Jehovahs Witnesses is it time to change your " bible based policy" on reporting molesters?
Topic: Jehovahs Witnesses is it time to change your " bible based policy" on reporting molesters?
June 20, 2019 / By Ashley Question:
You are going to find more and more Watchtower cover ups exposed until the policy is changed world wide,
How about local and National Jehovah's Witnesses standing up to change this policy instead of ignoring it or worse defending it?
Best Answers: Jehovahs Witnesses is it time to change your " bible based policy" on reporting molesters?
Zerah | 2 days ago
One JW poster says:
"Are you asking them to report someone with no evidence? Just on some ones say so?"
>Well @ Earth has hadenough, when/if you are a victim of a crime, do you first look for corroborating evidence of the crime before calling the police? "Oh chee, I have no evidence that this person sexually assaulted me so I guess it would be wrong to report it to the police . . ." Really?! Are you thinking straight?! Are you so deluded by Watchtower propaganda that you can't see how very wrong your reasoning is? Who is in the best position to even find or determine if there is evidence of child abuse, the elders in the congregation, or specially trained law-enforcement personnel?
When someone reports to the elders that they have been a victim of sexual abuse (or any other crime) at the hands of another member, the matter should *always*, as a matter of policy, be reported to the police as it is an allegation of a crime and the "superior authorities" are "God's ministers" for punishing crime. (Romans 13:1,4)
The JWs are applying the two witness rule in an unreasonable, archaic, letter-of-the-law manner that results in the perverting justice. The intent is simply that you don't condemn a man on the testimony of just one witness. It doesn't mean you can't allow law enforcemen to investigate the matter while withoding judgment of the individual. What they fail to realize is that when the scripture was written there were no specially trained forensic experts to carry out investigations of crimes, so they had to rely on two literal witnesses. So here is some basic common sense advice for the JW organization on how the two-witness rule will apply in our modern world with specially trained law enforcement experts:
If a single victim comes forward with allegations of abuse you count that as one witness and you report the matter to law enforcement. Law enforcement carrys out its investigation in harmony with its scripturally assigned/permitted role pursuant to Romans 13:4. If they and or the court system find evidence to corroborate the accuser's claim then this can be regarded as the second witness and the accused can be expelled. If the system finds no evidence of finds the accuse innocent then he remains in good standing. There, JWs! You would be abiding by the scriptural rule to be subject to the superior authorities *and* the two witness rule all in one go. It's so simple and so reasonable.
Making it mandatory to report such allegations to the police would also *lessen* the likelihood of a spiteful person(s) conspiring to falsely accuse someone since it's no longer a matter of duping a bunch of criminally illeterate elders but making a false report of a crime - something which is a criminal offense in most places. So mandatory reporting would actually serve as a deterrent to false accusations. However, the current JW policy of tending to keep matters under wraps, makes it more tempting for spiteful individuals in the congregation to conspire to have someone expelled, as they know there would be no negative criminal repercussions as the matter won't be reported to the police.
Why can't your leaders see it? Is it because their real motive is really about keeping such incidents under wraps to protect the image of the organization? Are they sacrificing the safety of you children just to keep up the image of the organization? A spirit-directed organization, my foot!r
👍 92 | 👎 2
Did you like the answer? Jehovahs Witnesses is it time to change your " bible based policy" on reporting molesters?
Share with your friends
Originally Answered: Jehovahs Witnesses, was the Bible explained to you or did you interpret it correctly by yourself?
Hello again, Nice Guy (what is your real name lol)?
I could make head nor tail of the bible, the few times I tried to read it on my own! As I have said previously that has been near to mockery by another user on here, I had never had a bible when I was a catholic as a young child. I must have had some kind of spiritual thirst, even though I tried to ignore it, because a few times I had the chance to read the bible; one was working work experience for the priest lol and thus, saw a bible on his table and picked it up but soon put it down, because of not appreciating it! This happened a couple of times and then I gave up.
I was asked a question out of the blue once with a friend about: do you believe in God or what are your thoughts on God and I was going to answer rather derisively when I stopped and said instead: you know something, what right do I have to say anything about God when I have never even read the bible? With that on my request, my husband brought his born again version bible (present from his cousin) and once again, I tried but failed and sort of threw it down in disgust and frustration and a page opened to palsms 83:18 and there was the name: Jehovah and I immediately recognised that there was a group of religious people who went by this name and thought: wow, so they can't be a cult then, if this name is in the bible!
It was several month's later when the knocked on the door and this was a first for me; all other times have been my husband opening the door and me hiding! They gave me a book and after much hesitation, I sat down to read it, fully expecting to be bored out of my skull with it and well, I could barely put it down! I was astonished that all those times I tried to understand the bible, and here: made it soooo easy and I was like: wow wow wow this is amazing.
Now I read the bible and still marvel that I understand much of it and for the times I do not or I feel a bit stumbled due to content, I do extra study and soon find peace again!
There are numerous ones who do indeed read the bible and have a pretty good understanding but I think my downfall was my childhood training and the fact that I am partially Aspergers which means, that I did not look further than I had been taught ie the new testament but even then, it rather confused me. Ah but despite my affliction I am ok!
I know you think differently, but well there you go!
What is meant when we say: scripture interprets scripture is that when you look at the surrounding verses, it paints a different picture for the one verse. So take: John 1:1 where in all bibles accept for our version, states that the Word is God. Well in the verses after this, it actually makes no sense to say that he is God, for in verse: 14 it states that he is the only begotten of the Father and so how on earth can he be God at the same time?
Link : "Action can only be taken within the congregation if there are two witnesses to a crime or a confession from the accused. "
As Hadenough pointed out and well-you can't take just everyone's word on it. And we ALL understand that witnesses to crimes aren't always there. And no one here said the victim shouldn't report it to the police. See how people falsely jump on things? An example right here by carribbean man.
She said some other things if you listen you might learn from. I've never got the feeling she means you any ill or harm.
Actually their policy is they need some kind of evidence to go on not just two witnesses only always. I have read some transcripts . That is a little misleading. In the bible that is preferred for good reason. To secure life and property against false accusations. An individual can falsely accuse someone, and become a “false witness”. This is so problematic in the world since early times that God includes the prohibition of false witnessing as one of the Ten Commandments.
But provisions were made if you read the whole law to investigate when there wasn't two witnesses. Which is why they have meetings with all.
The first thing the legal system must prove in a court of law is that a crime was committed. Part of this legal requirement is proving that the defendant committed the act in question. To fulfill this legal requirement, the prosecution calls in witness to explain what criminal act was done. Or It can call investigating detectives to prove that a crime was perpetrated to the event that amounted to a crime.
They do the same
It's tricky, Justice isn't always served. And it isn't always fair. Some good suggestions on what we can do to help detour it more. And I'm for churches disfellowshipping such acts if they know they were committed. My church does nothing to such. Most churches don't. Consequences must be made important, or there will be little effect on behavior in the future.
It's a tough call. I understand the points some are making. I don't think the Jehovah Witnesses are defending it -they defend their position on making accusation of others without proof.
Of not making things public on accusations alone.
Which no fair justice system does
Their policy is fine there
Along with other added advise, I would like to see someone other than family assign beforehand to alleged victim who is a minor before and after these meetings . Goes for schools and everywhere else. Family service or some advocate for them.So they get the help they need after when nothing can be proved.
carribbean man--you do jump to false conclusions. And on people.
It often a natural reaction to immediately fill in any missing information by making up our own story what we think someone is ,does, thinks or feels The problem with this is that most of the time for most people our story is incorrect in many ways
Also, You didn't read that comment well. You jump on a part which was made "very clear" in detail specifics a little further on. Don't aim for a judges seat, your not qualified if you can't look at all the evidence.
Seen you do it before too, assuming to much. Stick with what you know for sure. Before you make "false assumptions." Which this post is about in many ways. We all need to do that.
👍 30 | 👎 -5
After I learnt about the Candace Conti Case and established that it wasn't a fabrication,I spoke to a few elder that I feel free with. ..one, an older brother, was so shocked,but his conclusion was. ..well, let's leave to the GB and wait and see what directions they will give.
Another elder, a younger one ,a family friend,with young children,told me that they had handled a case in which a brother confessed to molesting two children,one being an infant. ...they put the case in a closed file, when I asked why, he answered that their hands were tied by the Society's policies...When I asked him what if the victim was his daughter...he then started to think differently.I told him that I hope the WT gets sued until it is dry.
Another elder ,a family member,said if it was his daughter, he'd first beat up the pedophile,go to the police and then the elders.
Finally,an elder ,also a family member,said he learnt of a pedophile in the congregation,he would warn the parents in the congregation even if it meant losing his privileges.
Most JWs will only stop to think for themselves only if affected them personally.
When ex bethelite Barbara Anderson tried to help the WT to see the need to change the policies,they did listen for a while and made a few changes which still had loopholes...but her continued insistence on more changes resulted in her being disfellowshipped for ' causing divisions',her husband was also d'fed for supporting her.
It would take real courage for active JWs to speak out againt 'God' sole appointed spokesman '....even in a matter like this where the GB is very clearly wrong. .
Perhaps the least they could do is to stop giving donations to the World Wide Pedophile Protection Fund.
Kudos to Barbara, Conti and many other brave ones.
And I do hope the Society is sued dry.
👍 29 | 👎 -12
Cognitive dissonance is a mental state created when a person is faced with " information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others."
People faced with the abhorrent truth about their choice to follow an evil policy that causes extreme torture and harm to children and families but faced with the possibility of losing their own families, friends and the only social group they may have ever known causes them to make excuses and lie to themselves about how bad it really is, etc.
Only the application of continued law suits will this group of evil men heading a New York publishing company reconsider what this will cost them.
Until then their followers will cower under their rule and make excuses for their vile decisions.
👍 28 | 👎 -19
I can only speak for me. I have always been of the mind to report molesting of any child to the property authorities. Take that any way you want to as Jesus said to pay Cesar's things to Cesar and God's things to God. If the law has been broken, I go to the police.
I personally know 2 X-JW's that are now in prison for this. There was no cover up, no hiding it and they are no longer JW's. My conscience has to be with how Jehovah sees it, not how man does.
👍 27 | 👎 -26
Originally Answered: Did the Jehovah’s Witnesses really change their blood policy in Bulgaria?
Unless there is information that comes DIRECTLY from Jehovah's Witnesses, either at http://www.watchtower.org or http://www.jw-media.org the claims of blood policy changes in Bulgaria is nothing but rumors and/or lies. That's it.
Any sources outside of Jehovah's Witnesses, the ones whose policy you're discussing, are not reliable.
It's beyond ridiculous to claim that the Jehovah's Witness stand on blood would be different in one part of the world than the rest of the world.
- You would need to directly contact the WTS and see if they would provide you a more detailed explanation. If there were particular legal issues involved, they may not be permitted by law to disclose anything further. In any case, Jehovah's Witness doctrine on the issue of blood, as you have pointed out, has NOT changed.