I discussed this very subject in my latest – lengthy - article, Flawed Decree Conceals Criminals which can be found on my website. http://watchtowerdocuments.org/flawed-decree-conceals-criminals/
Below is not the beginning of Flawed Decree Conceals Criminals. I pasted the part where I discussed
the obligation of JWs to expose a fellow member’s sin even it was illegal in
certain circumstances to do so as per a 1987 Watchtower article. My discussion centers on the distorted use by
JW leaders of Leviticus 5:1 to influence JWs to violate the law; when it first
began to be used (1967) and who was responsible for the misinterpretation.
That
1987 Watchtower article actually generated
a commentary in the August 29, 1987, Los Angeles Times, the title which
read, “Conscience outweighs confidence – Witnesses urge faithful to break
ethics codes,” by John Dart.
READ
ON:
Deliberately using Leviticus 5:1 to violate law
It is certainly difficult
to imagine that JWs Governing Body would in the name of God attempt to persuade
readers of their religious journal, The Watchtower, to do
something legally prohibited. Yet, by quoting Acts 5:29, “We must obey God as
ruler rather than men” in a Watchtower article relative to disclosing
confidential information, that’s exactly what was attempted.
That
article found in the September 1, 1987 Watchtower, “A Time to Speak” –
When? is noteworthy in this regard because it obligated JWs to expose a fellow
member’s sin to their congregation elders even if it was illegal in certain
circumstances to do so. Moreover, to buttress their argument, the key scripture
used in that article to induce members to violate professional confidentiality
requirements by tattling on an erring one was based on Leviticus 5:1.
The
hypothetical case of “Mary,” a medical assistant, was highlighted and what her
reaction was upon learning through her work that a fellow JW had an abortion,
an action viewed by the Witnesses as serious wrongdoing. Should she reveal this
concealed transgression to her church elders as her religion instructed all JWs
to do? A four-page discussion ensued to try to convince JWs of their personal
responsibility to “breach the requirements of confidentiality because of the
superior demands of divine law” in connection with employment, no matter if
their job was in jeopardy, or they could be sued or their actions led to their
employer having legal problems.
The
policy of instructing JWs to report a fellow Witness who commits serious
wrongdoing to church elders wasn’t anything new, but the issue of ignoring
Caesar’s law to obey JWs law was.
This
amplification of an old rule, disguised as an act of love, generated a
commentary in the August 29, 1987, Los Angeles Times, the title which
read, “Conscience outweighs confidence – Witnesses urge faithful to break
ethics codes,” by John Dart.
Jehovah’s
Witnesses are being told for the first time that they should violate
confidentiality requirements in medical, legal, and other professions when one
of their own members is discovered to have committed a serious sin. ….
Jehovah’s Witnesses are advised to confront the sinner first, but if he or she
is unrepentant, the sinner’s elders should be told… http://articles.latimes.com/1987-08-27/news/mn-4504_1_jehovah-s-witnesses
New directive harms both the informant and the
wrongdoer
Reportedly, Sharon, a
nurse in a large California hospital, obeyed the article’s directives when she
learned one of her spiritual sisters was scheduled to have an abortion.
Concerned, Sharon tried to persuade the woman to change her mind. She also
notified the elders who tried to talk her out of terminating the pregnancy. To
no avail – the procedure took place. Subsequently, the patient reported Sharon
to the hospital for revealing confidential medical information; this led to
Sharon losing her job with the hospital blackballing her out of the medical
profession.
Sharon’s
life was irrevocably changed because she broke confidentiality laws.
Consequently, she became a law-breaker. In addition, the JW woman whose
abortion was divulged and privacy violated, was disciplined by her church, and
all because of the instructions in that 1987 Watchtower article, ‘“A
Time to Speak” – When?’
Obedience protects a criminal
In another situation,
obedience to Leviticus 5:1 directly protected a criminal when a JW obeyed his
religion’s directive to go to the elders to report wrongdoing instead of the
authorities.
A
concerned JW knew he could prove that an elder working as a financial planner
was dishonest. After reading the Watchtower article, “A Time to Speak” –
When?” he informed the elders in his congregation of the financial planner’s
crimes. To make a long story short, the local elders protected the dishonest
elder because they were investors, even though there was evidence of his
corruption. Eventually, the whistle-blower was disfellowshipped and shunned by
his family and friends for being a “reviler” in that he would not give up his
quest for justice by continuing to berate and disparage the elders for their
cover-up of criminal activity. After moving to another area, the dishonest
elder continued to commit fraud on other unsuspecting JW widows. Obedience to
Leviticus 5:1 eventually concealed a criminal. How different the outcome would
have been if the authorities had been involved instead of the elders.
Repetition for emphasis
Ten years later, this
directive was repeated in the August 15, 1997 Watchtower, “Why Report
What is Bad?” In part the article comments:
“The
Mosaic Law stated that if a person was a witness to apostate acts, sedition, murder,
or certain other serious crimes, it was his responsibility to report it
and to testify to what he knew.” [True, but to the authorities, not to the
priests.]
Leviticus
5:1 was then quoted and the article continued:
“Though
not under the Mosaic Law, Christians today can be guided by the principles
behind it. So if you learn about the serious wrongdoing of a fellow Christian,
what should you do?”
Paraphrasing
the article, the answer of “what should you do?” is as follows: the JW should
talk to the wrongdoer to encourage him or her to approach the elders for help.
If the accused did not report to the elders the JW should. In the event there
were not two witnesses to serious wrongdoing, and wrongdoing was denied, the
matter was to be left in Jehovah’s hands.
By
being obedient to an obscure Bible text did illegally divulging confidential
information or reveal serious criminal wrongdoing to elders bring good results?
Whether wrongdoers were helped to change their ways is unknown. However, what
has come to light over the years is how the lives of many sincere informants
were negatively impacted and criminals protected. What follows is an
examination of whether the leaders of JWs interpretation of Leviticus 5:1 was a
good fit to accomplish their aim of members reporting crime to elders instead
of the police?
Leviticus 5:1 explained
-------
READ
Flawed Decree Conceals
Criminals from beginning to end at http://watchtowerdocuments.org/flawed-decree-conceals-criminals/
