believe the problem is when an adult comes forward and accuses someone of an abuse that allegedly happened many years before. It is very hard to know what the truth is, specially when someone all of sudden remembers the abuse. I was involved in an investigation where a sister accused her father of abuse. At the time, she was 40 years old and was suffering from bipolar. During our interview with her, she said that she had not taken her medicine for several weeks. We recommended to her husband that he take her to a doctor immediately. A few days later she said that what she had accused her father of was a lie. She was very sorry and could not understand why she would have made such an accusation. We talked about depression. We did not pursue a judicial case against her since we came to the conclusion that without her medicine she had no control of what she was thinking. Sad case, but it goes to show what can happen in some cases.
• 

  fleaman uk

  We talked about depression. We did not pursue a judicial case against her since we came to the conclusion that without her medicine she had no control of what she was thinking. Sad case, but it goes to show what can happen in some cases

  An unusually balanced viewpoint i must admit.

  (why cant i get this chuffing higlight off!)
• 

  Terry

  I would imagine the defense would go like this:

  In the case of leaving "someone else's house" and the case of residing in the "same house" the deciding issue is obvious.

  If a parent is under the same roof with their own child (and molests them) it cannot be seen as unusual for the parent and child to be alone together under the same roof.

  But, if someone travels to the house of another person and leaves at an early hour; this uncommon behavior indicates an out-of-the-ordinary purpose.

  That would be my guess what defense would be offered for this policy.
• 

  Big Tex

  I've got another question: why doesn't physical evidence count under the two witness rule? How else would a child contract a STD, or require emergency room treatment for injuries suffered?

  Sorry, but basically the Society does not want to deal with this issue and these rules are in place for no other reason than to force the victim to shut up.
• 

  undercover

  The two witness rule becomes a very delicate subject when child abuse becomes involved. I'm convinced that the WTS as an entity is more concerned about keeping it's reputation(or what's left of it) intact more than it is in getting to the bottom of a crime or sin that has been committed.

  The elders on the other hand, for the most part, want to do the right thing. Unfortunately, they have been hoodwinked by the WTS into believing that the WTS rules or policies are God's rules or policies. They then follow these rules, sometimes going beyond what even the WTS decrees, thinking they have God's approval and spirit. How many here were once elders and have admitted to towing the WTS line without question? Once their eyes were opened they realized how they were wrong and feel bad about it. I think that a good majority of elders still in would feel the same way once they realized they were duped.

  I'm not excusing elders for their part, but let's remember that any fight with a body of elders over a judicial matter, whether it's child abuse or something else, is not just a fight with a group of men, it's a fight with a multi-million dollar publishing company with lawyers out the ying-yang. Make it difficult for the locals, then the big dogs get called and they make it a real fight, one that the average person would lose, not because they were wrong but because they can't afford the lawyers.

  We need to learn to pick and choose our battles well. Fighting a JC meeting over smoking or fornication is probably not worth the effort, but when children's lives become involved, then it's time to do what's necessary to protect the innocent children from being further abused by sexual predators or manipulated by a power-hungry corporation.
• 

  outoftheorg

  SWORD OF JAH, PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO ME. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY THESE ACTIONS. I DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME SO I WILL GIVE THE SHORT VERSION.

  A YOUNG WOMAN NOT A JW TOLD MY SON THAT AN ELDER HAD MOLESTED HER AS A CHILD. MY DAUGHTER HEARD OF THIS AND TELLS ME THAT THE SAME ELDER MOLESTED HER. THIS INFO WENT THROUGH SEVERAL FAMILIES AND A TOTAL OF 5 SISTERS COMPLAINED TO THE ELDERS ABOUT THIS MOLESTER. MY DAUGHTERS UNCLE.

  THE FIRST COMPLAINER SINCE SHE WAS NOT A JW WASN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THE JC. I GUESS SHE WASN'T WORTH THE EFFORT. BEING AN EVIL WORLDLY PERSON.

  THE ELDERS WERE TOLD BY THE SOCIETY TO DROP THE CASE AND THE USUAL THREATS OF SLANDER ETC. WERE ISSUED.

  ABOUT 6 YRS PAST AND ANOTHER GROUP OF SISTERS CONFRONT THE ELDERS WITH COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS SAME MOLESTER. TWO OF MY DAUGHTERS WERE REQUESTED TO TALK TO THE ELDERS ABOUT THEIR ENCOUNTERS WITH THIS ELDER. HE WAS REMOVED FROM THE POSITION OF ELDER.

  ANOTHER 7 YRS GO BY AND AGAIN THIS ELDER IS FACING ACCUSATIONS AND FINALLY HE IS DF'D.

  BY THE WBTS OWN RULES OF 2 OR MORE WITNESSES HE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DF'D THE FIRST TIME 4 SISTERS - O YEAH AND ONE WORLDLY VICTIM MADE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIM.

  WHAT'S WITH THIS HOLY SPIRIT AND THE ELDERS THING.

  IF THE 1ST TIME HAD NOT BEEN PAST THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU

  THE LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM'S HOLY SPIRIT WOULD HAVE ACTED.

  Outoftheorg
• 

  SwordOfJah

  I am not able to justify the actions you refer to either. I cannot though use this version to attack the decisions made by the branch as the whole story is not known. It's hard for me to see how the elders deliberated the case or what information they gave to the Branch office for them to determine a decision. The only thing I can see is the amount of time that transpired between cases, so most definetely a completely different set of elders handled the last judicial case. These elders obviously did the right thing by finally disfellowshipping this individual.