Posts by Sola Scriptura

66

The two witness rule

by dgp in

suppose an active jehovah's witness sees a worldly person abusing a worldly child; for example, touching her genitals, and the witness goes to the police.

the worldly police will take action.. now, suppose the same jehovah's witness also sees a witness abusing a witness child in the same way, touching her genitals.

the witness knows he can't go to the elders because there are not two witnesses to the fact.. does the witness get to think that there is something very wrong about the two witnesses rule?

To: GLTirebiter

Awesome find! (I stand corrected)
This is the first I've ever seen from the Catholic Church.

Is this Official Policy of the entire Catholic Church now? or is this the policy of just the Denver Archdiocese?

Thanks for the info.
---
Sola Scriptura

"Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts." - Charles T. Russell
Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. pp. 8-9 July 1879

66

The two witness rule

by dgp in

suppose an active jehovah's witness sees a worldly person abusing a worldly child; for example, touching her genitals, and the witness goes to the police.

the worldly police will take action.. now, suppose the same jehovah's witness also sees a witness abusing a witness child in the same way, touching her genitals.

the witness knows he can't go to the elders because there are not two witnesses to the fact.. does the witness get to think that there is something very wrong about the two witnesses rule?

Sola Scriptura

To: truthseekeriam
You said:

I'm sorry, but we lived it. I did exactly what you all say to do, I went to the authorities first and guess what? We were treated like crap by the elders from that point on. Did they say, "you did the wrong thing?" No...

I'm so sorry things happened that way.

All I can say is the Elders Gone Wild™ did not handle your case with Love. (There are still Weeds among the Wheat of Christians... Even at some of the highest levels of Christianity).

But all cases don't turn out the way yours did. I have personal knowledge of Elders going that extra mile to protect the congregation. If you have time read about here: Post 18 by me.

When things go right they rarely get advertised. But when things go wrong... well... we hear about here on JWN. (As well we should!) Thus bringing what happens in the dark into the light. That's why I applaud the courage of Barbara Anderson and others like you in bringing the "Facts" to us.

Please read the debate I had with Big Tex here.
(Specifically post 12978 by him. Toward the end he starts off with: "Truthfully? Okay, I'll be very honest. I don't think I've ever posted this anywhere online on any board." He reveals his full story for the 1st time on JWN!) His story will break your heart. But he made it through. I'm sure his courage to tell his horrific experience has touched and encouraged many victims here on JWN.

I look forward to when the following scripture becomes reality for us all.

Revelation 21:4 (Contemporary English Version)

"He will wipe all tears from their eyes, and there will be no more death, suffering, crying, or pain. These things of the past are gone forever."

Agape,
---
Sola Scriptura

“I made an ass of myself.”
- J. F. Rutherford

66

The two witness rule

by dgp in

suppose an active jehovah's witness sees a worldly person abusing a worldly child; for example, touching her genitals, and the witness goes to the police.

the worldly police will take action.. now, suppose the same jehovah's witness also sees a witness abusing a witness child in the same way, touching her genitals.

the witness knows he can't go to the elders because there are not two witnesses to the fact.. does the witness get to think that there is something very wrong about the two witnesses rule?

Sola Scriptura

To Mary:

You said:

Yes, but as I've already stated, the authority that the Nation of Israel had when conducting a criminal investigation had long passed by Jesus' day. They did not have the legal authority to dole out punishments

1) 1 Timothy 5:19 is written to the Christian Congregation. (thus continuing not ending the long held "Two Witness" Principle).

2) Child Abuse is BOTH a Crime and a Sin;
So Caesar should handle the Crime While the congregation handles the Sin (To Disfellowship or not).

3) The Parents have the number one responsibility and right to protect their children and go to the authorities to stop further abuse. If the Society, CO, Local elder etc takes away that right, then they are scripturally wrong to do so.

Much Respect Mary

66

The two witness rule

by dgp in

suppose an active jehovah's witness sees a worldly person abusing a worldly child; for example, touching her genitals, and the witness goes to the police.

the worldly police will take action.. now, suppose the same jehovah's witness also sees a witness abusing a witness child in the same way, touching her genitals.

the witness knows he can't go to the elders because there are not two witnesses to the fact.. does the witness get to think that there is something very wrong about the two witnesses rule?

Sola Scriptura

To leavingwt:

You said:

Greetings.

Greetings! Thanks for the warm welcome.

May I ask a few questions?

(1) Do the JWs subscribe to 'Sola Scriptura'? (just wondering, since it's your screen name)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

"Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God...

sola scriptura reflects a careful tension between the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture necessary for its role as final authority, and the occasional need for its meaning to be revealed by exposition (Hebrews 5:12)...

By contrast, the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that the Scriptures are not the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. For them Scripture is but one of three equal authorities; the other two being Sacred Tradition and the episcopacy".

Based on the above definition, I believe we collectively try to be. Problems for us often arise from the "logical deduction" & "revealed by exposition" parts.

Like early Christians, Modern Christian Leaders sometimes go WAY "beyond what is written". This often happens when they focus to much on trying to "logically deduce" from the Bible, then "Reveal by exposition" things that God chose not to include in it.

(2) The advice you've given above sounds pretty good. Why doesn't the Society direct the publishers in the same manner?

Thank you. The advice is only my personal opinion. Why the Society does not, is not in my realm of knowledge.

From my personal experience:
a) Even when you make it clear to parent(s), they will not in any way bring reproach on the congregation or God by publicly going to the police, many times they still decide not to go, when the Accused is a close friend or family member. (This is a common human trait demonstrated by many Non JWs as well).

b) It's easier for Parents to go the Police when the Accused is a stranger or someone not close to them.

(3) In addition to contacting the Police and the Elders, would it be the loving thing to do to warn other parents within the congregation, so that they may keep their children away from the molester?

Yes.
But those who do the warning must be very careful that the Accused doesn't bring charges of slander against them if their guilt has not been established yet. That's the slippery slop Elders must walk. One most Churches don't dare touch.

Can you name one Major Religion that officially announces warnings of "Accused Child Molesters" to the flock?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

If the Parents go to the Police 1st and the Child Abuser is arrested on credible evidence, Parents relaying factual information to fellow parents of the Accused arrest and subsequent trial would not be slanderous, because there will be Public Knowledge of the arrest to point to. (At least that how it should work on paper. But Imperfect Humans always get in the way of the Perfect Plan )

Agape,
---
Sola Scriptura

“I made an ass of myself.”
- J. F. Rutherford

66

The two witness rule

by dgp in

suppose an active jehovah's witness sees a worldly person abusing a worldly child; for example, touching her genitals, and the witness goes to the police.

the worldly police will take action.. now, suppose the same jehovah's witness also sees a witness abusing a witness child in the same way, touching her genitals.

the witness knows he can't go to the elders because there are not two witnesses to the fact.. does the witness get to think that there is something very wrong about the two witnesses rule?

Sola Scriptura

To Mary:

You said:

Old Testament example which is certainly not binding on Christians.

I listed these scriptures to primarily show: The "Principle" of the "Two Witness" rule is consistently mentioned throughout the entire Bible. (New & Old testament).

This valid Biblical "Principle" is what JWs use as a foundation for many major & minor Official Policies in the JW World.

2 Timothy 3:16 (Amplified Bible)
"Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action)"

Sorry Sola. But a "complaint" is something quite different than a "crime". Complaints were something that could still be handled internally both by the Jews and the first century Christians. Crimes were not.

Notice this translation:
1 Timothy 5:19 (Amplified Bible)

Listen to no accusation [presented before a judge] against an elder unless it is confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

accusation (?ækj?'ze???n)
— n
1. an allegation that a person is guilty of some fault, offence, or crime; imputation
2. a formal charge brought against a person stating the crime that he is alleged to have committed

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accusation

What Caesar (Government) decides to do with accusations consisting of only one witness is up to Caesar. But this scripture is clear on how the congregation should internally handle ANY accusation brought by only one witness.

That's why I believe Parents should ALWAYS go to the Police 1st & the Elders 2nd. Because the Elders hands are scripturally tied when it's one persons word against anothers. (Innocent until proven guilty).

You may believe you "reasonably showed" that the WTS's official position is "sound and reasonable" but I read over the links you provided and you showed nothing of the kind.

Please show me 1 or 2 specific examples of where I failed to make my case. (I'm always willing to accept Truth wherever I can find it. But it must be proven to me 1st.)

What you did do was ignore anyone who didn't agree with your weak argument...

In the debate with Big Tex, I responded to as many people as I had time for. (You must remember, we JW apologist are greatly out numbered here on JWN).

In the debate with Barbara Anderson, I stated clearly at the beginning of the thread that I would be debating the subject with Barbara only, (one of the best experts on the "facts" involving the JW Child abuse problem).

Here is the disclaimer I posted at the beginning of the Barbara Anderson debate thread:

(disclaimer to other thread readers: Since I have very limited daily "free time" to spend here. (you know how "busy" we JW's are ) Please don't be offended if I fail to respond individually to you all. I do read ALL comments. Thank you)

Mary, I respectfully await your response to show me 1 or 2 specific examples of where I failed to make my case.
---
Sola Scriptura

"Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts." - Charles T. Russell
Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. pp. 8-9 July 1879

66

The two witness rule

by dgp in

suppose an active jehovah's witness sees a worldly person abusing a worldly child; for example, touching her genitals, and the witness goes to the police.

the worldly police will take action.. now, suppose the same jehovah's witness also sees a witness abusing a witness child in the same way, touching her genitals.

the witness knows he can't go to the elders because there are not two witnesses to the fact.. does the witness get to think that there is something very wrong about the two witnesses rule?

Sola Scriptura

To wobble:

you said:

Is the "two witness" crap found anywhere in the New Testament ?

The "two witness" Principle is consistently found throughout the entire Bible.

Deuteronomy 19:15 (The Message):
You cannot convict anyone of a crime or sin on the word of one witness. You need two or three witnesses to make a case.

1 Timothy 5:19 (The Message):
Don't listen to a complaint against a leader that isn't backed up by two or three responsible witnesses.

John 8:17 (Amplified Bible):
In your [own] Law it is written that the testimony (evidence) of two persons is reliable and valid.
---

I had two very respectable & comprehensive debates with two very respected JWN posters about this subject. I believe I reasonable showed that the JW current Official Policy, (although not perfect), is both sound and reasonable in balancing the inherit rights of the Accused (innocent until proven guilty) with the needs of the Victim.

Click below to view the debates (Then comment back on this thread if you wish) :

Barbara Anderson debate:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/180508/2/Its-WT-leaders-not-elders-who-are-responsible-for-all-the-harm-My-Geneva-Switz-lecture-posted-here-for-new-ones-Sola-Scriptura-to-read

Big Tex debate:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/180309/2/Anyone-heard-of-Watchtower-policy-change-concerning-pedophiles
---
Much respect to all.
Sola Scriptura

"Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts." - Charles T. Russell
Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. pp. 8-9 July 1879

77

It's WT leaders, not elders, who are responsible for all the harm. My Geneva, Switz. lecture posted here for new ones & Sola Scriptura to read

by AndersonsInfo in

keep it secret has been wts child abuse policy for years.

he said the policy that jehovah's witnesses have on how to handle cases of child abuse is without equal in the religious community.

why keep these forms secret?.

Sola Scriptura

Hello Barbara,

I will only respond "Publicly" to your reply.
So please post your PM to the thread, and I will respond to it "Publicly".

sincerely,

--
Sola Scriptura

"Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts." - Charles T. Russell
Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. pp. 8-9 July 1879

77

It's WT leaders, not elders, who are responsible for all the harm. My Geneva, Switz. lecture posted here for new ones & Sola Scriptura to read

by AndersonsInfo in

keep it secret has been wts child abuse policy for years.

he said the policy that jehovah's witnesses have on how to handle cases of child abuse is without equal in the religious community.

why keep these forms secret?.

Sola Scriptura

Barbara,

I sincerely await your rebuttal.

---

Sola Scriptura

77

It's WT leaders, not elders, who are responsible for all the harm. My Geneva, Switz. lecture posted here for new ones & Sola Scriptura to read

by AndersonsInfo in

keep it secret has been wts child abuse policy for years.

he said the policy that jehovah's witnesses have on how to handle cases of child abuse is without equal in the religious community.

why keep these forms secret?.

Sola Scriptura

To AndersonsInfo:

You said:

I actually have many more than two-witnesses to back up my allegations, actual real-life experiences that bolster my claims.

Then please present your best ones to support your conclusions. I want to fully hear both sides of the story, so I can refine my own conclusions.

Please read the Morley case than you’ll know.

All the answers are there. The questions you ask can’t be answered because they do not apply.

Why don't they apply? Please highlight the best answers that support your conclusions. Please don't suggest that I go find them for you.

If you replace "Morley case" with "Bible" your argument begins to sound like typical JW Circular Reasoning You must present the "proof" for your claims, not me.

RE: Conclusion #1

Sola, at times you’re critical of WT leadership at the top, but, generally, you lay the blame for most of what is wrong with this organization at the feet of “elders-gone-wild,” men who you say did not obey the directions of their superiors.I suppose you think that if all the elders did what they were told, crossed every “t” and dotted every “i”, this child abuse mess would never have developed? However, that’s not true. It’s because most elders did obey the Governing Body’s poorly thought out directives that caused the problems.

Elders Gone Wild™ often pick and choose what and what not to obey from the GB, based on their own self interest.

page 112 of the Elder Guide book states:

"Probing questions should not go into needless details, especially in regard to sexual misconduct, unless this is absolutely necessary, such as in determining whether porneia had been committed"

How many times have people complained on this board, that Elders Gone Wild often "probe" (no pun intended) for deeper "juicy" details AFTER the wrongdoer has already confessed to having sex. What difference does it make where and what positions they did it in. Or how much they "liked" it. (If they are doing it right, they should "like" it a lot. It's sex! duh)

It's clear that Elders Gone Wild pick and choose what they want to obey.

Inasmuch as the elders are not free agents, who have decision-making freedom, but are directly appointed agents by the Governing Body...

...It is the GB who establishes policies and directs practices for all JWs and make appointments of men for “positions of trust,” ...

Your questions do not apply to this case and you’ll see that when you read the case documents. Anyway, WT appointed the elders who recommended the monster molester...

Elders being Directly Appointed Agents by the Governing Body is a JW Misnomer.

I provide as evidence the statements of "Amazing", a well respected Ex JW Elder here on JWN:

Reality of how JW men are appointed to be Elders: Bear in mind that not all Elders in every congregation operate the same way. Some are more conscientious and try to apply the bible standard, but many other do not. I bas the following on my experiences in 9 congregations spread across 3 states, and the comments made by other Elders I have discussed this topic from as many more congregations. The following is, I believe, a fairly representative example of the appointment process...

Next, the PO says that we have to now market Brother Chuck. We want him to be seen by the CO as having a major role in Congregation activities...

What a farce! Not once did we ever crack open the Bible or even use the Organization book as guidance...

I have never seen an Elder really stand up and pull for someone against the group mentality of the Elders as a whole. Only on one occasion did I ever see a CO break with the Elders, ...But, the Elders recommended that we wait 6 months to give Brother Move-In more time. To CO reluctantly caved in.

Which group is controlling the BALL here? The WT Leadership or Elders Gone Wild?

... by the way: Brother Chuck who was appointed – well – he was one of the child molesters who was later removed as an Elder. He had a child molesting record that went back years - as this was determined by talking with Elders from previous congregations. He was never turned over to the authorities. Only when he molested a non-JW child did the law get involved. Yes, real fine job the Elders did in making this recommendation. It is, as always, - Simply Amazing

Most Ex-Elders on here understand the GB, DOs, COs have really nothing to do with the appointment of Elders. Elders are "rubber stamped". The GB doesn't really know what kind of Elders they are getting until it's too late.

The CO may look at the potential Elders paper trail of field service (Easy to fake) and "observe" him for a week during his visit, usually from the stage in the form of a talk.

COs don't give extensive interviews of potential Elders either, Unless "talking" with him while
knocking on empty homes count.

Unless a potential Elder does something stupid like Praying for the return of Ray Franz from the stage during the CO visit, he's pretty much "rubber stamped" as an Elder by the WT Leadership.

In practice Elders appoint Elders. Not the GB.

The facts are that pre-1996, the GB and their top supervisory force did not sufficiently inform or train their agents in the matter of child abuse. They knowingly allowed men who had molested before they were baptized and men who molested since they were baptized to remain in “positions of trust.” When they fully realized how liable they were in the matter, the solution was the directive in the Jan. 1, 1997 Watchtower article, “Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked” Jan. 1, 1997 Watchtower magazine. The article explained if a man was a child molester before he was baptized, he would not qualify for congregation privileges. If he molested after he was baptized, he did not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. By putting that directive in the Watchtower magazine, Watch Tower leadership inadvertently admitted that this was the situation before the article was published. So here’s proof that it was at the top that we can lay the blame, not with local elders at the bottom of the hierarchy,

This statement "only" supports the conclusion that the GB was NOT innocent. (Which I already agree with!)
It does not support the conclusion that Elders are not negligent too, for just following orders.
Negligence: (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up") It is the opposite of "diligence". It can be generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from foreseeable risks of harm.

RE: Conclusion #2

Witness pedophiles don’t grab children they meet during the door-to-door work. They study with poor, ignorant, divorced women to get to their children who they definitely “groom.” In one case the wife and husband went together door-to-door. She knew what her husband was (a pedophile) and yet she enabled him by not going with him to study the Bible with very ignorant abandoned women and then gaining their trust, he would baby sit with the children and the rest is to awful to talk about.

So, I assume "we agree" that people in general, (other than "poor, ignorant, divorced women" with children ) don't need to worry about JW pedophiles at their door, exercising their right to "Free Speech", any more than people need to worry about Non-JW pedophiles going trick or treating with their children. Is that Correct?

RE: Conclusion #3

I was not even thinking about other churches child abuse policies when I mentioned this example. The issue was the WT’s confidentiality policy. I asked a question—How would you like to attend a church, any church, where such a scary person attended and not know it? The answer is of course, nobody would like it.

No doubt your audience envisioned their local Church, because that's the image your question evoked. If I was a average church goer listening to your speech, I would probably say to myself:

"Hey! wait a minute. My Church doesn't "announce" to us the Past Criminal Records of the congregation. So, how do I know that new Brother Scary Dude is not a pedophile. I better look his name on the Internet when I get home. Thanks Barbara!"
RE: Conclusion #4

The August 1, 1995 Bodies of Elders letter was written because of me. (See, things are not what they seem, are they?) Before that letter, there was no such “Official” policies protecting all of the 1-3 in your post above.

Yes there was. Here's my proof:

The 1995 letter served as "additional" information added to what they had already written as "official" Policy.

Notice what the JW elder guide book says:
(originally written in 1977, not long after the Elder arrangement was started, with periodic revisions in 1979, 1981 & 1991 years before that 1995 letter. years before you left.)

#1) Green

page 93:

"Victims of sexual abuse need to be treated with extreme thoughtfulness and kindness. Elders should always do what they reasonably can to protect children from further abuse; follow the Society's directives on such matters."

page 118,119:

"Handling Cases of Wrongdoing With Wisdom and Mercy

However, having the witness confront the accused alone
may not be advisable in all cases.

For example:

When the witness is a victim of the wrongdoer as in cases
of incest or rape.

When the witness is extremely timid.

In such cases, or when other extenuating circumstances
exist, two elders may discuss the matter with the accused,
or an elder may accompany the witness to discuss the matter with the accused."

on page 111

#2) Blue

"The committee should not take action against a person unless the evidence clearly proves this necessary.
Failure to appear before the committee is not in itself proof of guilt."

on page #112

#3) Red

You must exercise mercy in matters of judgment, not only by showing compassion in the Judgement rendered but also by expressing kind consideration and pity in your efforts both to bring wrongdoers to repentance and to heal and restore those who are repentant.(Rom. 2:4; Jas. 5:14-16; Jude 22,23)

---

Let's face it:

Men in general HATE dealing with the messy details of child molestation, (unless it's their child of course). Especially men forged from the post-war 1950's era. This is why as a woman, (no offense to all you sensitive men out there), your natural sense of Empathy helped move JW child abuse policies progressively forward.

For that I and the Children of the JW World thank you!
---

I believe we have come to a general agreement on conclusion #2 now.

I believe conclusion #3 is just a semantical difference between us. No big deal.

So let's focus now on #1 & #4. Agreed?
---

Please specifically present your proof to back up your conclusions #1 & #4

#1) It's WT leaders, NOT elders, who are responsible for ALL the harm

(I clearly give strong evidence of Negligence on the part of Elders Gone Wild™)

#4) JWs policies protected pedophiles RATHER than children.
(I clearly give strong evidence against this statement via the color coded "official" JW policies
above. Green, Blue & Red)

I sincerely await your rebuttal.
--
Sola Scriptura

"Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts." - Charles T. Russell
Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. pp. 8-9 July 1879

20

Is it ok to malign another's faith?

by bluecanary in

i've seen this come up on multiple threads.

rather than derail them all, i'd like to talk about it here.. jws seem to feel that it is a form of persecution for anyone to question, doubt or speak negatively of their beliefs or organization.

yet, they are taught to do this to other religions.

Sola Scriptura

To bluecanary:

you said:

For the pro-JWs: Do you agree or disagree with the above quote?

I agree. But I don't believe anyone's religion should be Maligned. Doctrinal Debates and a Religions past wrongdoings lead to great discussions if done with respect.

Is it a double standard to apply this only to other religions?

Yes!

Can you justify why this should not also be applied to the witnesses?

It should be applied to us. Our Past, Current & Future wrongdoings should be FAIR game. We can't Preach the Candor of the Bible and Not Practice the Candor of the Bible.

Take Care,

---

Sola Scriptura

“I made an ass of myself.”

- J. F. Rutherford