Hi Amazing,
IslandWoman and you have uncovered a serious inconsistency in WTS policy. From the scans of the 1972 and 1983-89 Organization books listed below, it is clear that serious wrongdoing involving personal matters that can result in disfellowshipping can be established on circumstantial evidence alone. However, from the scans of the two editions of the "elders manuals" it is clear that other types of serious wrongdoing require eyewitness testimony. One wonders why this inconsistency exists.
From the 1972 book Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making:
Note the above title on page 156: " `IF YOUR BROTHER COMMITS A SIN AGAINST YOU' ". The words "against you" do not appear in Matthew 18 -- this is purely the Society's interpretation, which it makes so as to avoid having to take judicial matters before the entire congregation, as Matthew 18:17 states should be done.
The point here is that the Society is stating directly in the above that Matthew 18 does not apply to serious wrongdoing that can be classed as "not of a personal nature", such as fornication, child abuse and so forth (cf. p. 157, para. 4). Thus, the Society cannot consistently claim that the "two witnesses" rule of Matthew 18 applies to the serious crime and sexual sin of child molestation.
Now take a close look at what paragraph two on page 157 said: "Before ever you would initiate the procedure set out at Matthew 18:15-17, then, you should have definite proof that such a serious sin was indeed committed against you." Nothing in these pages says that the accuser needs to have eyewitnesses to the serious wrong, but only "definite proof". Indeed, paragraph one on page 158 discusses fraud and slander, which wrongdoings can be established by any number of means besides eyewitnesses. Even strong circumstantial evidence can be "definite proof" of such wrongdoing.
Paragraph two on page 158 then discusses the reasons for taking along one or two others to act as eyewitnesses. It is desirable that they be eyewitnesses to the actual wrongdoing, but the main point is that they become eyewitnesses to the reaction of the accused, for later use by a judicial committee. Obviously, if the accused's guilt has been established by other means, then the function of the eyewitnesses here would be only to help establish his repentance, and thus whether he should be disfellowshipped. This is mentioned in paragraph three on page 158.
A few pages later the book discusses wrongdoing that is aside from that discussed above, i.e., wrongdoing "not of a personal nature":
Note that paragraph two on page 164 states clearly that in such cases, the "two witnesses" rule applies. Also note the absence of mention of Matthew 18.
The 1983-1989 book Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry leaves out much of the information discussed in the 1972 book. It, too, states that "the offenses here discussed were limited in nature to such as could be settled between the individuals involved. This would not include such offenses as fornication ... that should be reported to the elders and handled by them." (p. 143). Here are the relevant pages:
Conspicuous by its absence is any discussion of what type of evidence is acceptable to establish the guilt of the accused. If the accuser is unable to convince the accused of the wrongdoing, then he is to put it in the hands of the elders, who will then investigate. Then, if "it should become evident to the shepherds of the flock that the brother has indeed committed a serious sin against you and yet has been unwilling to repent and make appropriate amends, it may become necessary for the overseers to expel the unrepentant wrongdoer..." (pp. 144-5). The problem here is, if there were no eyewitnesses to the wrongdoing such that the steps given in Matthew 18 could be successfully applied, then the only evidence left would be circumstantial or of a solid nature that needed no eyewitnesses. Thus we can see the inconsistency of the reasoning the Society uses.
I think that it is significant that the above material says absolutely nothing about the sort of evidence that is acceptable to a judicial committee in cases of fornication and so forth. Perhaps it is because a semblance of a discussion of such evidence was given in the 1981 version of the "Kingdom Ministry School Textbook" "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock":
There are a few statements alluding to establishing guilt:
"Body of elders now determines whether accusation gives evidence of having substance." (p. 160)
"Present witnesses, unless wrongdoer confesses." (p. 161)
"Has accusation or charge been established?" (p. 161)
"Depending on whether guilt established and repentance shown, determine whether reproof or disfellowshipping necessary." (p. 161)
Here is the most substantial discussion (p. 163):
"What should be done if there is only one witness to a serious sin?
Witness should confront the accused to encourage him to confess.
If there is no response, one or two elders can discuss the matter with the individual. If he denies it, leave matter in Jehovah's hands...
If there is another witness to the same type of sin on the part of the accused person, this would be basis to convoke a judicial committee."
It is obvious that by around 1981 to 1983, the Society did not want non-elders to know anything about the details of establishing serious wrongdoing.
Here are the relevant scans from the 1991 version of the elders manual, "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock":
My comments above apply to all of this material. Once again, the key point is that in cases of serious wrongdoing by one person against another, such as fraud or slander, the Society's policy is that eyewitnesses to the actual wrongdoing are not required, whereas when the wrongdoing is of an impersonal nature (but how can molesting a child be termed "impersonal"?) the policy is that eyewitnesses are required.
Clearly stated in the above is that two or more eyewitnesses to the same incident of wrongdoing are required to prove guilt, but "if there are two or three witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each one is witness to a separate incident, their testimony can be considered", and "such evidence may be used to establish guilt" (p. 111). Thus the testimony of two or more witnesses to separate incidents does not prove guilt.
Many thanks to IslandWoman for catching these inconsistencies!
AlanF
Edited by - AlanF on 13 October 2002 14:22:59
