"Biblical" Doctrines and "Secular" Laws and WTJWorg in between

[Srecko Sostar]

I will use a part of the text from the MA dissertation entitled "How have the Jehovah's Witnesses' adapted child safeguarding practices and guidance to local circumstances in the United States of America, England and Australia?" This text examines the "CHILD SAFEGUARDING POLICY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND" -  https://www.jw.org/en/legal/global-information-brochures/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

3.4.1 Changes in practice due to English legal pressure:
Evidence of the WatchTower organisation adapting its child safeguarding practices due to local legal requirements can be seen in the prosecution of child sexually abusive elders. This can be seen in the case of Karen Morgan, who was abused by her uncle Mark Sewell, who was an elder, he was sentenced to 14 years by Judge Richard Twomlow at the Merthyr Crown Court for eight sexual abuse offences, including one of rape between 1987 and 1995. Morgan’s criticism of WatchTower sheds light on where she had felt that her case of child sexual abuse was mishandled:
Those group of elders sat me down as a child in front of a guy who had been abusing me for years and expected me to talk about it in front of him and hear him
call me a liar. That has probably had the most effect on the rest of my life. What Mark did to me I have had to try and deal with but I have also had to try and deal with how the whole thing was handled and it's that part of this that I want answers for. I blame them for what happened to me because no-one dealt with it
(BBC, 3 July 2014).
1 See appendix 1.
!15
1840775
 

This evidences a legal issue, particularly as WatchTower had fallen short of the Sexual Offences Act as the elders required Karen to confront her abuser.
James T. Richardson would agree with my hypothesis that religious movements such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ are capable of theocratic adaptation to local legal pressures as he asserts that, all NRMs have to learn to exist within the laws, of the societies within which they exist. This means that the organization structure, the ways they raise and spend funds, and other concerns, even including theological developments’ (2012, p.49).
 

Evidence of this can be seen in WatchTower’s magazine which explores their doctrinal practice of requiring victims of abuse to confront their abusers to report an allegation, What if the sufferer decides that he wants to make an accusation? Then the two elders can advise him that, in line with the principle at Matthew 18:15, he should personally approach the accused about the matter (WatchTower, 1995, p.28).2 WatchTower can be seen to have adapted to the local legal pressures of English law and as a result, they have adjusted their theocratic child safeguarding practices by no longer requiring victims of abuse to confront their abusers. This adaptation to the law can be seen in point 9 of The Jehovah’s Witness scripturally based position on child protection3 policy
document which states that, ‘elders never require victims of child abuse to present their accusation in the presence of the alleged abuser’ thus confirming the test of my hypothesis.

Quote from JWweb:

9. Elders never require victims of child abuse to present their accusation in the presence of the alleged abuser. However, victims who are now adults may do so, if they wish. In addition, victims can be accompanied by a confidant of either gender for moral support when presenting their accusation to the elders. If a victim prefers, the accusation can be submitted in the form of a written statement. -  https://www.jw.org/en/legal/global-information-brochures/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

Another change is recognizable here. The presence of a "third person" who is there while the injured party is testifying to the elders. So, another change concerning the process in JC. And a concession before the Law that changes the current JW practice, but only in these cases.

 

Next, I will put up a video with Gary Breaux, GB Helper, who adamantly claims that WTJWorg will never give up "biblical principles" specifically regarding the "2 witness rule".

 

 

Although, as you will see, there are different "biblical principles", this does not change the clear picture of the changeable position of GB and their Legal Department and the lawyers who worked to adapt WTJWorg to the legal regulations in some countries.
On the one hand, we have strong public statements by representatives of the Corporation telling the JW membership and even the non-JW public that "biblical principles" are inviolable and will be adhered to "at all costs", and on the other hand, WTJWorg is changing its "doctrinal policy" and rejects the "biblical principles" of Matthew 18, which were spoken by Jesus. The same Jesus who is said to have unlimited and complete trust in GB.

What do you call people who abandon their "beliefs"? Perhaps, "weak in faith", "inconstant", "apostates"? Or we will call them with some mild description, as they are only "imperfect" people after all.

There is a JW video that, in one sequence, shows a conversation between two JWs. One is young and the other is older. And that older JW describes how in the past (1940s) the brothers were attacked by the crowd in the USA because they distributed pamphlets in which JWs exposed and condemned the hypocrisy of local priests. 

When some of the "worldly" people or ex-JWs point out the hypocrisy of WTJWorg and its representatives why do the JWs accuse them of telling lies?