This is a little long, but I think you will find it interesting!!!

The book "ORGANIZED TO ACCOMPLISH OUR MINISTRY" (1989) written by the Watchtower Society has this to say about Matthew 18:15-17 starting on page 142:

"When giving counsel, Jesus outlined some specific procedures for resolving problems of serious wrongdoing, such as fraud or slander, that may arise between fellow Christians........

"If someone in the congregation has committed such a serious sin against you personally, do not be hasty to turn to the overseers, or someone else, requesting them to intervene in your behalf. First of all, as Jesus counsels, speak with the one against whom you have a complaint. Try to resolve the matter between just the two of you without involving anyone else at all. If the matter can be straightened out in this way, the one who has sinned will certainly appreciate the fact that you have not told others about his sin and have not marred his good reputation among others in the congregation. You will have "gained your brother".

"Where the sinner accepts reproof, seeks forgiveness and straightens the matter out, Jesus states there is no need to carry the matter further. This fact shows that, although serious, the offenses here discussed were limited in nature to such as could be settled between the individuals involved. This would NOT include such offenses as FORNICATION, ADULTERY, HOMOSEXUALITY, BLASPHEMY, APOSTASY, IDOLATRY AND SIMLAR GROSS SINS that should be reported to the elders and handled by them. When the Law covenant was in force, these sins required more than forgiveness from an offended individual.

"In view of this and in view of the illustration that Jesus subsequently gave, as recorded at Matthew 18:23-35, the sins considered in Matthew 18:15-17 evidently were sins such as those involving financial or property matters-failure to make proper payment for something or some action involving a measure of fraud......

"If the one who sinned against you cannot be convinced by your reasoning with him alone, then do as Jesus said and take one or two others along and speak with him again. The one or two you take with you should have the same objective, that of gaining your brother. Preferably they should be witnesses of the alleged wrongdoing, BUT IF THERE ARE NO EYEWITNESSES, YOU MAY CHOOSE TO TAKE ALONG RESPONSIBLE BROTHERS WHO BECOME WITNESSES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE DISCUSSION.......

"But if you are convinced that your brother has sinned against you and it has not been resolved either when you spoke with him alone or when you went to him with one or two others, and if a serious sin is involved so that it would be wrong just to let it pass, then you should report the matter to the overseers of the congregation.......

"If upon investigation it should become evident to the shepherds of the flock that the brother has indeed committed a serious sin against you and yet has been unwilling to repent and make appropriate amends, it may become necessary for the overseers to EXPEL THE UNREPENTANT WRONGDOER and in that way protect the flock and safeguard the cleanness of the congregation." (caps mine)

The Watchtower has cited Matthew 18:15-17 as supporting in "principle" their two eyewitness rule requirement. Yet, their own congregation manual does NOT require the witnesses to be eyewitnesses, they can just as well be witnesses to the presentation of evidence that a sin was committed!

In addition, the elders can move to disfellowship someone just on the basis of the evidence provided though there were NO EYEWITNESSES!

HOW IS IT THEN THAT A BROTHER CAN BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED FOR FRAUD THOUGH THERE WERE NO EYEWITNESSES, YET ANOTHER BROTHER CAN ESCAPE DISFELLOWSHIPPING BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EYEWITNESS TO HIS RAPE OF A CHILD???!!!

IW

Dungbeetle,

I don't rely on Kent's site. I have my own personal copy of the "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry", it IS dated 1989 updated from 1983.

IW

Hi Cassiline,

I don't know if there is a difference in the two printings. My point was though, that the Watchtower Society in their Organization book stated that 2 EYEWITNESSES were not necessarily required all the time, that a brother could be disfellowshipped without 2 eyewitnesses to his sin.

Why do they apply a different standard to child molesters?

IW

at times one has to wonder if the WTS itself knows what its policies are...

I spoke with a former "elder" regarding the Silentlambs website months ago and he made the comment that there was no "two-witness" requirement in molestation allegations...This was in defense of WT policy.......

It's no wonder they have to call the legal dept...Is calling "legal" the example Jesus set? just curious.....

Dedaisy is right in one thing. The average dub knows or cares lot less about such things than the users of this board. Ostrich mentality?

Regarding Mathew 18, without quoting directly, my understanding is that the two "Witnesses " are to witness to the discussion with the accused - not the action itself.

Suppose a business or trade contract is disputed. During such a conversation things would be said which may clarify the matter one way or the other. The witnesses would then confirm what was said, no going back on it.

I am afraid it is a different circumstance.

the two editions say the same thing with respect to pages 142-144.

I was referring, Island Women, to the title of your post. What exactly is 'changed' or 'cancelled'? It's a nice catchy title, but is it accurate?

Here is something more to add to the mix:

"Your Word is a Lamp to my Foot" 1967:

'For a matter to be established as true, there must be two or three witness....These cannot be persons who are simply repeating what they have heard from someone else; they must be witnesses of the things concerning which they testify. No action is taken if there is just one witness; it is not the the brothers discredit the testimony, but the Bible requires that, unless the wrongdoer himself confesses his sin, the facts must be substantiated by two ro three witnesses in these serious matters.'

So, :

1967: 'two witness' rule

1983: 'two witness two act' rule

1989 'two witness two act' rule

1995 'two witness one act' rule for child abuse ONLY

2002: 'two witness two act' rule.

new light, old light, STROBE LIGHT...

BEFORE YOU TRY AND REMOVE THE STICK FROM MY ARSE, REMOVE THE TELEPHONE POLE FROM YOUR OWN ARSE.

I knew there was a reason why I haven't read Witness literature in 17 years!

These quotes show an unbelievable lack of insight into the nature of the crime of sexual abuse. You'd think this was some sin of stealing a kid's ice cream and promising not to do it again:

"What if the sufferer decides that he wants to make an accusation? Then the two elders can advise him ..[that]..he should personally approach the accused about the matter."

Say what? Would someone who survived a murder attempt be expected to personally approach the accused to lay the accusation. Unbelievable. Psych 101: even an adult survivor often displays the fear and trauma of their childhood experience when in the presense of ANYONE who REMINDS them of their perpetrator.

"Or perhaps the one accused will confess, and a reconciliation may be achieved. What a blessing that would be!"

Holy pollyanna! A molester needs to face up to his actions. I don't think disclosure is the proper time for a group hug!

"If the accusation is denied, the elders should explain to the accuser that nothing more can be done in a judicial way. And the congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person."

Okay, then suggest to the victim possibilities. ie. here are some agencies that could help you: the police, social services, crisis hotline, and so on.

"Even if more than one person "remembers" abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence."

Lordy, lord. What is the chances that two victims "recalled" an incident of abuse about the same person? Once again, if you want to wash your hands of this, why not suggest calling the police?

Looking at the Catholicism parallel, the Watchtower Society heads do not want to make it easier to dump pedophiles because lots of them are local elders, circuit overseers, district overseers and governing body members, even as Catholics have priests, bishops, archbishops who are pedophiles. You know about Leo Greenlees and Ewart Chitty, don't you? Did you think those two were the entire story??

I say it's a criminal conspiracy. The FBI needs to seize all their records on all 20,000 plus pedophiles! Get Jeff Anderson to have the FBI do its duty!!

Well according to the WTS own website, Mr. Brumley (General Councel for the JWs) says that the assertion that JWs take no action unless the accusation is verified by 2 witnesses is "just simply not true".

He explains:
"Now in addition to seeing to it that the victim is protected, the elders will meet with the accused and find out what he or she has to say about the situation. In those cases, they also contact our headquarters to receive any recommendations or advice that we may have. Where even one allegation is made of child molestation, steps are taken to see to it that the authorities are also involved."

He says that perhaps our accusation comes from what they do interally or judicially.

"If an allegation is raised against a certain individual, elders will meet with that individual to see if he wishes to confess or see if he wishes to seek the help of the elders in any way. If two separate witnesses raise an accusation against an individual, and if it is
found that the practice is going on and he is unrepentant, then the individual is dismissed, or disfellowshipped, excommunicated, from the congregation."

Ahhh...so in order to df someone, the elders need 2 witnesses. So here's what Brumley says is the difference for what requires 1 witness or 2.

"The difference then lies in what we do with regard to legal requirements and protecting the victim. Those steps are taken even if only one individual raises an allegation of child molestation. On a separate matter, disciplinary steps are taken if two witnesses raise an accusation against an individual suspected of being a child abuser."

I would like to know where in there publications and instructions to the elders in the previous years up to now, did it say that "Where even one allegation is made of child molestation, steps are taken to see to it that the authorities are also involved" and that the 2 witness requirement is only for internal needs for disfellowshipping to take place.

No wonder so many elders have not handled these matters right...yes..its ALL their fault for not reading between the lines and for not seeing what wasn't written there.

And what about the poor elders who were told by the Legal dept. to "not get yourself in a jam" and "leave it in J's hands" as we all heard being told to Bill Bowen.

A non-JW very close to me said several years ago, that the JW org is all based on grey areas and vagueness. Hmmmm...howcome it took me so long to see it?

Had Enough

"Never doubt that a small group of citizens can change the world.
Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."...Margaret Mead

IslandWoman, I think you misunderstood the book.

They're saying that if you take somebody along on a Matt18-style confrontation, that you should choose eyewitnesses of the "sin" as your companions. But if there are no eyewitnesses, then somebody else will do.

None of that has any relevance to judicial proceedings, AFAICS.

--
Chip Salzenberg: Free-Floating Agent of Chaos