Dubstepped:
Re: The 2 witness rule
I know that people hate this rule, but are they really supposed to act on every accusation without any evidence? I'm all for them going straight to the authorities and letting people with actual experience and investigative tools (the police) make determinations based on what they gather, but I just don't see how they can go from accusation to df'ing automatically in the congregation.
I see problems with going to calling the organization before the police. I see problems with them not letting the next congregation know that someone was previously accused. If a person is accused on more than one occasion or by multiple people, I can see the need to act. However, one accusation unsupported is difficult to act upon no matter how awful that might be. Am I missing something about the two witness rule? I'm all for protecting kids, but I don't know how anyone can convict whether in the congregation or a court of law without some corroboration somewhere.
I also just don't think that the elders should be in on these cases whatsoever. To me they should recuse themselves based on lack of ability and training in such cases and immediately refer them to the proper authorities and stay out of it
I take your points, but I'm speaking from an outsider's point of view. I think it's necessary to separate the WT internal club rules (dfing etc.) from the real world.
Yes, they should act immediately on receipt of an accusation (or suspicion) by reporting it to the authorities and then getting out of the way. Then they can report it to their HQ if they wish.
Corroboration is always sought - but it's rarely in the form of a personal 'second witness' and is available more often than perhaps you might think if you know what you're doing.
Please don't conflate or confuse court action.with internal WT action (dfing etc.). The latter is only relevant within the 'club'.