Joe, Auld & Big Tex,
A couple of thoughts about the child abuse issue. AuldSoul is exactly right. Although I have personally never handled a child abuse case (thank God because I'd probably cause serious harm to the molester and then I'd be the one in jail), here's the procedure:
1 - Call Legal. When you call, you do not know who you are talking to. I've called the service desk many times and after verifying my information, they still won't give you their name.
2 - They will give you advice over the phone but will put nothing in writing. See AuldSoul's posts for the reasons. They want to give the illusion that the local body comes up with stuff on their own when they have in writing that step 1 is to call Legal!! They'll just deny they ever spoke to the local elder.
3 - Armed with their "advice" you proceed. I'll get to Big Tex's excellent questions now:
1) Please name one scripture in the Bible in which Jehovah, one of his prophets, the Mosaic law, Jesus, or one of the apostles, dictates that a child abuse victim must present two eyewitnesses to prove their abuse. Just one scripture is all I ask. Realize I'm not talking about a dispute between brothers, I'm referring specifically to the assault and/or rape of an innocent child.
None that I'm aware of
) Why did Jehovah made very specific provision for a woman who was raped , working in the field and away from any eyewitnesses, and yet not make the same provision for a child? Jesus said that anyone who harmed a child would be better off having a millstone tied around their neck and thrown into the sea. Surely Jehovah, the One who sees all (even things hidden behind closed doors), and Jesus' Father and Creator, would know that children are not sexually abused in front of other adults who can bear witness. Why then did Jehovah give an adult woman, who does not have an eyewitness, a provision and understanding, but did not do the same for a defenseless and innocent child?
I never thought of that point. There is no difference in child molestation and rape. Its a different form of rape, but still rape. There is no defense for this point.
) Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not recognize the courts of law as a second witness? When one of Jehovah's Witnesses is convicted of child abuse, the elders will not disfellowship that one if the victim cannot present 2 eyewitnesses. If, however, the offender is tried in a court of law, and convicted, why is that conviction not considered a second witness?
I've asked this question as well. I know of some elders who think that the courts can act as a second witness but I've personally seen nothing or heard nothing from "official" channels that has changed the rule. One lame response I got from a CO was that since the courts were not EYEwitnesses, then they couldn't be counted as one of the two witnesses. When faced with that sort of logic, I changed the subject. Yeah, never mind that an innocent child has been harmed.
(4) In the "Flock" book, elders are instructed that they may accept the testimony of unbelievers. Please show me the scriptural basis whereby Jehovah puts conditions on the two witnesses to child abuse. Please also show the scripture whereby Jehovah gives his followers leeway to accept or deny testimony based on acceptance of Jehovah alone (i.e., whether a member of Israel or a Christian).
(5) In the "Flock" book, elders are instructed that they may accept the testimony of minor children. Please show me the scriptural basis whereby Jehovah puts conditions on the two witnesses to child abuse. Please also show the scripture whereby Jehvovah gives his followers leeway to accept or deny testimony based on age alone.
I know you already know the answers, but there is no defense for either statement.
6) Do you believe every single account of child abuse amongst Jehovah's Witnesses is false? If not, then do you believe one of Jehovah's Witnesses has molested a child? If you believe so, then please explain what Jehovah's Witnesses are doing, or have done, to correct these errors? Realize of course, that Jehovah again and again provided correction for the nation of Israel when that spirit inspired organization made errors. Therefore, what is the current spirit directed organization doing, or has done, to correct errors made regarding child abuse?
There are some that actually think that way. They haven't had a family member harmed yet, so they think that in a spiritual paradise, this can't happen. They're right, it can't happen in the stated definition of a spiritual paradise. That means either 1) all the cases are false or 2) there is no spiritual paradise.
I've tried to understand the reason for the crazy abuse policy. It's a little better now because at least they've instructed elders to not threaten abuse members with judicial action if they go to the police. Not saying that everyone listens to that nugget of common sense.As a matter of fact, if faced with such an issue, the first thing in my opinion is to instruct the person TO go to the police. That's another weakness of the current policy because it just says to tell the person they have that option. I honestly think that the people who originally wrote this policy have never had kids and probably don't even like kids. So, they automatically think that kids are making this stuff up when the reality is the exact opposite. I really believe if the lawyers had their way on this one, there would be automatic reporting (even in a nonreporting state). To me, that lessons the org's liability. I think its the GB that is blocking that for some reason.
If faced with this issue, I would more than likely be disfellowshiped. Because I would 1) tell the parents that the case will be reported and if they don't do it I will, and 2) out the person publically in front of the congregation so parents could keep their kids away.
