Inconsistency of 2 Witness rule

wozadummy

I want to put this out for comment and also direct this to lurker JW's as something to think about. Witnesses have the 2 witness rule to prove whether a JW pedophile,molester,drunkard beater etc is guilty or not. This protects the perpetrator by the perp simply saying to themself that they have sought Gods forgiveness personally ,so they reason in their minds it's ok to lie about their guilt to the elders and therefore they get off the hook. Well how is it that if ,say ,a man cheats on his wife and she is suspicious she calls on a elder to say she suspects her husband of adultery and his car will be parked at a certain womans address ,and it turns out the car is there all night, this is enough evidence to DF him for adultery. There is no consistency with the 2 witness rule especially if only one elder is witness to this and yet judicial commitees can start over this and perhaps a DF'ing. Let me provide a real life experience that I know is true because it happened to me. My first wife commited adultery just before she became a pioneer and kept it a secret from me for two years. When she told me we contacted an elder and he ALONE came and counselled her and told me no action would be taken against her for she had proven by her full on witnessing work that she was genuinely repentant, but as far as I know he did inform at least some of the elder body. Fast forward 5 years and she announces she's leaving me and the kids and moves into a unit on her own as far as I knew. My daughter stays some nights with her and I continue to pick her up for meetings,and then my daughter says to me that her mother has a male freind and also I should consider getting an AIDS blood test .Well this blew me away especially coming from a 13 year old! Some time had past since she had left us so I passed on this info about the other man to the same elder mentioned before who was the congregation overseer and urged him to go and catch her out as I was tired of the witness rule being unable to remarry for there was no proof of my exwifes infidelity unless the elders had proof. So off the elder goes on HIS OWN to see her and she DA's herself on the spot(I guess she admitted to adultery but I don't know for sure, but i was permitted to remarry). Well this releases me from the marraige according to the Watchtower ,but this is inconsistant is'nt it...a molested child needs 2 witnesses to disgusting events but an adulterer only needs ONE according to this real life experience! Are there other people who have noticed this inconsistency as well by their experiences?

Wasanelder Once

Damn good point! Sometimes its the most obvious inconsistencies that are overlooked. I hadn't thought of that. You aint no dummy no more.

Gotta keep this in mind.

W.Once

fullofdoubtnow

Hi wozadummy,

This is something I have also noticed, and in fact what helped sow the seeds of doubt in my mind about the wts. We had a case in our congregation, whereby the perpetrator escaped punishment by the elders because he denied the accusation by his daughter and wife, who eventually went to the police. He is now serving 7.5 years in jail, but was repentant and allowed to stay a jw in good standing, while his oldest daughter, who was the only one of children baptised, and his wife, were disfellowshipped.

The po described all four of his daughters as promiscuous, though the youngest was only 5 when he started on her, so the brother couldn't help himself, they led him on. When I left, around 6 months after the case went to court, there were still people in the kh, including elders, who refused to believe he was guilty as there were not 2 witnesses to the abuse, even though he admitted his guilt in court. The point was, as far as they were concerned, he hadn't admitted it to the elders, and the required standard of proof had not been met in their eyes.

I believe they do this to protect the wts and their congregations' reputation. That seems to be more important to them than the welfare of the children being abused, so while they will df adulterers without the 2 witness rule, they still insist on it for child abuse cases, using fear tactics on the victims to stop them going to the police. Obviously, anyone who has the intention of raping a young child is not going to do so in front of witnesses, which is why jw child abusers are able to offend again and again without any action being taken by the elders, even though may be well aware of what is happening. The org has been described as a paedophile paradise, and personally I think that is a fitting description.

As for the elders who take part in this cover up, and I am acquainted with some who did, when they have the power to prevent it from happening, I really don't know how they sleep at night knowing what untold misery their failure to act is causing to children. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

OnTheWayOut

I am not 100% clear on how your story applies. Your wife and the elder were
two witnesses. The second time, she DA'ed. I am not sure how your
case would have worked out if she decided to deny the allegations.
But I will work with you here.

The 2-Witness-Rule is a loophole used by people, especially pedophiles who
prey upon one victim. If the information comes to the attention of elders, they
should always contact the authorities and let them investigate before any
congregation investigation. It is more important to protect the victim than to
get some technical ruling in the cong. This should be done regardless of what the
local law says they need to do.

I was going to say- The congregation can follow what the authorities do and
decide whether to proceed judicially or not.
I cannot say that now, because I realize that the cong. ruling is irrelevant.
But if people should be tried judicially by 3 elders of the JW cong., they could
still do it after they allow the police and lawyers to look into the situation.

wozadummy

On the way out Well the problem I have here is not that she confessed ,it's the fact that only one person went to see her and it is the testimony of ONLY that person to the congregation that he witnessed what he did and it is ONLY his testament that says she wanted to DA that is inconsistent. It could be argued that she herself is a witness in the sense because of her apparent confession. We only have his word to go on here as regards the protection of the congregation. What if he pitied my circumstances so much that he fibbed abit to get her announced as removed from the congo, she would'nt know for she had no contact with other witnesses anymore? I guess this can happen and it played on my mind a bit over the years whether I had really been freed up scriptually to remarry from Gods standpoint.Does this make it clearer?

OnTheWayOut

Yeah, that helps. It is possible from their viewpoint that she should never
have been removed from the JW's and disassociated. The elder really
needed a second elder with him or else a letter from her.

I am confident that you now say "It matters NOT."
You are free to do or have already done what you did, and what
elders among Jehovah's Witnesses think is irrelevant.

Thanks for clearing up the point, though.
There are times when two witnesses are not available and the one witness
might be a liar. If the WTS feels so strongly, after turning the matter over to the
police, even if they prove matters by DNA and the pedophile denies it,
the elders could still stick to the rule. I think that's the problem you are
really informing us about- situations like that. I think they are fine-tuning the
acceptable evidence to include things like that, and in the case where there is
no further evidence available to the elders, they can still go with the judicial
decision of the courts in most cases. Still, they should protect the victims first.

wozadummy

Another point to add is, when I used to attend meetings, I asked two elders visiting my new wife in my home "What iff my wifes father (who molested her for years) was convicted by a court and sent to jail ,and still maintained his innocence, would you disfellowship him because a court convicted him or would you still allow him to continue in his old congregation when he is released with minimum restrictions?" They took their time in answering and had to admit they would allow him back and not act at all judicially against him for there was no witnesses to his molesting! Of course noone would be warned of his behaviour and what he went to jail for.

OnTheWayOut

Yeah, that's the true problem. If an active member warned others, they would face the JC,
not your FIL.

diamondblue1974

The elders believe what they want to believe and they apply their own convenient rules when it suits them; its the way of things and shouldnt come as any surprise to any of us.

G

Mystla

My understanding was that it only took one ELDER to witness something, but the r&f needed two witnesses.. If an elder sees it.. it's proof, but if someone tells an elder they need a second witness. So if pedophiles only molested elders they wouldn't need a second witness

I may have completely misunderstood how it worked, but that was the impression I had.

Misty

Inconsistency of 2 Witness rule

Share this