“For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation, whether to a king as being superior 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish wrongdoers but to praise those who do good. 15 For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorant talk of unreasonable men. 16 Be as free people, using your freedom, not as a cover for doing wrong, but as slaves of God. 17 Honor men of all sorts, have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God, honor the king.” (1Pe 2:13-17)
Sadly, the Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses chooses to apply the two-witness rule rigidly and often uses it to excuse itself from the Bible mandate 'to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's'—a principle which goes beyond the mere paying of taxes. Using flawed reasoning and Straw Man arguments, they dismiss sincere efforts to help them to see reason, claiming these are attacks by opposers and apostates. (See this video where they have reaffirmed their position and refuse to change.[i]) The Organization views its stand on this as an example of loyalty to Jehovah. They will not abandon a rule they view as one that ensures fairness and justice. In this, they come across to the rank and file as ministers of righteousness. But is this genuine righteousness, or just a façade? (2 Cor. 11:15)
Wisdom is proved righteous by its works. (Mt 11:19) If their reasoning for sticking to the two-witness rule is to ensure fairness—if fairness and justice is their motivation—then they would never abuse the two-witness rule or take advantage of it for an unscrupulous purpose. On that, surely, we can all agree!
Since the two-witness rule comes into play within the Organization when dealing with judicial matters, we will examine the policy and procedures governing that process to see if it is truly equitable and in keeping with the high standard of fairness that the Organization claims to uphold.
In the not-too-distant past, the Governing Body instituted the appeal process. This allowed someone who had been judged as unrepentant of a disfellowshipping offense to appeal the judicial committee's decision to disfellowship. The appeal had to be filed within seven days of the original decision.
According to the Shepherd the Flock of God elder's manual, this arrangement "is a kindness to the wrongdoer to assure him of a complete and fair hearing. (ks par. 4, p. 105)
Is that a true and accurate assessment? Is this appeal process both kind and fair? How is the two-witness rule implemented? We shall see.
A Brief Aside
It should be noted that the entire judicial process practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses is unscriptural. The appeal process was an attempt to bandage up some flaws in the system, but it amounts to sewing new patches on old cloth. (Mt 9:16) There is no basis in the Bible for three-man committees, meeting in secret, excluding observers, and prescribing punishments which the congregation must mete out without even knowing the facts of the case.
The process that is scriptural is outlined in Matthew 18:15-17. Paul gave us the basis for "reinstatement" at 2 Corinthians 2:6-11. For a more complete treatise on the subject, see Be Modest in Walking with God.
Is the Process Truly Equitable?
Once an appeal is made, the Circuit Overseer is contacted by the chairman of the judicial committee. The C.O. will then follow this direction:
To the extent possible, he will select brothers from a different congregation who are impartial and have no ties or relationship to the accused, the accuser, or the judicial committee. (Shepherd the Flock of God (ks) par. 1 p. 104)
So far, so good. The idea conveyed is that the appeal committee is to be totally impartial. However, how can they maintain impartiality when they are subsequently fed the following instruction:
The elders chosen for the appeal committee should approach the case with modesty and avoid giving the impression that they are judging the judicial committee rather than the accused. (ks par. 4, p. 104 – boldface in original)
Just to make sure that the members of the appeal committee get the message, the ks manual has boldfaced the words that direct them to view the original committee in a favorable light. The appellant's whole reason for the appeal is that he (or she) feels that the original committee erred in their judgment of the case. In fairness, he expects the appeal committee to judge the original committee's decision in the light of the evidence. How can they do this if they are directed, in boldface writing no less, not to even give the impression that they are there to judge the original committee?
While the appeal committee should be thorough, they must remember that the appeal process does not indicate a lack of confidence in the judicial committee. Rather, it is a kindness to the wrongdoer to assure him of a complete and fair hearing. (ks par. 4, p. 105 – boldface added)
The elders of the appeal committee should keep in mind that likely the judicial committee has more insight and experience than they do regarding the accused. (ks par. 4, p. 105 – boldface added)
The appeal committee is told to be modest, not give the impression they are judging the original committee and bear in mind that this process does not indicate a lack of confidence in the judicial committee. They are told that their judgment is likely to be inferior to that of the original committee. Why all this direction to pussy-foot around the feelings of the original committee? Why this need to give them special honor? If you were facing the prospect of being totally cut off from your family and friends, would you be comforted to learn about this direction? Would it make you feel that you are really going to get a fair and impartial hearing?
Does Jehovah favor the judges over the little one? Is He overly concerned about their feelings? Does He bend over backwards not to offend their delicate sensibilities? Or does he weigh them with a heavier load?
“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment.” (Jas 3:1)
“He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless.” (Isa 40:23 NASB)
How is the appeal committee directed to view the accused? Up to this point in the ks manual, he or she has been referred to as "the accused". This is fair. Since this is an appeal, it is only right that they view him as potentially innocent. Thus, we can't help but wonder if a little bit of unwitting bias has slipped by the editor. While trying to reassure all that the appeal process is "a kindness", the manual refers to the accused as "the wrongdoer". Surely such a judgmental term has no place in an appeal hearing, since it will likely prejudice the minds of the appeal committee members.
In a similar way, their viewpoint is bound to be affected when they learn they are to view the accused as a wrongdoer, an unrepentant sinner, even before the meeting gets underway.
Since the judicial committee has already judged him unrepentant, the appeal committee will not pray in his presence but will pray before inviting him into the room. (ks par. 6, p. 105 – italics in original)
The appellant either believes he is innocent, or he acknowledges his sin, but believes he is repentant, and that God has forgiven him. That is why he is making the appeal. So why treat him as an unrepentant sinner in a process which is supposed to be "a kindness to ensure him of a complete and fair hearing"?
The Basis for the Appeal
The appeal committee looks to answer two questions as stated in the Shepherd the Flock of God elders manual, page 106 (Boldface in original):
- Was it established that the accused committed a disfellowshipping offense?
- Did the accused demonstrate repentance commensurate with the gravity of his wrongdoing at the time of the hearing with the judicial committee?
In my forty years as an elder, I have known of only two judicial cases that were overturned on appeal. One, because the original committee disfellowshipped when there was no Bible, nor organizational, basis to do so. They clearly acted improperly. This can happen and so in such cases the appeal process can serve as a check mechanism. In the other case, the elders felt that the accused was truly repentant and that the original committee had acted in bad faith. They were raked over the coals by the Circuit Overseer for overturning the original committee's decision.
There are times when good men will do the right thing and "damn the consequences", but they are exceedingly rare in my experience and besides, we are not here to discuss anecdotes. Rather we want to examine whether the policies of the Organization are set up to ensure a truly fair and just process for appeals.
We've seen how leaders of the Organization adhere to the two-witness rule. We know that the Bible says that no accusation against an older man should be entertained except at the mouth of two or three witnesses. (1 Tim 5:19) Fair enough. The two-witness rule applies. (Remember, we're distinguishing sin from crimes.)
So let's look at the scenario where the accused admits he sinned. He admits he is a wrongdoer, but he contests the decision that he is unrepentant. He believes he is truly repentant.
I have firsthand knowledge of one such case that we can use to illustrate a major hole in the judicial policies of the Organization. Unfortunately, this case is typical.
Four youths from different congregations got together on several occasions to smoke marijuana. Then they all realized what they had done and stopped. Three months went by, but their consciences bothered them. Since JWs are taught to confess all sins, they felt that Jehovah could not truly forgive them unless they repented before men. So each went to his respective body of elders and confessed. Of the four, three were judged repentant and given private reproof; the fourth was judged unrepentant and disfellowshipped. The disfellowshipped youth was the son of the congregation coordinator who, out of fairness, had excluded himself from all the proceedings.
The disfellowshipped one appealed. Remember, he had stopped smoking marijuana on his own three months before and had come to the elders voluntarily to confess.
The appeal committee believed the youth was repentant, but they were not allowed to judge the repentance they witnessed. According to the rule, they had to judge whether he was repentant at the time of the original hearing. Since they were not there, they had to rely on witnesses. The only witnesses were the three elders of the original committee and the young man himself.
Now let's apply the two-witness rule. For the appeal committee to accept the young man's word they would have to judge that the older men of the original committee had acted improperly. They would have to accept an accusation against, not one, but three older men on the basis of the testimony of one witness. Even if they believed the youth—which it was later revealed that they did—they could not act. They would actually be acting against clear Bible direction.
Years went by and subsequent events revealed that the chairman of the judicial committee had a long-standing grudge against the coordinator and sought to get at him through his son. This is not said to reflect badly on all Witness elders, but just to provide some context. These things can and do happen in any organization, and that is why policies are in place—to safeguard against abuses. However, the policy in place for judicial and appeal hearings actually helps to ensure that when such abuses occur, they will go unchecked.
We can say this because the process is set up to ensure that the accused will never have the needed witnesses to prove his case:
The witnesses should not hear details and testimony of other witnesses. Observers should not be present for moral support. Recording devices should not be allowed. (ks par. 3, p. 90 – boldface in original)
"Observers should not be present" will ensure no human witnesses to what transpires. Banning recording devices eliminates any other evidence the accused might lay claim to in order to make his case. In short, the appellant has no basis and therefore no hope of winning his appeal.
The policies of the Organization ensure that there will never be two or three witnesses to contradict the testimony of the judicial committee.
Given this policy, writing that “the appeal process...is a kindness to the wrongdoer to assure him of a complete and fair hearing”, is a lie. (ks par. 4, p. 105 – boldface added)
________________________________________________________________
[i] The reasoning behind this JW doctrinal misinterpretation has been debunked. See The Two-Witness Rule under the Microscope
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Colette on 2017-12-21 10:24:09
This article very ably analyses instances of 'wrongdoing' by publishers and the fact that the publisher is set up for failure.
What about cases of wrongdoing by elders? We have the example of Nathan who reproved King David, so always understood that we could reprove or report an elder, even as would happen to us. In our own experience though, we have found that wrongdoing by elders is covered up by the elders themselves and circuit overseers. In one instance, where we reported fraud and extortion committed by an elder to his CBE and the circuit overseer, we were put under a judicial investigation for maliciousness, even though we only reported the matter to responsible elders, didn't gossip about this elder or otherwise spread information about his crimes (yes, crimes indeed as one of the victims opened up a criminal case against this elders). We were made to apologize to the elder for reporting his wrongdoing. He was completely unrepentant as he took no steps to recompense his victims and remains an assembly speaker.
Indeed there are inbuilt double standards in the jw organization and I am really happy to have left it.
Comment by John of ARC on 2017-12-21 10:53:03
Points solidly driven home, Meleti.
JW’s judical committees are the quintessential kangaroo courts, both kafkaesque and Orwellian in nature. The biblical reference coming closest to modus operandi being the process Jesus was submitted to.
Adding to the injustice is that elders know the system, procedures, process and all appeal venues, providing for two different scales to be used: on for the flock; another for the shepherds. The JW judical procedure, unscriptural and unloving as it is, was one of the first, key factors making me understand that something was structurally rotten in the “kingdom (hall) of Denmark”. Fortunately, the “things said secretly will be shouted out from the roof tops”. Transparency and freedom of speech are two of the few checks and balances in a (man made) theocracy, the Org being short both.
Comment by Mike West on 2017-12-21 13:29:54
The org leadership self-righteously teaches that these policies are designed to 'keep Jehovah's org clean' and with twisted reasoning call it loving discipline. In reality, they continue to cling to these policies as a club to reinforce the pyramadic structure of the org and to solidify their own authority by the use of fear. How unlike Jesus treatment of sinners in Mark 2:15-17, and Johns comments about love vs. fear in 1 John 4:17,18.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2017-12-21 14:03:52
An important subject, Meliti. In my research I noted that no man could be put to death by the Sanhedrin unless there was at least one member to speak up for him.
In the case of a Judicial Committee (a) this is behind closed doors (b) it is three against one, and that one is often younger and inexperienced, certainly when it comes to the instructions you have ably outlined and (c) there is no one to act for the defense or advise the accused, a principle which is vital in our courts to ensure both sides of the case is heard.
When we add the "need" to keep the congregation clean, does justice have a fair chance ? Yet many times this was the very problem under the old Jewish system, and prophets had to speak in Jehovah's name, reminding them of the need to deal justly with all.
Comment by Psalmbee on 2017-12-21 19:45:00
Okay well, I know I can get most here to grimace, Frown, dislike, roll your eyes and be disgruntled just to put it politely. But I'm wondering if I can make you chuckle with a little spiritual humor. Here it goes: Our mediator informed me that we have all been diagnosed with all-timers disease but he said not to worry, the no-timers are working on it. (Jb 24:1)
Reply by MarthaMartha on 2017-12-22 05:30:07
Well I'm not going to dislike, or give you the impression that I'm shunning you Psalmbee. I will reply to your comment honestly.
I don't understand what you said, so I can't chuckle or grimace except with confusion.
I don't know whether it's your sense of humour that I don't get, or the Atlantic divide between our thinking, but for someone who claims to speak clearly and honestly you come across very garbled! Sorry not sorry as the young ones say.
Are you deliberately trying to goad people into disagreeing with you?
Or, maybe you can explain your spiritual humour in a way I will understand?
Martha
?Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-12-22 08:14:41
Honesty is the best policy Martha and I thank you for it.
Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-12-22 08:46:59
When you arrive I'll be there alone. I'm a one man band, most Witnesses don't understand. Perhaps you would like to lend a hand. I can play you any song you like to cheer up that life you lead. Look at that rain falling! I must let the show go on. (Col 2:16,17) No Human witnesses required.
Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-12-22 10:56:48
Thanks for announcing the comment removal. You didn't claim you're other removal of the Horses??
Comment by Warp Speed on 2017-12-21 20:28:15
Meleti,
I really appreciate how you put your articles together in such a logical, cohesive manner. The ability to do so is truly a blessing, not only for you, but for all who read the words.
This particular subject can be a sore one for me at times. Sometimes I wonder how in the world I ever participated in this unscriptural process. From my current vantage point, it seems so clear to me how unloving the JW Judicial System really is. One of the warning signs should have been obvious, but heavy indoctrination can squash it.
Coming home late at night after a Committee Meeting where the outcome was to disfellowship someone from the congregation, I would throw up and not be able to sleep a wink. I would tell myself that it needed to be handled, for the good of the congregation, the good of the "sinner", and to keep Jehovah's name from reproach.
I can see now that if this were truly from God, I shouldn't have felt so horrible. I guess the only thing we can do now is try to go forward and keep discerning what the Lord's will REALLY is. The days of serving men are over...Reply by MarthaMartha on 2017-12-22 05:43:28
Do you know what, Warp? I shed a tear reading that.
I may be over emotional with this blasted flu bug that I can't get rid of... Or it may be that your experience took me back to when I was a little girl and my dad was the congregation servant in the days before elders.
He suffered so badly with anxiety, loss of sleep,stress over the decisions he had to make. I remember sitting on the platform til 11pm sometimes after a meeting while he and the servant body wrangled over issues that he then couldn't speak about to us. All this along with making a living to support a family.
The stress was tangible. It made him ill.
When the elders arrangement came in it was a relief, but still, the stress was bad. My dad came off as an elder eventually, but he served many many years.
It always struck me that this religion caused so much stress to those who had responsibility. I was so glad I wasn't a man in this organisation!
It didn't sit well with Jesus' word that his yoke was kindly and light.
Of course now I know that many of the burdens you brothers carried were the result of human rules and regulations. To be honest I now feel that religious organisations are the bane of humanity.
I salute you for surviving those years under so much pressure. I believe you will have done your best to apply the rules as kindly as you could under the circumstances, as my Dad and husband did.
I'm very glad you're free of all that now and that you're here sharing your thoughts with us.
Isn't it lovely to be free and feel the kindly yoke we were promised? ?
Much love to you and Mrs Warpspeed
Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2017-12-22 06:01:44
Do you recall how we were meant to distinguish between the weak and the wicked ? Sisters used to go into tears, and we often took that as a sign of repentance and weakness. Brothers, on the other hand would fight their corner, or sit there silent. The result would be disfellowshipping.
But most of them wanted to serve Jehovah - otherwise why were they there ? Disfellowshipping was like a season's ban for a foul at football. It was excessive, and not a lot like the way the wrongdoer in Corinth was dealt with. Keeping the congregation clean at all costs seemed to be the word.
Really, I do not know how some ever fought their way back, but they did.
Reply by Joseph Anton on 2017-12-22 15:19:58
'The days of serving men are over....' Well put.
Comment by MarthaMartha on 2017-12-22 06:02:12
Meleti, I know first hand of an appeal that went as you described.
The original JC felt there wasn't enough repentance shown so DF'd.
In the appeal the appeal committee agreed that they felt there was enough repentance now....but that if the amount of repentance shown at the original JC was not enough they couldn't revoke the decision of the first JC.
How on earth does that compute when the goal is " to gain your brother/sister"?
In my limited experience of judicial matters as a mere sister, it seems there is more consideration given to what the congregation will think than showing kindness, empathy and Christian love for someone who is dying inside with shame and sadness but doesn't have the right words or reactions to tick the repentance boxes. It's like throwing a 5 yr old child into an A level examination.
All this from men who are themselves sinners.
Where is the golden rule?
It beggars belief.
I always said from when I was young, there was no way I would ever go before a judicial committee and I still stand by it. I saw enough to feel very strongly that it was a humiliating, unfair and intimidating ordeal and I would rather take my chances with asking forgiveness from God through the ransom provision than put put my faith in three men. Thankfully I've never had to face that prospect, but who knows what may come in the future! Seems I'm more likely to be hung for sticking to bible truth than committing sin these days! ?
As it turns out I now know that I don't need forgiveness from men at all. Sometimes I wonder if I've been a Caholic all along you know. ??
You have to laugh.......
?Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-12-22 10:18:53
The irony is that JWs condemn the Catholic model of the confessional, and claim that the forgiveness of men is not a requirement and that no man can forgive a sin, but only God. Those are their words, but in practice, they are more like the Catholic model then even the Catholics are.
Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-12-23 12:22:25
Yes, very ironic indeed. If it is God who forgives, why do men need to forgive first?
Of course, the whole "business model", if you will, is really based on the Org (GB) being interjected between the "sinner" and God. Jesus is being pushed right out of the equation. The Elders then "stand-in" to represent the GB.
Loyalty to men once again being put above loyalty to God through Christ.....
Reply by John of ARC on 2017-12-23 07:02:14
The elder training video from 2011 or ‘12 “the ABC for DF’ing a fornicator” is underscoring your point, Martha. The video (available on YouTube) is quite revealing on how the offender is being tested and tricked with words to see if he lives up to the Shepherds book’s defention of repentance, rather than being led and admonished to true repentance.
PS: never having been an elder, I would appreciate if someone could authenticate the video, along with the elder training video for comforting a widowed woman.Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-12-23 09:54:20
Hi JoA,
The video is the real deal, but if memory serves, it was more like 2014 that it was made.....Reply by John of ARC on 2017-12-23 10:47:19
Thanks, WS.
Would you remember what was said as part of this training/between sessions? I am particularly intersted in finding out whether the society actually tries to break up relationships between JWs and non-JWs, even in the situation of pregnancy. As intercourse is considered absolute forgiveness in a situation of adultery (i.e. a kind of “remarrying” a couple), even though scriptural basis for this is lacking, I find it hypocritical at the same time splitting couples (where pregnancy is at hand). in the latter example, Jehovah may consider the two married, but not the first couple, dependent on the heart condition of the adulterer and the deceived’s forgivness, independent of sex after coming to about the adultery.
Both issues above are imo products of pharisaical thinking, and if my assumptions are correct, the org has placed themselves under a (chess) fork situation; they cannot have it both ways.
(Sorry for long comment, also considering its not fully connected with the issue)Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-12-23 11:11:24
To answer the first part of your question:
1) When the elders in the video addressed "Robbie" about his "friendship" with the pregnant girl, they were trying to convey the basic JW precept that "bad associations spoil useful habits". ( 1 Corinthians 15:33)
So yes, if the girl was not a Witness, he would basically be counseled to end the relationship. ( Or until she became a baptized Witness, if studying)
The second part of your question I am having a hard time understanding. Could you please clarify?Reply by John of ARC on 2017-12-23 15:15:29
Thanks for reply. Problem with videos released on YouTube is that you don’t know what is said orally in the elders school. E.g. a CO might say that what is shown in the movie is not what the society teach. The second part of my comment above is more of a logical consequence than a question. If the society really think it’s right in the eyes of Jehovah, to abandon one’s own unborn child, and not take responsibility for one’s own actions, it cannot simultaneously teach that an adulterer is forgiven just because he managed to seduce his mentally unstable wife, right after admitting adultery, without even perhaps laying all cards on the table.
Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-12-23 15:30:07
If I recall correctly, there were some videos at that School that gave a contrast. Take 1 might show the "correct" way to handle a matter, and Take 2 might show how not to handle it. The videos are a relatively new feature to the KM Schools. If there WAS a video from the Branch, no deviation would dare be mentioned by the instructors unless they themselves wanted to come under the charge of "apostasy".
Having said that, different elder bodies can vary in their handling of matters to degree, especially on larger bodies.Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-12-23 15:56:32
(Ho 9:8 KJ or NWT the one here is totally opposite! ) is fitting, tell the elders or Co's or anyone up the ladder all the way to GB and beyond to "handle" that matter. (pari-mutuel) I'm all in. (Lu 20:35)
Reply by Yehorakam on 2017-12-25 13:08:53
Hi John. Just to give you some info...the video was released in 2012. It was prepared with the utmost care by the GB so as to be "perfect" for teaching. In the KM school, it is paused every minute or so, so as to totally dissect it and highlight how good every detail is. There are in fact a few "planned mistakes" in the video that they also analyze so as to show elders what not to do. For example, one planned mistake is that an elder on the body recommends that an elder who is very close to Robbie serve on the committee. That is shown to be glaring "mistake" because the elder might not be "impartial." Sadly, in this action they miss the whole point in Jesus' illustration of the lost sheep (an unrepentant sinner). The shepherd went after that sheep BECAUSE he had special feelings for the sheep. If he didn't, he wouldn't have left the 99 for it, nor perhaps had success in turning a possible unrepentant sinner back from his course. For think, if you made a mistake and perhaps needed an attitude adjustment, would you be more likely to respond to a cold "impartial" elder you hardly know, or the loving petitions of someone who has always been your very close friend? On the flipside, which elder is more likely not to give up on an "unrepentant sheep?"...an elder who sees Robbie as a son, or an elder who barely knows him? Again, it highlights their lack of holy spirit, because 'looking' at the illustration of the lost sheep, "they look in vain." It also shows their folly of even having a judicial committee, because their objective is not to lead a "sinner" to repentance through continual help and supplications. The judicial committee is an inquiry only to determine if there is repentance in the moment the questions are asked. No time is wasted to form the committee (that is lauded in the video). Why the haste? Only because they have to reach a conclusion if the person remains "in" or "out." That reveals there objective is not to "gain their brother" but simply to judge him as he stands in the moment. In a case like this where Caesar's law has not been broken and Robbie voluntarily confesses a personal sin, they would have been better to assign one elder close to Robbie to visit and encourage him to consider his responsibilities before God and his fellowman, extracting lessons from the scriptures and let him make his own decision as to what he perceives God would want him to do and what would be best for all involved, let him make his own decision, live with it and answer for himself to God for it. Sadly, the elders are afraid of letting individuals have the freedom to make their own decisions and answer for them on their own. That would be preposterous, "letting them do whatever they want to do." And yet that is what our Creator has done in general for 1,000's of years. He has let billions of humans "go their own way" making their own decisions and answer for them. In 99.9% cases, he has not interfered, threatened or influenced them one way or another, precisely to see if they will make decisions out of love for him. We would do well to imitate that. But that won't happen in the org.
From what I remember in the video, "Robbie" was at a loss as to what he was going to do with this unwanted pregnancy. The pressure from the elders was to "cut off" the relationship. Why do I say so? Well, to determine if he's "repentant," the elders ask him if he has cut off the relationship. The question, although appearing innocent, is very subtle yet powerful pressure from the elders to cut off the relationship in order to show his repentance if he hasn't already done so. That is very typical in a judicial committee. Robbie would naturally deduce that to do what is right, and show his repentance, he should cut off the relationship. Where there is a an unborn child and a relationship between 2 people, the elders would do best not to make any suggestions or leading questions, otherwise they will be sharing in the sins of others when mistakes or suffering result. From experience, I know that many elders would dissuade Robbie of marrying the girl. To them, marrying her would be making a mistake on top of a mistake. Many elders would encourage Robbie to somehow take care of the child without marrying the girl.
In conclusion, the org often gives more importance to a piece of paper (such as a marriage or divorce certificate) or a sexual act (supposedly waiving the innocent mate's right to a divorce) than they do to the existence o absence of loyal love. Not only are judicial committees an insult to Christ, most elders are not spirit appointed elders as described in the Bible. They have indeed created a monster by not following Christ.
Much love,Reply by John of ARC on 2017-12-26 09:17:12
Thanks, Yehorakam. I deeply appreciate your comment and sharing of your experience. Most useful and clarifying.
Thanks also to the other brothers and sisters who have contributed with their thoughts on the “training videos”.
Reply by Colette on 2017-12-23 23:28:10
Joan of Arc - I had a very dear friend who committed fornication and fell pregnant with twins. The elders found that she was repentant of the fornication so placed her under restriction. They told her that if she married the father of the children however, she would be disobedient and would be disfellowshipped as he was an unbeliever.
Reply by John of ARC on 2017-12-24 03:15:36
Thanks for sharing your story, Colette.
If a Christian make someone pregnant, I struggle to see how Jehovah could not consider them married, and that a conscientious person would take care of his wife and children (1 Tim 5:8) and the child/children would be sanctified through the Christian parent (1 Chor 7:14 ).
Unless anyone can substantiate that the two indeed are not married before God (as a child is conceived, and they have shown through actions and mutual love that they have committed themselves to each other), I would argue that the Society through its rules actively splits up families/couples, in direct opposition to God’s word (Mat 19:5,6); people who are in their most vulnerable period in their young lives, depriving them from nearness to their own children.
To end the circle the WT argues, without any scriptural backing, that an adulter is forgiven if his mate has sex with him (and no scriptural ground for remarry would exists), placing an extreme, symbolic importance to sex in this instance, but not in the other. In this latter situation, the problem is that the innocent mate could be under extreme emotional stress, and the perpetrator may not have been completely honest, not giving ground for full forgivness. Consequently, the Society may bee squeezing two people together, that may be separated in the eyes of God.
I think the discussion thread above illustrates once more how the Org are developing unscriptural rules, regulations and processes, lording over peoples faith and conscience and on some matters make people do things in direct opposition to Gods. They stand on sacred ground, but have failed removing their sandals.Reply by John of ARC on 2017-12-24 05:23:22
Thanks and agree. I understood you that way above, Ifionlyhadabrain. I also understand your moniker to be ironic: “great minds think alike” ;-)
Btw: I am a man. don’t let my moniker fool you.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-12-24 08:22:45
In Israel, if an unmarried man and woman committed fornication, they were required to marry.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-12-24 08:05:00
How's that phrase go in the NWT? "God gave them up to a disapproved mental state."
Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-12-23 19:31:41
I second that demotion. I have never been an elder either, but I would recommend the book of "Ruth" to the widow. I'm not "Ruthless" like the Tower. Jesus says come, "drink life's water free". Jehovah provides.
Reply by Devora on 2017-12-24 07:55:51
John of Arc,I can verify the other Video Re/the elders visit on a Widow;it was 1 of the last CLAM meetings I attended,wasit 2015? It was presented as an'example'of elders' effective shepherding: A suicidal situation on it(and the widowed pioneer sister next to me gripped my hand)as we,totally appalled, saw a disconnect from reality played out:'are you an integrity keeper?are you loyal'?while all the hard evidence was there,that the Widow on that video needed emergency(professionallevel)helps!The elders on it were blind to her anguish..cool..had the audacity at the end of the"comforting"call,to remind her of serving them cookies.Yep.Weak clapping(not mine!) afterwards..we were sitting in the hall's center,and she/I spoke out loud-how poor/dangerous that whole(Video)situation was.I,awake,said"so, this is supposed to be the best?that Video was supposed to be.. superior?"trying to awake her,and any who heard us.
Reply by John of ARC on 2017-12-24 09:33:06
Thanks for verification, Devora. I am boiling inside reading your account. I have comforted my crying wife more than once, after she has received “loving” support from elders. Knowing now how they are trained certainly explain things.
Comment by Joseph Anton on 2017-12-22 15:16:47
Unrepentant sinners never tell on themselves. I've never understood why bringing your sins before the elders isn't the first, and foremost act of repentance. But they love details.
Reply by John of ARC on 2017-12-22 16:30:52
Well put, Joseph.
A girl i once knew told me she voluntarily confessed a “milder” act of porneia, leading to a hearing with elders and with her father (the P.O.) present; them going after the details. An abuse in itself. Separately, she found porn movies in her parents possession (I.e. the P.O. being one of them). She never confronted him with it to my knowledge, and I guess he never came clean with his pornography habits to the other elders in the congregation. It did not end there. Aledgedly, her younger sibling was/became victim of child abuse committed by one of the other elders in the congregation, him also being a wife beater and alcoholic. (He was one of the guys that asked me the babtism questions. Does that render my babtism invalid?) The whole story is like cut out of a John Irving novel, all taking place within a spiritual paradise and hidden behind JW smoke and mirrors. Sad. Although the events impacting the family in the example were not directly related, the JW procedures were hovering over the happenings as a specter taking pleasure in human suffering.
Comment by Joseph Anton on 2017-12-22 15:44:29
The transparency of the internet saved my neck from a group of elders who attempted to ruin my life over my occupation. The PDF for Shepard the Flock is a must-have on your phone in 2017 if you're still attending meetings. We don't even know these rules and regulations exist, and yet we're absolutely being subjected to these edicts and how simple men interpret them and wield them. And we go into these meetings ignorant and humble. Lambs to the slaughter. I've successfully staved off two judicial meetings just knowing what the rules are. This is the most disgusting practice in the organization.
Comment by eve04 on 2017-12-22 22:24:29
I must say the disfellowshipping arrangement is what started to wake me up. I know of a couple of cases were sisters got disfellowshipped. Two of the sweetest people I've met. I didn’t understand it because they went to the elders and confessed. One of them appealed, lost and wrote a letter for 3 years to be reinstated. Her mother would always say "it is Jehovah’s way" and I would say it couldn’t be. Now I know it isn’t!
Comment by Colette on 2017-12-22 23:13:21
A fine, long time witness heard about me being df'd for having a problem with the rife child abuse in the org, and the fact that I had to ask someone to let me know if an announcement was made or not. The result was that this person stopped going to all meetings and now can see that the jw's are just another religion.
There are many comments in this post about how unjust the disfellowshipping arrangement is. Only, most publishers don't know what is going on. So why play by the organization's rules? (Mark 4:22) . . ."For there is nothing hidden except for the purpose of being exposed; nothing has become carefully concealed but for the purpose of coming into the open."Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-12-23 01:29:27
You play by the rules if you are one of Jehovah"s Baptized Witnesses, cause if you're not Baptized you are just an interesed or (concerned) guest, onlooker (partaker). So to put it plainly if you are not baptized and get dis-fellowshiped . In reality you never got in, so how can you get kicked out? They can only dis-allow you from trying to get in. Their language is loaded and pre-formed & performed by the skilled. I would suggest to who ever is concerned to learn every word of it before making the plunge. (Jer 49:7) Jah's (t) keep trying!! Compare Faith on the March book Chapter "10" pg 138. (Covingston's Covenant). C.C. Ho say ahh! (Ho 10: 3,4). W"HO"A Sea! Who SEE?= who's he =who'll see. Don't forget about the silent double "LL"! Chest a re:minder buckle -up.
Comment by wild olive on 2017-12-23 18:19:04
You really nailed this one Meleti.
Why on earth did the GB decide that a crime punishable by law has to be dealt with by elders? I mean why draw the line with child abuse? Why not do the same with fraud or murder ? Crimes also punishable by law.
So clearly , the missapplication of the 2witness rule is intended primarily to protect the reputation of JWorg , keeping the cong clean is a poor second outcome, and protecting the victim is an even poorer third outcome that most times doesn't even make it.
Strangely similar,at the moment there is a inquirey going on in American universities over " college rape" . It's turned into a mess because the allegations were handled internally by " counsellors " , not reported to law enforcement . This was done to protect the reputation of the universities , otherwise funding from new entrants would dry up, JWorg has gone and done the same thing, and now the tree is bearing fruit , and boy is it rotten.
Comment by Alithia on 2018-01-07 09:26:26
I think many valid points have been made from all of the contributors to this site in connection with the 2 witness rule. I have benefited greatly from considering the various viewpoints.
I would also like to add my thoughts on what the organisation states is strong biblical precedent to the 2 witness rule, and for using it as a basis for determining judicial matters today. And provide some criticism on the JW broadcast doubling down on the 2 witness rule as being, non-negotiable and an article of faith for Jehovah’s Witnesses to cling to desperately.
I would like firstly to say that there is no question as to the bible mentioning 2 or 3 witnesses in connection with solving issues, where there is strife, or where incontrovertible proof needs to be established. However, I think there is a real problem with understanding, where these scriptures appear, and finally in the application Jehovah’s Witnesses make using these scriptures in their judicial system. Particularly with regard to cases of child abuse.
I refer to the accounts in Deuteronomy, only glossed over in the VDO from JW Broadcast, and not analysed in any context or historical background or anything else except for how it is applied today. In this case Duet 19:15. The context beforehand describes two situations where the same thing occurred. The loss of life, at the hand of another. The context discusses how in both situations the one who caused the death flees to the city of refuge. Both the one who intentionally, and the other who unintentionally, caused the untimely death. The context does not consider at this point if there were any witnesses to the incident, or not. The matter is consequently decided later, by the elders of the city as to the guilt or innocence of the ones who caused the death of another person. One aspect the elders would consider as evidence or as a witness is if there was a motive and opportunity for doing so, such as mentioned in Duet 19:11. But if a man hated his fellow man and he was waiting to attack and he fatally wounded him and he died. The elders could consider this as sufficient motive and circumstances for the assailant having intentionally caused the death of his fellow man. But there would be other indicators the elders could and would need to consider. No doubt their conclusion would be reached from their thorough investigation into the matter. Simply hating someone and wanting to actually kill someone is a subjective thing, difficult to gauge. The one causing the death could dispute this; especially they would do this if they were innocent of murder and were guilty only of man slaughter! The evidence of the one who caused the untimely death would need to be heard impartially too. No doubt the elders would take into consideration many matters around the circumstances of the incident. Any past activities of the assailant, any words said, in the past, to the victim or others, indicating he wanted to harm or cause the death of the victim, any past aggression or assaults, other actions or the actual circumstances where on the day things coalesced to the point where the assailant actually caused the death of the victim. Duet 19:16-21 continues with regard to the matter of 2 witnesses, but does not end on the matter, just because there are not 2 witnesses. It continues with regards to the matter of there being only one witness, and a possible malicious witness at that. The scriptures do not say to the elders they should cease the investigation, in important matters such as the killing of someone or moving the boundary marker or any sin or error, Duet 19:15. Just because there are not 2 witnesses. A case of one person’s word against another. (such as is often the case in cases of child sexual abuse). The single accuser may insist on his testimony, take a vow as was common in the time, and no doubt would be aware of the consequences of offering false and malicious testimony. Rather the scriptures advise the continuing procedure for, firstly, determining if the single, accuser is a malicious witness or not. After which no doubt, further investigation may reveal the guilt or innocence of the accused, or of how to deal with a malicious witness. How could thid be determined? This leads to another provision under the Mosaic Law, something conveniently overlooked by JW Org today when they refer back to the Mosaic Law as a support to how they do things today. Something the JW Org does not have at their disposal as did the nation of Israel is the miraculous Urim and Thumin. Exedous28:30. Which gave Arron and the priest’s supernatural power to determine the truth of a matter where it was difficult to judge. Still in the context of 2 witnesses, the scriptures continue, Duet 19:17. The two men that have the dispute will stand before Jehovah, the priests and the judges who will be serving in those days.
JW Org agrees this is the method whereby the priests could invoke Divine intervention to resolve an otherwise humanely impossible task. Again provided for in the Mosaic Law, Numbers 5:5-31. If a man was suspicious of his wife being involved in infidelity although not being able to prove it. He could approach the priests who would invoke Divine intervention by carrying out the water test. Verse13 says, if another man had relations with her but it was unknown to her husband and remained undiscovered, so that she had defiled herself but there were no witnesses against her and she had not been caught: Under Divine intervention the priests were directed to perform a ritual, the woman would drink what appears to be plain water and some dust from the tabernacle and made to drink it. If guilty she would experience an observable, immediate and painful outcome. This would reveal the truth of the undiscovered matter. The JW info states without any real evidence, the Urim and the Thumin was only used in matters of national importance, trying to down play the use of this provision in matters of general every day judgements, although this is only an assumption. It fails to address how the water tests involving Divine intervention in Numbers 5:5-31 addresses a simple matter which in the final analyses could also have been only the unfounded jealous feelings of a loser of a husband!
In any case it is amazing to think that unsolved murders as in the case of the cities of refuge or matters of apostasy or false and malicious witnesses, (and we could add sexual child abuse to the list), could not constitute matters of national importance! The JW organisation and the elder bodies do not today possess the miraculous Urim and Thumin, or Miracle Water. There was nothing amiss with the Mosaic Law at the time it was given as Duet 32:4 states, The Rock perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust righteous and upright is he. They are the one who have acted corruptly. Says Duet in finality after listing the Law and how it should be administered, and noting if there is any injustice it is because of man not God. Today JW Org is certainly at fault not God.
The closest thing they have is their highly regarded shepherd the flock book. The books content has readily cherry picked from certain aspects from the Mosaic Law where it wants to. Such as the "2 witness rule". In fact not a rule at all but does appear and should be understood only in context where it is found. But as a result it fails to deliver a coherent system of dealing with problems because of trying to import only some aspects of the Mosaic Law that fits another time, another place, another people another circumstance and in the final analyses an altogether redundant system that does not work because it is not supported by Divine intervention when required. And that has been replaced by the Kingly Law of Love, which is supported and has Gods backing. As already brought out by the comments of others, righteousness is proved by the works or results. The results of the 2 witness rule are horrendous! Anyone supporting it and adding to the horror surely must bear responsibility before Jehovah. I would now like to discuss Matthew 18:15-17. With reference to the JW broadcast VDO doubling down on the 2 witness rule and used as evidence that the 2 witness rule in the Mosaic Law is re-stated for Christians to practice in the Christian congregation. As implemented by JWs. And is supportive of the strong scriptural backing for the judicial process used by JW as pertaining to sexual child abuse.
Firstly to begin with the Org has for a long time and often uses this section of scripture to support their judicial system as if Jesus words were intended for that purpose. Let’s look at the entire chapter first to get a feel for what Jesus words were intended for? Reading the chapter in its entirety you get the feel Jesus was teaching his disciples lessons on developing Godly qualities. The need for humility, forgiveness and how to get along with one another in love. Of the need to make great efforts and self-sacrifice in this regard, in imitation of their Father Jehovah. In the first few verses Jesus corrects his followers who were constantly squabbling, and who had aspirations to be great among them, he teaches them to be humble, and uses an illustration of children who are humble and teachable. A radical idea in a society that valued honour and high status amongst peers. He continues to give the illustration of the 99 sheep and the lost one, illustrating the need to care for others no matter how insignificant in the big scheme of things, all sheep were important to God, paying particular attention to the needy lost sheep, and not just to the 99 safely in the pen. Jesus disciples were not to be callous and uncaring like the Pharisees. Jesus disciples ask him how many times they should forgive their brother. Jesus famously replies not just 7 times but 77 times! He gives a lengthy lesson in forgiveness. From versus 21-35 using the story of the King who forgave much and the slave who would not reciprocate with others who owed him. A lesson in how we need to imitate our Father in the matter of forgiveness, he has forgiven us much, so we could at least readily extend mercy and forgiveness to our brothers and sisters. Otherwise the wrath of God will come upon us!
Now with the context of Jesus words in mind, let’s look and read without any pre conceived ideas the section in Matthew 18:15-17.
“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal 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, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.
Firstly carefully note it is presupposed a brother has a legitimate, cause for complaint against his brother. This is not a situation to establish guilt. And the fault is one that obviously can be resolved between them. That’s why the counsel is to raise the matter between them in a confidential setting. Reveal the fault between him and you alone! This is the loving thing to do. Jesus continues, by saying if he does not listen and you do not succeed in gaining your brother; take along one or two more. From Jesus words the wronged individual may take along only one more person, not to establish guilt but in an effort to readjust and to gain their brother! Not to ascertain guilt as in the case of an investigative 2 elders to a report of a sin or to have 2 or more witnesses to nail the wrong doer later on in a judicial council! The whole gist of the exercise is to gain ones brother; if he does not respond then it would seem the efforts for the time being are not bearing the desired results. The wronged one together with the witnesses who endeavor to help the erring individual should then go to the congregation. No mention here of a body of elders, no mention of a judicial committee to establish guilt, no mention of the 2 witness rule. In fact 2 witnesses in this account is clearly insufficient because the whole congregation becomes involved, possibly consisting of 50-60 people! And then if the person still does not respond and all options are exhausted. Then it’s time to view that person in a different light. All the time keeping in mind Jesus’ word in Matthew 18: 21-22. You should forgive your brother 77 times! Nothing described here even remotely has a parallel with the modern day judicial process with Jehovah’s Witnesses! The whole point of the exercise in Jesus’ words is to point out to the disciples that you go to great efforts to help your brother even if he has wronged you. Hence the lost sheep, the need to forgive 77 times, the parable of the King who forgave a great debt and the need to be humble before Jehovah and have the correct perspective of ourselves. The resultant viewing the former brother as a tax collector is only incidental to demonstrate that every effort has been exhausted to gain their brother who has not responded . This account is not a formula for a process with punitive action as a goal if a person does not respond in a favorable way. There is no mention of a time frame, any action other than “listening” ( one would consider this to mean having come to the view that he has indeed wronged his brother and taken ownership of his wrong doing) that could be considered as a sign of being repentant, no mention of any other actions required to indicate remorse or regret. No doubt this is required but Jesus did not mention this here! The full focus is on the individual who is wronged and his attitude in trying to address his being wronged by his brother. Again let’s be reminded of the context in which Jesus gave this instruction. We read latter in the book of James; sadly some brothers were not able to apply this loving merciful advice towards each other and were even taking each other to court and making law suits against each other!
How in the world this section of scripture can be ever construed to be a basis for the arbitrary, rigid, unloving, rough shod justice of a judicial process of JWs today is a mystery to me. Let alone a connection to the Mosaic Law! Especially in a context when it involves minors who have been sexually abused! How on earth would a minor? Say a ten year old girl face a 40 year old man and try to resolve the issue of incest or rape? How would this be resolved? A minor is clearly incapable. Mathew 18 is clearly involving mature adults who are capable of not only revealing a possible serious fault but also of successfully resolving it too! The person driving the process is the wronged individual not the congregation. The judicial process today takes the process out of the hands of the wronged individual even if the wronged one is a minor and the child of a mature Christian parent in the congregation. They, the parents, have to wait on the side lines and allow others who are more than likely a window cleaner or a janitor to deliberate over matters he has zero experience in. A process as we have discussed that predictably will stall if there are not 2 witnesses to the incident!
As discussed already by others and ably pointed out, the Hebrew word for witness does not necessarily mean a person, it could mean many other things. Such as in a case of sexual child abuse it could mean phone records retrieved by police, forensic evidence such as DNA. It could mean a subpoena and an oath to tell the truth in a court of law. Or could mean being cross examined, by a skilled lawyer or police prosecutor it could mean a child being questioned by a skilled child phycologist or a skilled criminal investigator. It could mean submitting to a lie detector test, it could mean a myriad of things as available from the superior authorities that God has put in place and allows to exist and Christians are told to co-operate with.
One only has to wonder why the JW Org does not wish to change their policy on the 2 witness rule and some other aspects of their judicial system. It does not require too much thought to come to a plausible conclusion. If they admit to the 2 witness rule as in need of change then this is the thin edge of the wedge. This would be admission that this policy has caused untold misery to many individuals. It means the judicial system as administered by the elders is bogus. The elders are not then appointed by Holy Spirit as they claim and they are not being guided by Holy Spirit either! The need to change has been brought to their attention by worldly people, especially worldly authorities! How can they make a change on the advice of worldly peoples? The whole process they say has God’s blessing and is a loving process. This is too much to have to go back on. It appears they have given it much thought and come to the conclusion the damage would be to great and so they have to double down as shown in the latest VDO. They have no remorse or show any Christian conscience in the matter. 1 Tim 4:2 Their conscience is seared as with a branding iron. This is what can happen when you have been lying to others and to yourself for so long. The brother in the JW VDO on the 2 witness rule said that the apostates can mess your head up. I feel sorry for him, he sounds completely gone in the head himself, I really feel sorry for him. The reasoning he uses is not scriptures, but mostly expressions such as, evidently, and of course, and clearly, or no doubt! Without any reasoning at all we are just expected to accept his explanations at face value!
It’s amazing how in the JW broadcast VDO they use a straw man argument. This is a case they say, of staying faithful to God’s word! Apostates and the government authorities want us to compromise! We are being persecuted for being faithful! This is not the case, the real “man” as they know, is their policy is flawed, it has no real scriptural support and the results are horrendous. They have been caught out after criticizing relentlessly the Catholic Church on the same matter for decades. In fact from the statistics revealed in the Australian royal commission into institutional child sex abuse, of at least 1100 cases reported to the branch in the last 30 years you can average out over the last 30 years at about 1 pedophile in each congregation of JWs in Australia! That is probably only the tip of the ice berg too. How can JWs admit to this in the spiritual paradise? The fore gleam, they say, of what we can expect from this clean society in the new world! It does not fit the mold of the carefully nurtured picture of the spiritual paradise we are supposed to be enjoying. And calls into question too many other things! In fact the figures average higher than in the Catholic Church! What a slap in the face for the leadership. A clear indication if Jehovah is really blessing the organisation! The 2 witness rule is only a small aspect of the whole rotten festering mess of a religion that has reached the point like many other sects that eventually disappear, as many have in the past centuries.
It is very interesting to consider all of the comments; no doubt the various different
angles come from personal experience. I would like to share one personal experience with regard to the two witness rule that highlights the inconsistencies and its flaws. I was of the belief for a very long time that justice could find no more fertile soil than with in the witness organisation. Unfortunately after being an elder for some time and involved with many a discussion, seeking redress for some who were wronged or in the context of a judicial setting addressing serious wrong doing that required significant time and deliberation. I came to see so many fallacies with regard to the 2 witness rule and the way that elders can “bend” this rule to suit their agenda, that in the end it seemed that it really served little in the way of achieving justice either for the innocent or the guilty parties!
I was involved in one instance where 2 siblings (of adult age) gave testimony where it was deemed because they were siblings they could only be considered 1.5 witnesses! Apparently, I was told initially, as a result of a phone call, it was advice issued by the branch. It would seem to me, for this elder that informed the committee that the 2 witness rule is on a sliding scale of credibility depending on the feelings, or more to the point, the preferred outcome of the particular elders on the committee. This is what the final outcome of the judicial committee hinged on. There were not 2 witnesses, only 1.5! As explained by one elder who was not on the judicial committee and had excused himself, because, as put in his own words, being interested in a fair hearing. He said he was too close to the 2 accused because he was studying with them. Why he nevertheless was going into bat and providing counsel and assistance to some on the judicial committee or being involved was beyond me. A subsequent inquiry to the branch by myself revealed they had never and would never offer such advice and that brother is wrong as they only offer advice in writing and if there is a phone conversation it would be by arrangement and there would need to be 2 people listening on the phone either side! There is that 2 witness thing again! Anyway to cut a long story short I approached brother “stay at arm’s length” and confronted him with my findings. I asked for confirmation of his advice received from the branch office that was eagerly and gratefully accepted by the other elders, on the committee. He would not provide anything, and he was not willing to provide any details at all of where, who, and when and how he received this increased understanding and refinement of the 2 witness rule resulting in only 1.5 witnesses. after informing the other brothers on the committee, the end result was that I was lambasted by the other elders both of who were on the committee and otherwise, for campaigning, involving myself where I should not, trying to influence an otherwise impartial committee, and generally disturbing the peace of the elder body! Figure that one out! Looking back, I think it, amusing except for the fact that it was so pathetic.
Hope my response has made some sense at least. All of the responses I have read have been great too. What you say of my take on the Mosaic Law and witnesses?