by DakotaRed 14 Replies latest jw friends
"...one witness or victim in each of two or more different cases make up the sufficient number of witnesses to have the molester convicted."
Old Hippie, I don't understand, if that is the case, why is "Fitzwater" not disfellowshipped?
Secondly, what is the definition of "convicted" in the above statement? Disfellowshipped?
Lastly, even if the WTS abided by this, wouldn't it be a more preventive measure to allow the authorities to handle allegations instead of risking a "second" victim?
he was furious,but said that the reason was that they have to be very carefull because if they wrongly accuse someone they could be sued for slander
As long as they don't lose any money or reputation, who cares eh.
I think the wtbts have forgotten that God is the other witness.
"Are you such fools, you sons of Israel? Have you condemned a daughter of Israel without examination and without learning the facts?"
Bang
DakotaRed
I would just like to make sure if my copy is obsolete or you just left out a sentence?
You quoted:
“The testimony of youths may be considered, it is up to the elders to determine if if the testimony has the ring of truth to it.”
“If there are two or three witnesses to the same kind of of wrongdoing but each one is a witness to a separate incident, their testimony can be considered.”
My copy places in between:
"The testimony of unbelievers may also considered, but it must be carefully weighed."
Haereticus, I hand copied the revelant portions calling for two witnesses. Testimony of an unbeliever has nothing to do with requiring two witnesses, so I left that out.
On the pages cited, there is a lot more information, as you know, but none of it really pertains to requiring two witnesses when they now claim they do not.
If they now have a BOE letter dropping the two witnesses requirment in certian cases, that is great! But, I feel they should make that public as it has not always been in effect. Of course, doing so now would be like an admission that they haven't handled matters appropriately in the past.
But, we already know that, don't we?
DakotaRed
OK, I just asked out of curiosity. As we know they sometimes make subtle changes to different editions.
