Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term? (page 3)

tor1500

Hi,

What fool would take a witness with them to commit a crime....duh? I can see drawing up contracts and things of that nature, but to use 2 witness rule regarding rape....& The courts don't move on that alone...

These child abuse cases have been going on for quite some time now...I know the wheels turn slow, but folks have come out to accuse the WT... and still no exposure...the friends are busting at the seams because they know, but can't say anything...

The Catholic religion has been exposed...they have big backing...so much so that it was a miracle that they were even touched. There are many famous and influence Catholics, they are a rich religion with connections all over the place, yet they got exposed...oh, they fought tooth and nail like the org...but they were exposed...

2 witness rule is just a way to stall...

Tor

The freewheeling

Why the Governing Body can not simply change this rule when it comes to sexual abuse.

The GB / Geoff Jackson would never change the two-witness rule now. It would look as if they are then guided by Angus Stewart and the ARC and not by Jehovah and the Holy Spirit to bring new light. It would be a disaster for them if change now, and even hardcore JWs would see through this and wonder what's going on, although they basically think the rule is wrong. A change may come when all this is over...

fastJehu

The 2-witness-rule ist the "truth".

The "truth" is the truth (for a JW).

As we watched during the last ARC session #54, no JW can accept,
that the "truth" has to be changed. If the "truth" must be changed, it wasn't the truth.

It's like talking with JW's about their doctrines - it's like talking to a wall.

If they change the 2-witness-rule for the ARC - they admit, that the past 65 years the "truth" (about the 2-witness-rule) wasn't the truth.

konceptual99

They do accept forensic evidence now don't they?

konceptual99

Let me clarify my question...

If an accusation was made by one person to the congregation they would not accept the word of a single witness.

If the alleged victim went to the police and they investigated, found the allegations to be true based on forensic evidence and prosecuted then this would be accepted as a second witness and judicial action taken.

I believe this is the case but I can't recall where I have seen this documented and could be wrong.

They also treat another allegation by another person as a second witness but this has been a change made to policy over time.

Of course, the historical problem has always been that the allegations are made firstly to the elders. They don't take action and no report to the authorities is made so nothing happens.

It all boils down the the WT approach on being proactive. The simple thing would be to ensure any allegation gets reported which puts the onus on the authorities to access the risks, investigate and protect the victim. They can then await the outcome of the secular process to determine if the "scriptural" parameters are met.

Instead they want to limit their response as far as possible. They only report when they legally have to. They are not proactive in ensuring the authorities are involved. Instead of co-operating with the authorities and implementing change they tweak the processes to make things appear better but do nothing to change the cultural norms endemic to the organisation of a patriarchal, top down, controlling environment.

ttdtt

So how many people would you need to come to you that said - "hey Brother X just killed someone" before you decided to call the police?

tor1500

Hi,

The org. dips and dabs in the OT, when it suits them...Jesus came to abolish the law...if folks still followed the law, then there is no faith is Jesus....I really would like to be a lawyer...not a big shot, just your Joe Blow lawyer...the question to ask the org. is to get their stance... ?? Isn't that scripture in the Ot or Nt...they will say, the Hebrew scriptures (ot)...then ask....didn't Jesus say, he is the law...Most folks that don't even know the bible do know that the OT isn't supposed to be followed no more....That scripture is null and void....and they know it...they had to support what they did .......so they had to dig into their bag of tricks.....

But to be honest....if you were apart of this ARC thing, sitting there and hearing all these abuse cases and the only support the org. has is....A SCRIPTURE...a scripture to support why they didn't report these cases...If I was a judge...I really wouldn't have to hear any more...down would come my gravel.....GUILTY....

It's taking to long to get this done...imagine, you going into court....you are accused of a crime...and you plead not guilty....and say to the judge...No one witnessed the crime I did...so I plead deut. 17:6...The court would haul your behind out of their and hold you until you came up with a better excuse...something that is from the law not the bible...You can't go into court and use scriptures as your defense....maybe to support a right, but support a criminal act...

Tor

Fisherman

No one can explain why the "2 witness" rule is wrong; for 2 reasons. 1. You have not defined 2 witness rule and 2. The 2 witness rule is not wrong.

Fisherman

With all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the WTBTS,

That is only your opinion.You haven't shown that to be true.

OnTheWayOut

As stated by others, the two-witness rule is not necessarily wrong for the various reasons stated.

What is wrong is for Watchtower to be in the business of law enforcement and justice. If they treated the "CRIMES" of raping children or beating spouses the same as the crime of murder, they would always always always call the expert authorities in.

I know that if they always call the police, they might look like they are not the wonderful help to members that they want to appear to be. Members might learn to skip going to the elders with ANY problems after they learn to go to the police with crimes. That's alright by me, too.

Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?

Share this