Billy's comments to the RC #1 - "We always require at least two witnesses... except for when we don't."

by Billy the Ex-Bethelite 39 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Max: But this seems to be about the standard for determining the freedom to remarry, not the standard for finding guilt of porneia / adultery at a JC

  Thanks for the input. I have a couple of responses to that, but I'm thinking I might email them to Mr. Stewart instead of posting them here. If Jackson does have to appear before the RC, maybe I shouldn't put my material on here in case there are some bethel trolls monitoring the Interwebs.

  It would be a dream come true for me to see Mr. Stewart grill a GB member with some of these things related to abuse and JCs that have plagued me for decades.
  
• 

  Max Divergent

  Quite right, Billy. I'm sure you'll make a very strong point taking all factors into account.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  I sent this info to Mr. Stewart's email and another address that I was given. I haven't gotten a reply, so I can only assume that either it isn't of value or they're already getting more email than they can read.

  WRT Max's comment, this is kinda what I sent, but less funny and less wordy:

  In the first case, although this is in the section about freedom to remarry, the use of circumstantial evidence (not eyewitnesses to actual fornication) can be used to disfellowship. And I believe that more recently there was a letter sent out explaining hypothetical circumstances where a brother missed his train and spent the night at a sister's apartment, or something like that. The BoE would just take their word that they didn't have sex. In this case there were at least two witnesses to them spending all night together in a possible "immoral sleeping arrangement", which was previously established as sufficient circumstantial evidence that fornicating had occurred. So now they have to introduce exceptions to the "circumstantial evidence of two witnesses" exception to the two eyewitness to sinning rule.
  

  In the second case, the situation is stated as an exception to the 2 witness rule. And this exception states that a JC would not be formed, where a JC usually would be formed for adulterous remarriage. So, they've said they can't make an exception to the two witness rule in order to protect children from sexual abuse, but they can make an exception to that rule so that a brother or sister can be scripturally free to remarry, ASAP, before the unbelieving mate takes the time to meet someone and remarry?

  "Sorry kids, the bible won't less us protect you, but we choose to make an exception so Elder Horndog can marry a young pioneer sister in the Kingdumb Haul after he divorces his 'apostate' wife* because she confessed to him that she had fornicated but she refuses to admit that to anyone else."

  *The 'apostate' wife was disfellowshipped in the usual secret backroom proceedings. She was judged an apostate and disfellowshipped because she dared to disagree with WT policy and she verbalized the truth that JWs were not protecting children from pedophiles. Since she was shunned, no JW would listen to her warnings to protect children. Instead, the rumor was spread around the congregation that she had a drinking problem and had fornicated with many worldly men.
  
• 

  Iown Mylife

  Hi Billy,

  Seems like i read that Mr. Stewart has a huge support crew and they really are going over everyone's insider info emails and actually asking questions that (coincidentally?) were posted on this forum!

  So send anything you think would be helpful and don't worry about the overload - that's my opinion and what I would like if I was in that situation.

  Marina
• 

  steve2

  Well argued Billy. Really deserves to be considered by the RC.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Thanks Marina.

  For the material in this thread, it just made me so furious that Rodney Stinks insisted that they had never, ever, never, never, ever deviated from their two witness rule.

  And he was such an idiot to suggest than any elder would remember what was stated by a CO in 1998 about children not having to face their abuser. Elders aren't given a printout of that outline and it isn't kept on file. It's already established that elders can't remember what they had for breakfast yesterday, how are they going to remember that from 1998? What of the elders appointed after that time? They can't reference something they've never seen and heard.

  Even a good elder would have written those notes in their elders manual... but that book has been replaced with "new light". And what was the new light? Oh, they certainly include instruction that the victim must face the abuser, but they didn't include instruction on these exemptions from this rule. Wasn't there room in the book to make this instruction very clear to the elders? Evidently, protecting children isn't that important. However, there was plenty of room in the book to give instructions on the exception to the two witness rule so that Elder Horndog could remarry ASAP! And there was even plenty of room in the book to include instruction on the importance of disfellowshipping a brother if he asks too high of a bride price for his daughter!

  No, I didn't send any of this to the RC. LOL
  
• 

  Vidiot

  Billy - "The 'apostate' wife was disfellowshipped in the usual secret backroom proceedings. She was judged an apostate and disfellowshipped because she dared to disagree with WT policy and she verbalized the truth that JWs were not protecting children from pedophiles. Since she was shunned, no JW would listen to her warnings to protect children. Instead, the rumor was spread around the congregation that she had a drinking problem and had fornicated with many worldly men."

  :rage:
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Vidiot, that was one of the things that really bugged me when they would say that they disfellowship pedophiles... WT also disfellowships anyone who speaks out against the bad policies of WT that allow pedophilia to flourish. People like Barbara Anderson were disfellowshipped with the same secrecy and with the same announcement as a child molester.

  In WT world, despite what has been said to the RC, apostasy is considered a far worse crime than child molestation. Look up "apostasy" in the WT litteratrash and you'll find more references than when you look up "protect children".
  
• 

  Lee Elder

  I sent this to the Royal Commission which they acknowledged:

  Their (WTS) interpretation of scripture to support their "two witness rule" seems quite convenient, doesn't it? I think its worth noting that in cases where the victim goes on their own to the police and the perpetrator is convicted, they will then be disfellowshiped from the congregation - regardless of whether or not there was two witnesses. Why are they willing to abandon their scriptural policy in this circumstance? In my experience, the saving of face and organizational prestige are primary motivators in policy formation. It is the appearance of being "clean or holy" that drives policy and decision making in far too many instances. What is needed is less "whitewashing" and more action to protect children. That and a recognition that police have the tools and training to actually investigate suspected crimes, not JW elders. It is really quite appalling. If a serious crime were to be committed at a JW facility, say at a Kingdom Hall, there is no doubt that the police would be called to investigate. They simply refuse to implement policy that would require investigation by the police when accusations of child abuse arise. Clearly, they don’t see child abuse as the serious crime it truly is. Hopefully, the commission will send a very strong and clear message that this won’t be tolerated.
• 

  Scully

  Billy,

  It's interesting that the admission of adultery is from an Unbelieving Mate­™. What if it was a JW couple, and one of them admitted to adultery, especially if it was the male party?

  How many JW women have been blamed and shamed over adultery on the part of their JW husband, for example, for Not Providing the Marriage Due™, and putting him in a state of such terrible sexual duress that he just couldn't help himself by seeking another outlet for his libido?

  It seems to be par for the course that when JW males do bad things with their private parts, there's always lots of excuses for his behaviour. The wife wasn't Submissive™ enough. The 5-year-old girl was a ¢o¢k tease. The cashier at the grocery store dressed provocatively. And on, and on, and on. In this Good-Ol'-Boys Club, there's never any accountability on the male's part, and no real expectation that he should keep his d!ck in his pants unless his JW wife invites/permits him to do otherwise.