The two or three witness rule of Jehovah's Witnesses

[jtartar]

The JWs are taught that how they treat the faithful and discreet slave will determine their blessings from God. To be disagreeing with the governing body who, are they that say they, are the faithful and discreet slave (as I suppose they do not know what discreet means) is considered by most JWs as treating them badly. Also I think most JWs do not know the two witness rule applies to innocent children. When I was a JW I did not know that.

savagewind,
I also condemned the witnesses for applying this two, or three witnesses rule to sexual abuse of children.
Then I took some time to ponder the problem. Consider that you were a responsible elder in a congregation, or are one of a Body of Elders in a congregation. These men are ordained, and as far as men are concerned, all the rules of scripture, as far as the Holy Spirit is concerned,these men are qualified to be Elders. Say that you are one of these elders, and someone accuses one of the elders of abuse of a child. What would you do? Would you take someone's word over a qualified Elder's word? No! If you did you would not be in the right. So there would be an investigation. If it comes down to the Elders word against a child's word, there is really no proof one way or the other. Even in the world outside of religion, nothing can be done, because there is no real proof.
The witnesses have changed the way they treated claims of child abuse. They cannot punish an elder for one claim, but if another child claims this same Elder has abused them, then the congregation can act on the claim, for this would then be counted as two witnesses.

 

[savagewind]

savagewind,
I also condemned the witnesses for applying this two, or three witnesses rule to sexual abuse of children.
Then I took some time to ponder the problem. Consider that you were a responsible elder in a congregation, or are one of a Body of Elders in a congregation. These men are ordained, and as far as men are concerned, all the rules of scripture, as far as the Holy Spirit is concerned,these men are qualified to be Elders. Say that you are one of these elders, and someone accuses one of the elders of abuse of a child. What would you do? Would you take someone's word over a qualified Elder's word? No! If you did you would not be in the right. So there would be an investigation. If it comes down to the Elders word against a child's word, there is really no proof one way or the other. Even in the world outside of religion, nothing can be done, because there is no real proof.
The witnesses have changed the way they treated claims of child abuse. They cannot punish an elder for one claim, but if another child claims this same Elder has abused them, then the congregation can act on the claim, for this would then be counted as two witnesses.

I do not agree. The faithful and discreet slaves seems to know The Sacred Secret of God. Do they not? How hard then is it, do you think, to know if an accusation is a lie? It should be easy. I can't believe the Jehovah's Witnesses know anything realizing that they can't even tell if a person is lying.
Also a lie is against God. A person who lies is a guilty person before God. So when the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses assumes first that an accusation isn't the truth they assume the accuser is guilty. So you DO have class distinction though you say you do not. One class, the elder class, is more righteously inclined than the non-elder class according to JW opinion. How? Because an elder is assumed innocent but an accuser is assumed guilty.

 

[savagewind]

The Jehovah's Witnesses assume the person who says a member of Jehovah's Witnesses abused him or her of lying and they assume the person who is accused innocent. But liars will not inherit God's Kingdom. Every time a JW assumes another JW is lying they adjudge the accuser as one who will be judged guilty by God and thus destroyed. In case the accusation is true then what the JWs do is condemn the innocent and confer the guilty, which is a sin in itself. Isn't it?

 

[savagewind]

Any man who has a bad report declared against him is not worthy to be an elder or to serve God's congregation. What if it is not true what someone says? So? It is still a bad report. The person who makes the accusation must think badly of the person he or she is accusing or else why would he?

1 Timothy 3:
1 This statement is trustworthy: If a man is reaching out to be an overseer,+ he is desirous of a fine work.2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind,*+ orderly, hospitable,+ qualified to teach,+3 not a drunkard,+ not violent,* but reasonable,+ not quarrelsome,+ not a lover of money,+4 a man presiding over* his own household in a fine manner, having his children in subjection with all seriousness+5 (for if any man does not know how to preside over* his own household, how will he care for the congregation of God?),6 not a newly converted man,+ for fear that he might get puffed up with pride and fall into the judgment passed on the Devil.7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony* from outsiders+so that he does not fall into reproach* and a snare of the Devil.

Whether a man is at fault or not regarding taking care of God's congregation, an accusation is a shame. If he didn't do it he still has shame attached to him and if the accusation gets reported to the appropriate authority then he is under reproach from outsiders. The only right thing to do is to remove him from his post. What is wrong with that? Is it too much shame for him to bear? But what does The Bible say? It says to bear the burden of the others. If he is allowed to remain in his privilege then he is NOT bearing the burden of the children who think he did them wrong.

Tell me please what is wrong about putting a man out of his privilege? Whether he did anything wrong or not what harm is there in removing him from his trusted position? IF he is allowed to stay then he will continue to be trusted by The Children.

 

[savagewind]

A question to the Jehovah's Witnesses please. If it is a shame when an accused man, whether guilty or innocent, is removed from his position of oversight due to a bad report against him, is it also a shame that another man never gets appointed in the first place?

 

[savagewind]

I think it is a fair question and not bashing.

If an elder or a ministerial servant with an accusation against him should remain an elder or a ministerial servant then why?

What is the reason that a man who stands accused should be an elder or a ministerial servant?

 

[Unification]

savagewind,
I also condemned the witnesses for applying this two, or three witnesses rule to sexual abuse of children.
Then I took some time to ponder the problem. Consider that you were a responsible elder in a congregation, or are one of a Body of Elders in a congregation. These men are ordained, and as far as men are concerned, all the rules of scripture, as far as the Holy Spirit is concerned,these men are qualified to be Elders. Say that you are one of these elders, and someone accuses one of the elders of abuse of a child. What would you do? Would you take someone's word over a qualified Elder's word? No! If you did you would not be in the right. So there would be an investigation. If it comes down to the Elders word against a child's word, there is really no proof one way or the other. Even in the world outside of religion, nothing can be done, because there is no real proof.
The witnesses have changed the way they treated claims of child abuse. They cannot punish an elder for one claim, but if another child claims this same Elder has abused them, then the congregation can act on the claim, for this would then be counted as two witnesses.

The entire spiritual truth behind this, is that God sees all because God is in us.
God is a witness and you yourself are a witness.
The Eagles gathered within the body. Father and Son inside of your body. That makes 3 witnesses.
Men are ordained because they are self-ordained. They elevate themselves as elders. Not God-ordained. They are self-qualified. One has no idea what an "elder" even means spiritually in scripture because it's just that... Man's literal and carnal interpretation.
As far as rules of the scripture, they are mankind's rules used to oppress people... However they wish to and perceive their "own" rules for their own "vain building." They are not God's rules.
Also truth, that if one is in complete subjection in truth and spirit... Fully trusting in God and not themselves, evil stays away from them so the potential for an accusation of such sickness would not even ever exist.

 

[savagewind]

I suppose no answer will ever come of the question why is it so wrong, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, to remove elder privileges from a man who is accused of child molestation?

And no answer will come for this one either I am sure but it is some food for thought. When the Catholic Church was in the news for moving around priests who were accused of child abuse why didn't the Jehovah's Witnesses speak up for the defense of The Catholic Church and tell everyone that it is God's will a man in power stay in power whenever there are not two or more witnesses to a crime?

 

[savagewind]

"We are not going to provide" the evidence you are asking for. Cost? fourteen million dollars.

Investigation Claims Jehovah Witnesses' Watchtower Is Hiding Child Sexual Abuse Claims

 

[savagewind]

Let's just ignore it. Shall we? For the most part Jehovah's Witnesses are such very nice people. Why spoil their image for a relatively few children?

Jehovah's Witnesses silencing techniques are as terrifying as child abuse | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[savagewind]

Exposing The Witnesses as sinners like everyone else isn't The Point. The point is the Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves "The Truth" and they teach that the only way to be benefited by Jesus is to submit to the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses but they do not know what to do about crimes against children. Does Jesus not know what to do about it?

If Jesus knows what to do (I believe it) and the governing body does not know what to do about it and if Jesus is The Truth then they are not the truth but they say they are. Lying about The Truth is serious business. I am sure.

 

[savagewind]

The Truth is perfect. I think it is fair to demand perfection from anyone calling himself or herself The Truth. But to let people go about their business of sinning against children is not only NOT perfect but is a crime. The reason they commit the crime is they misinterpret The Truth which I think is at least double bad.

 

[savagewind]

What do I want? I want the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses to come clean. I think it is not righteous on the part of the governing body to control what the Jehovah's Witnesses know and don't know. If I was still donating money to the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses i would want to know that it goes to defend governing body image. It is not what Christ is for. I am sure of it.

The truth is millions of dollars are being paid out secretly and it is wrong to call the paying of fines money for "the world wide work" of preaching Jesus' gospel.

I do not know why most people think it is OK.

 

[savagewind]

Everyone's silence is saying it is OK for the governing body to ask for money for the spreading of the Good News of God but spend it on fines and then not tell anyone. Am I understanding RF correctly?

 

[savagewind]

What? I am on ignore? Oh, nevermind.

 

[savagewind]

The question was this. If a man who is an elder has an accusation of abuse against him, and he can remain an elder or later be reinstated without the accusation going away, how does that harmonize with Bible requirements of eldership? I think it doesn't.

 

[newone]

Sorry I am unable to answer your question. But what I can do is give you a bit of advise...
My situation for leaving the "truth" 20 years ago is a bit complex, at least i made it so!

I am now studying again and want to get back. I made the mistake thinking that the witnesses were perfect. No such thing...
I left Jehovah over something that a person did...how crazy is that! Fact is that there is NOTHING like the truth. I investigated/studied
numerous religions at the time...

I am not saying you should return to JW, what i am saying is let it go. Life is to short, understand that people will dissapoint you!
Resentment is only going to eat at you, later you will lose yourself. That is what happened to me!

We cant change the past no matter how hard we try, all we can do is learn from it... There are many people who got/gets away with terrible things, leave it to God to judge them.

There is a great gift promised to us and we need to grab it with both hands before it's too late.

 

[Vishvavajra]

If the parents really believe their child has been abused, why are they going to religious authorities instead of the police? Seems like you get what you ask for in this case. Most religious institutions are notoriously terrible about stuff like this. If you expect them to somehow solve it in-house, you're going to end up disappointed. That's what civil society is for.

And if JWs think they need to divorce themselves from civil society altogether, well then this exactly is the sort of thing they're asking for. It's not what their kids asked for, but nobody ever asks them, do they?

 

[asm Jenkins]

It is my opinion that there is no longer an organisation or even a single person in the whole world who has not been touched by evil. Where did this evil come from, how did it manifest itself? Some people actually blame God for even the vilest things that have occurred in the world, but at the same time they are hoping for salvation for themselves. My opinion is, if I can't stand the evil that's in the world, what, in anyone's name is God supposed to think of it?

 

[savagewind]