Question for JWs: do you still adhere to the "do not sue your brother" rule? If so, how are child molestors

Question

in your ranks brought to court? someone mentioned unsilenced lamb should sue her dad for the atrocities he committed against her. I thought suing your spiritual brother was against the rules?

are there levels of sin, then? If someone breaks the law, are they not sue worthy? Does it have to be a heinous crime?

Vot, aren't you just judge, jury and Miss spellcheck today?

Since you bothered to answer, If you can indeed sue a still active brother for something such as molestation, can you also sue him for something lesser, say.... property damages?

I'd think a crime is a crime, regardless of it's heinous nature or lack thereof.

Listen people, not to be rude, but this question is about whether or not JWs are really allowed to sue a brother, for whatever the offense is.

so basically Unsilenced Lamb (I noticed the misspelling of her name in Vot's answer) was in a no-win situation. Because her father was not put out of the congregation once she was old enough to charge him, -if- she had gone forward with a court case, she would've been put out of the congregation because she was bringing suit against a brother in good standing? am I misreading?

the point every JW who's answered here has ignored is that Lamb's father is an Elder and was never taken out of his position. She was not in the position to "sue" him without bringing reproach on herself in the congregation. My guess is she was trying to stay sane and alive as best she can. I hope none of you or your children have to face a situation such as this and have a whole bunch of people such as yourselves lined up to type judgement. May God have mercy on you.

Answer 1

Christians are to try to work out things without suing each other. I don't think this scriptural admonition is referring to crime, and that is where the Witnesses go very wrong. They were taking it out of context and applying it to gross crime, tokeep their lilly white reputation.

Lots of slime under that reputation.



The Lamb has taken her fur, and left the room.


Lavander: You have misrepresented the situation. here is the link:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsEsSYeIUmkbC9JNEo2RS3MjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071126140619AAj7Rix


The best answer was given to point out the cruelty of the asker, not because of agreement. Obviously will you put your own slant on anything that you wish to see?


Vot You are asking for fairness, while you slander my sister? Right!


Can't these Jehovah's Witnesses do a little bettr in the name calling category? Unsilenced Ham Jabbers sounds so stupid.

Answer 2

Pedi C, I would like to straighten something out if I may. Unsilenced Lamb asked a question and picked "Sue's mug of tea" as best answer and that is where we questioned about her molestation story. Vot Ana said she made a slipped up and that is how alot of us felt. So how can that not be true about Ms. Lamb changing and twisting her story. How can she go back and face her assaulter that abused her for years and stole all her innocent childhood? That's the question of doubts, do you understand? To be fair to Ms. Lamb, LineDancer answered a differ question and said this, "we don't know if UL is telling the truth or not but that is not the main fact. The fact is if she crossed the line of apostasy and never to return." (Almost like that). Then it hit me that LineDancer said something important and we don't REALLY KNOW FOR SURE. But God Almighty knows for sure. I just wanted to clear that up, and thank you. Now I think to sue someone that done really wrong to you is the same as that person broke the law and so the victim got rights for compensations in what they are asking for. If found guilty then the guilty person should pay back the victim on what the victim asks for; whatever it is. Its between the two persons. The church should not have control over matters like that because they themselves don't really know "what happened"; let the court decide.

EDIT: Before this question is close, I would like to add that all the time I hanged out with my friend (JW) she never ever said anything about this kind of actions going on in her congregation. I guess it doesn't happen much as Unsilenced Lamb like to proclaim. Not like the Catholic Church anyway.

Answer 3

Good question Pedi.

Vot-

Your are part of an organization that glorifies in padeofilia. Your protecting them wether you like it or not.

I know this is becuase you don't want to bring any shame to your beloved "jehovah"...or governing body. My wife was a victim... Her parents brought the incident to the elders and nothing happend and her parents still don't believe it was a serious issue. Thus nothing happened and more kids are being bent over in the cult. The pedophiles may escape for now, but they'll still stand before the Throne...

I sugguest you do some independent research and repent. The hammer of God is coming down on your evil organization. Leave know while He is giving you a chance.

It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Luke 17:2

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Heb. 10:31

Answer 4

It would seem that a person has lost their spiritual nature when they decided to commit such a heinous act against a child... therefore, they are no longer a spiritual brother...

Answer 5

It is so disgusting to see JWs to slander a person who is a victim of a horrendous crime. I wonder what they are doing themselves if they have to take the side of the organization instead of the abused member.

I was not aware how big of a problem a child molestation is among the JWs. Why would Unsilenced Lamb lie?

Answer 6

sueing your brother is against the rules! But a child molester is NOT our brother most likley

see the Bible said Stop bringing charges against EACHOTHER...he aint a brother

Answer 7

First Jabbers makes it clear she doesn't see him as her brother, so that wouldn't quite apply.

The Bible makes it clear, that we should strive to resolve things privately, BUT if not possible, follow legal course.

The Bible also shows that Jehovah is a God of Justice, so He clearly would want a molester punished.

Answer 8

We do not protect anyone from prosecution for committing a crime.

You well know, PediC, what measures are in place to deal with child molesters (not molestOrs).

Unsliced Ham slipped this week- she revealed the "real" reason why she's not a Witness anymore, and it had nothing to do with rape.

EDIT: (Taking in the testimony below with a bathtub of salt)

EDIT 2: Sinners Like Me- We do NOT glorify pedophilia. At least listen to the other side of the story before you make slanderous accusations.
For the sake of fairness, please look at the following links;

http://www.jw-media.org/region/global/english/backgrounders/e_molestation.htm

http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/default.html

EDIT 3: Here's more info for the sincere asker-
***What if There Is Fraud?

16 Discernment helps us to realize that profits do not result from all investments. Yet, what if fraud is involved? Fraud is “the intentional use of deception, trickery, or perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to give up a legal right.” Jesus Christ outlined steps that may be taken when a person thinks he has been defrauded by a fellow worshiper. According to Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus said: “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. 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. 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.” The illustration that Jesus subsequently gave indicates that he had in mind such sins as those involving financial matters, including fraud.—Matthew 18:23-35.

17 Of course, there would be no Scriptural basis for taking the steps outlined at Matthew 18:15-17 if there was no evidence or even a suggestion of fraud. Yet, what if a professing Christian actually defrauded us? Discernment can safeguard us from taking action that may put the congregation in a bad light. Paul advised fellow Christians to let themselves be wronged and even defrauded instead of taking a brother to court.—1 Corinthians 6:7.

***Do Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a Christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?—U.S.A.

The apostle Paul’s inspired admonition is: “Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you unfit to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that you put in as judges? I am speaking to move you to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among you that will be able to judge between his brothers, but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers? Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for you that you are having lawsuits with one another. Why do you not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?”—1 Cor. 6:1-7.

Here Paul was showing the Corinthian Christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between Christians before secular tribunals. The judges would be men who were not governed by the lofty principles of God’s law and whose consciences were not trained through a study of his Word. As many of the judges at that time were corrupt and accepted bribes, Christians had little reason to believe that their judgment would be just. Paul referred to them as “unrighteous men.” Were Christians to take their disputes before such men, they would be ‘putting in as judges’ men whom the congregation looked down upon as lacking integrity.

Then, too, in taking matters before unbelievers for judgment, they would, in effect, be saying that no one in the congregation had the wisdom to judge “matters of this life” among Christians. This was wholly inconsistent with the fact that spirit-anointed Christians as heavenly associate rulers of the Lord Jesus Christ would be judging, not only men, but also angels. And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name. As outsiders would be led to believe that Christians were no different from other people in being unable to settle differences, the interests of true worship would be injured. It would have been far better for individual Christians to take personal loss rather than to injure the entire congregation by bringing their disputes to public notice.

In view of the foregoing, would dedicated Christians today go before secular courts if that were to injure the advancement of true worship or misrepresent it in the eyes of outsiders? No. Of course, as all other people, true Christians are still imperfect humans. They make mistakes, and problems arise in connection with business matters and the like. But differences of this nature ought to be settled within the congregation, for God’s Word provides the needed guidelines and there are men in the congregation who are well grounded in the Bible.

However, if a Christian refuses to correct a serious wrong when it is made clear to him by elders serving in judicial capacity in the congregation, such a one would be expelled. This is in line with Jesus’ words: “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.” (Matt. 18:17) Thus, for example, one who defrauded his Christian brother or who failed to provide materially for his wife and children would find himself outside the congregation if he did not repent.—1 Tim. 5:8.

The injured party could thereafter decide whether legal action should be taken in an attempt to force the guilty one, now disfellowshiped, to rectify matters. Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members. If the wronged Christian conscientiously felt that God’s name would not be reproached and legal action was definitely needed, he would not necessarily be acting contrary to the spirit of Paul’s counsel if he were to take to court one who was no longer a part of the Christian congregation. Jehovah God has permitted secular authority to serve as his instrument in bringing lawbreakers to justice, and in this case the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected.—Rom. 13:3, 4.

There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts. But this does not create adverse publicity or bring reproach upon the congregation. In handling such legal matters that would not affect the congregation adversely, Christians can be governed by what they consider to be best under the circumstances.

However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be “free from accusation” as a Christian. He would not be one who has “a fine testimony from people on the outside” of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.