The 2 Witness Rule And Divorce

by minimus 14 Replies latest jw friends

  • minimus

    Jehovah's Witnesses talk about the need for a minimum of 2 witnesses to prove a matter as fact.....If a child tells his parents that Brother Love "touched" him where he should not have, UNLESS 2 witnesses can attest to the accusation and saw the alleged action, the elders will do nothing about it if the accused states it never happened.

    Meanwhile, if a Jehovah's Witness wife told the elders that her unbelieving husband admitted to HER that he had committed adultery, and there were NOT 2 witnesses,only her word, if the elders believed her, she could write a statement for the elders stating her situation and she would then be free to remarry in the future!

    As long as the elders believed her and accepted what she said as truth, she would be free to marry another and not be guilty of adultery, per the scriptural rule.

    Double standard, methinks!

  • minimus

    .....see what happens when I don't ask a question?

  • blondie

    What kind of evidence is acceptable?

    There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just persons

    repeating what they have heard; no action can be taken if

    there is only one witness. (Deut. 19:15; John 8:17)

    Strong circumstantial evidence, such as pregnancy or evi- dence (testified to by at least two witnesses) that the

    accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of

    the opposite sex (or in the same house with a known

    homosexual ) under improper circumstances, is acceptable

  • james_woods

    I would say that pregnancy would be stronger circumstantial evidence than somebody staying in a certain house all night.

    Even as an elder, I never understood where they got this idiotic "stayed all night under one roof" rule.

    I can also relate that I know of at least one witness remarriage which was approved where there was no proof of "free to remarry".

  • minimus

    In the late 70s, a WT. QFR gives the details as to how to get a theocratic divorce without "proof", just one witness' statement.

  • NewChapter

    I was told that if my husband was NOT a Witness, then I only needed the confession from him--no other witnesses. THEN I was to write a letter and the matter was between me and Jehovah. However if my husband WAS a witness (he was, but they had never met him, so they didn't know that) then the 2 witness rule went. He either had to confess to 2 of us (which he did) or 2 of us had to witness him sleeping over someone's house.

    I never understood the double standard. If it was enough that I knew if my 'unbelieving' husband had committed adultery, then why not if my 'believing' husband did? Wasn't that also between me and Jehovah? Anyway, when they try to legislate every little action, this is the problem they run into.


  • minimus

    NewChapter, That is EXACTLY what they say. It's a kicker that they teach the OT rule that you NEED 2 witnesses for molestation of kids but you don't need 2 witnesses if you say your husband confessed to you that he was an adulterer.

  • minimus


  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    There is some justification for the child abuse rule. Not much justification. Traditoinally, evidence given by young children is doubted by courts. The reasoning was that only children of a certain could understand what telling a lie means. Recently, this rule has been cut back b.c social scienes prove that children do not make details up. Of course, corroboration to substantiate a child's credibility in a criminal prosecution is very different from an internal religious matter.

    Also, it gives a carte blance to pedophiles to attack younger children with impunity.

  • minimus

    I wish that those that get so upset with the 2 witness rule would bring out that 2 witnesses are NOT needed to establish a matter as they say because a wife can get a scriptural divorce merely on her own words.

Share this