Question about confession and the two witness rule

by jwfacts 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jwfacts

  "It is to their credit that they have accepted they have a problem, and acted to make their organization a less attractive environment for paedophiles."

  Interesting chapter by Trevor. Is he a JW? I am not sure about the above line. In what way have they "accepted they have a problem"? They have made changes, but I am not sure they would openly admit there was a problem?

  Cedars, from that passage it seems that if a person confesses, they should not be disfellowshipped, as there was not two witnesses, yet I know of those that confessed without any other party coming forward, and were d/f. It seems that they do bend the rules, so my question is, why not in the case of child abuse accusations?

  It's called "leaving the matter in Jehovah's hands".

  That old chestnut.
• 

  cedars

  jwfacts

  from that passage it seems that if a person confesses, they should not be disfellowshipped

  No, that's not right. If read in context (including the header "Evidence Establishing Wrongdoing"), that passage is saying that a confession witnessed by two persons can be grounds for judicial action (establishing wrongdoing), whether the resulting action is disfellowshipping or reproof. Remember that not all JCs end in disfellowshipping. If elders feel there is sufficient remorse from the person (which they could conclude from the fact that he or she has confessed) then they could waive the disfellowshipping and reprove the individual, either publically or privately depending on the nature of the sin and whether it was public knowledge. Obviously, confession doesn't necessarily equate to repentance, so disfellowshipping could still be an outcome even if someone confesses.

  There is no contradiction with how cases of child abuse are handled, because the two witness rule is applied in both cases. In the case of a confession, two people are required to witness the confession. In the case of child molestation, two witnesses are required to witness the abuse.

  If a child molester confesses to his crime, together with his victim, then you have two witnesses. If the molester denies it, and there is no other witness (as is almost always the case) the matter is left "in Jehovah's hands".

  Does that make sense, or have I misunderstood you?

  Cedars
• 

  jwfacts

  Cedars, sorry I did misread it. I see now that with a confession there does not need to be two witnesses to the sin, but rather to the confession, so that there is evidence of the confession.

  The point I was trying to apply to child abuse cases does not seem to really fit.
• 

  cedars

  jwfacts - no worries, glad we got to the bottom of it!

  Cedars
• 

  slimboyfat

  I am sure I remember reading a case where a sister confessed to fornication and was disfellowshipped but the brother she had sex with denied it and was not disfellowshipped.
• 

  00DAD

  OTWO - Even in a case of confession with another JW, if there are not two witnesses, the other JW can deny the act and have no judicial actions while the confessor gets reproved or even disfellowshipped.

  Yes, this is absolutely true. It just demonstrates how ineffective this rule is. The person that confesses, obstenibly because they have guilt and want to get better, is disfellowshipped while the liar denier gets off Scot-free! This cleary is not just nor does it promote or encourage spiritual growth. It harshly punishes someone that is overcome with guilt and rewards an individual that evades personal responsibility.

  Just to emphasize what Cedars posted and clarified, the quote from the STFOG book is meaning that TWO JWs need to hear the confession 1 , preferably Elders.

  00DAD

  1 - In rare instances the testimony of non-Congregation members can be considered. But this is discouraged.
• 

  BluesBrother

  In an Elders School once the instuctor posed a hypothetical : If a sister confessed to sex with a brother, but he denies it - and there are no witnesses - what do you do?

  The answer was to treat Sister as a self confessed fornicator but there was nothing that could be done to the Brother. Basically you believed both party's statements !

  Sensible isn't it?
• 

  Earnest

  I can confirm a case that I know of where a Sister confessed to adultery, was disfellowshipped and divorced, but the Brother (an Elder) who she alleged was the co-adulterer denied it and no action was taken. However, when he moved congregation he was not reappointed but I do not know for certain the reason why.

  This was certainly not a case where the JC was giving a wink and a nod but I believe the two-witness rule did not allow them to take any action whatever they personally believed.
• 

  AndersonsInfo

  Here’s a horrible JW case, some details omitted: In 1991, a sister went to the elders to accuse a brother of raping her. When approached by the elders, he admitted to them that he had sex with the woman but said the sex was consensual. She adamantly denied that she gave consent, but stuck to her story that he forcibly raped her. The elders privately reproved him because he confessed to fornication and expressed remorse, but because she wouldn't admit to consensual sex and express remorse, she was disfellowshipped for lying. Sensible isn't it?

  This is an absolutely true story verified by an involved elder. It was this event that directly led to the article that appeared in the July 8, 1992 Awake!, “Women Deserving of Respect.”
• 

  steve2

  I believe Barbara's account - a similar scenario occurred in my home congregation in New Zealand in the late 1970s:

  A sister who reported she had been raped by a brother was disfellowshipped after he denied raping her, insisting it was consensual.

  He showed "repentance", was publically reproved for fornication and "recovered" well. Meanwhile the sister - who at least had some support from her JW family - moved to another congregation, continuing to report she had been raped. Eventually her family persuaded her to leave the matter in Jehovah's hands, she "repented" and was reinstated. Because she had been so vocal at the time, most people in the nearby congregations knew the allegations and counter-allegations. While some whispered doubts about the brother's claims, most simply judged the sister as being a liar. The organization encouraged the view that the brother had done the right thing and that the sister was a troublemaker who wanted to blame someone else for engaging in fornication.

  I've often wondered what became of that sister - none of my JW family still in the organization ever talk to me about such matters.

  I guess in such cases no one - except the two individuals - can ever say with certainty what actually happened. But the relative ease with which the brother's version was accepted - confessing to fornication but denying rape - shows how patriarchally-biased the JWs and other similar religions are.