Real Life Experiences
The Jehovah’s Witness Two Witness RuleSubmitted by Teeny on June 22, 2012 - 6:00 pm 23 Comments
Recently, we published an article titled Why the Watchtower Society has Been Punished over the Candace Conti Child Abuse Case. Many JWB readers thought the evidence we provided in the article was sufficient, especially the points that related to the Jehovah’s Witness Two Witness Rule.
If you’re not familiar with this rule, it goes something like this – an incident, no matter what it is, needs to be seen by two witnesses.
The Watchtower Society use the scripture found in Deuteronomy chapter 9, verse 15, which says “No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.” They also like to use the scriptures in Matthew chapter 18, verses 15 and 16, which say “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. (16) But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.”
There is a problem with this rule though and I think you don’t need to press more than two brain cells together to see what that problem is. If a Jehovah’s Witness is about to molest an innocent young boy or girl, I doubt they’re going to go looking for another witness, unless that other witness is their victim. So you see, this argument falls flat on its face. “Oh but it’s in the Bible, so it must be right!” Yeah, I suppose Jehovah creating the Earth BEFORE he created the Sun seems logical to you (Genesis 1:9-10 & Genesis 1:16-18). Bite me.
In fact, the Jehovah’s Witness Two Witness Rule seems so illogical that one JWB reader, Richard Schiller, came up with his own philosophy. Richard left the following comment in the Candace Conti child abuse article:
The scriptures demanding two witnesses does not refer to two witnesses of any crime. It refers to creating two witnesses to the hearing of the matter. In other words, the matter is put into discussion between criminal and victim with a judge and two witnesses of what the judge is hearing. That makes 3 people making a decision. This doesnt mean a judge and 2 witnesses will be true and just and not equally as bad as the criminal justifying the criminal. BUT nor does it mean you are stuck victimized unless two people were watching the crime.
The WT publications have drifted in and out of Jehovah’s truth on this one, first seeing it correctly interpreted, and then seeing it has forcing victims to have witnesses. Witnesses can see a criminal deny his crime (as an innocent person will also deny the crime he didnt do), but such witnesses will also hear the story change upon 2nd and 3rd discussions of it. Such witnesses will also see the criminal start to blame the victim or accuse the victim of being a liar.
There is alot of role-play in any court case that all courts are guilty of. There is more hate against the JWs not because they are always innocent like JOB was, but because they despise times guilt was clearly true (as was the case with high pirest Eli’s sons taking virginity from all women coming to the temple).
The atitude of THIS TIME WE GOT THEM occurs both with atitudes toward the innocent like Jesus, not just those actually guilty.
Personally, I am not sure if Richard is a Jehovah’s Witness. I think he isn’t. But even still, I can’t figure out where he gets his logic from with regards to the Jehovah’s Witness Two Witness Rule.
We did some digging and came up with this article, which directly sheds light on the Jehovah’s Witness Two Witness Rule. This article can be found on the official media website of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, www.JW-Media.org
If you can’t be bothered going over to their site, here is a snippet of the article.
In case you missed it, here is the bit that discusses the Jehovah’s Witness Two Witness Rule:
If the accused denies the charge, the two elders may arrange for him and the victim to restate their position in each other’s presence, with elders also there. If during that meeting the accused still denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time. Why not? As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say…
So then people, are we in any doubt about the Two Witness Rule? I have a feeling some new light will be flung our way if the Watchtower Society fails in their appeal over the Candace Conti Child Abuse case. They’ll probably claim that the second witness was Jehovah’s Holy Spirit, in which case I will demand to know why the Holy Spirit didn’t intervene! After all, it helped create the Earth before the Sun came into existence, but failed to stop a monster from harming an innocent. I am digressing again, aren’t I?
- Pingback: How does the Watchtower View Sex? on March 6, 2013