You are here:

Jehovah`s Witness/Manner of dealing with sin among JWs

Advertisement


Question
QUESTION: Hello, Mr. Grunbaum.

Sir, I have a couple of questions for you in regards the procedure which is followed among Jehovah's Witnesses, in dealing with wrongdoers.  Not where their is merely a question of wrongdoing, but where there is actually proof of it.

I have also sent this question to Expert Robert Jones, as well, because I know he has vast experience with congregational procedures, as well.  I also realize that you claim he is "out of the loop", so to speak, as he no longer attends meetings.  I am quite sure, however, that he will politely answer my question, so it will be interesting to compare responses.

My questions are:

1.  Can an accusation of wrongdoing against a Jehovah's Witness in good standing, be brought before Watchtower officials by an outsider, or does it have to come from within the congregation itself?  I am asking this, because I am curious as to what, if anything, is done to a JW who wrongs someone on the outside of the religion.  Can this person bring an accusation and present their evidence against the JW in good standing?

2.  If the answer to the above question is "yes", could you please elaborate on what actions are taken towards the JW who has committed the wrong, if in fact there is documented evidence that the JW is guilty of the charges?

3.  Do the same rules apply to all JWs, or at times do some of the elders/officials "play favorites"?

Your answer to this question will be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.

ANSWER: I'm not obliged to give our procedures to accusations in the congregation.
I read your excerpts and I made the determination that the comments in question was not in good taste but not a sin as you would hope.I gave you an example of the context :


First of all if you made the comment that someone was as rich as me ,several questions arise,first how do you know I'm rich,how do you know the person you were talking to is rich.

If you didn't have personal knowledge of either persons finance then would you comment be considered fact,or a lie,NO. how could a statement where you had no knowledge of be considered a lie,a lie is a result in knowing the truth of a matter and deliberately misleading.

Now if you know that I was filthy rich because you had a relationship with me and knew my finances then said:


You are as poor as Grünbaum,that would be a lie because you know better.

To say :

You beat your wife like John Public  raises the same questions.


Does the person know personally of Johns martial problems
If he knows John brutally beats his wife then it a true statement

If he doesn't know Johns personally business and is saying it to a 3rd party its nothing more than tongue in cheek in other words it is not meant to be taken litearal
simply because he has no knowledge if any party even has a wife,bith parties could be single.


You have no accusation of wrongdoing here,you might think you do but you dont.

What is really is you are following the example of the Devil;


(Revelation 12:10) . . .because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!. . .



Even if he did it  to cause harm to you why cant you as he himself said to me :


forgive!

Instead you keep this thing going for years ,so if you cant forgive thise who sin against you how can your sins be forgiven.


The person in question emailed me and said:

if someone sins against you, how often are
you to forgive them?? NONE???

So you are telling everyone you're a Christian, but you won't
forgive??  Isn't that hypocritical





http://www.allexperts.com/ep/1617-114018/Jehovah-Witness/Benyamin-Gr-nbaum.htm


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I see you cannot answer a simple question about congregational procedures.  That is precisely the reason I sent the same question to Mr. Jones as well, because I am sure he will answer.  I merely wanted to be fair and give you an opportunity as well, as you claim Mr. Jones is not "in the loop".

Well, your answer certainly tried to make things more personal than my question, as my question was just a general one about procedures.  Of course, there are obvious reasons you did not want to answer, aren't there, Selinski?

Without actually ever answering the questions, you did say some things that should be addressed:

YOU:  "I made the determination that the comments in question was not in good taste but not a sin as you would hope."

REPLY:  Oh, YOU made the determination that lying is not a sin, did you?  Exactly who are you to make that determination, in contrast with the words of Scripture?

If I make public statements that "Grunbaum is a crook, he is not a real Witness, and is a homosexual", then I believe comments such as this would constitute a lie, and would be sinful.  Especially if I made those comments with no knowledge of them being true, but my MOTIVE was merely to cast you in a bad light.  

So, you have determined that false and defamatory statements made in public, designed to mislead people and poison the well against the person, are not sinful?  Would you mind explaining how you arrived at that conclusion?

By the way, since you made this personal in your answer, why don't we just go ahead and mention WHY all this came back up, shall we?  Why did you fail to mention that YOU contacted me in Private with absolutely no warrant whatsoever, telling me that my mother is likely "forever lost", and implying she was an adultress.  You informed me that the fact that she had an unscriptural divorce and remarriage 35 years ago, and even due to the fact that NO act of adultery occured leading to the divorce, that this was irrelevant, and that she was likely "lost forever".

Just who are YOU to write me in Private, behind the scenes, and speak of my family in this manner, and slander your own sister?  Well, as you know, after reading your comments about my family, I called you on your hypocrisy.  Since you felt the need to write and tell me that somehow my mother had done something for which there was no forgiveness, then I questioned you on your double standard, in that you condemn an unscriptural divorce 35 years ago as warranting being "lost forever", but condone lying and slander that is taking place NOW in the forum, by fellow JWs.

I simply found your hypocrisy unbecoming.


YOU:  "First of all if you made the comment that someone was as rich as me ,several questions arise,first how do you know I'm rich,how do you know the person you were talking to is rich.

If you didn't have personal knowledge of either persons finance then would you comment be considered fact,or a lie,NO. how could a statement where you had no knowledge of be considered a lie,a lie is a result in knowing the truth of a matter and deliberately misleading.

Now if you know that I was filthy rich because you had a relationship with me and knew my finances then said:


You are as poor as Grünbaum,that would be a lie because you know better.

To say :

You beat your wife like John Public  raises the same questions.


Does the person know personally of Johns martial problems
If he knows John brutally beats his wife then it a true statement

If he doesn't know Johns personally business and is saying it to a 3rd party its nothing more than tongue in cheek in other words it is not meant to be taken litearal
simply because he has no knowledge if any party even has a wife,bith parties could be single."


REPLY:  This is a ridiculous comparison, because it is not a sin to be rich, but it is a sin to beat one's wife.  So, your example won't hold water, as it is comparing apples and oranges.

I guess you do not grasp the obvious point here, that if a person has NO KNOWLEDGE of a person or their family, that is the MAIN reason they should not post false and defamatory statements ABOUT the person or their family.

Let me see if I can get what you are saying here...You are saying that a lie ABOUT someone is just in "bad taste", but not sinful.  Its only a sin, if the lie is told TO the person.  

Is that what you are saying?

Actually, your ridiculous analogy here, goes completely against the very definition of "slander".  Slander is a false statement spoken ABOUT someone...not to them.  

And you call other people "dumb"?

But let's break down your faulty "logic" here...

You ask...."First of all if you made the comment that someone was as rich as me ,several questions arise,first how do you know I'm rich,how do you know the person you were talking to is rich.

If you didn't have personal knowledge of either persons finance then would you comment be considered fact,or a lie,NO."


REPLY:  Actually, if I made the comment someone was rich, and the comment was FALSE...then yes, that would be a lie.  

Do you really need me to tell you that, Selinski?

If I made a comment about you, with no personal knowledge of your situation, then there are 2 possibilities:

1. I could get lucky, and my statement might be true, although not due to any knowledge of the situation.  In that case, I might not be guilty of telling an outright lie since the statement turned out to be true, but it was still stupid of me to make the statement, since I didn't have any knowledge that it was true.

However, if my INTENT in making the statement was to mislead and slander, then yes, I am still guilty of lying.  The attitude and motive of the heart is an important factor also, which you seem to be forgetting.


2.  My statement could be flat out false, in which case, yes...its a lie.

Oh, did I mention the statements in question are ALL completely false?

So, your dumb analogy fails, because the statements were lies.

Thank you for letting the readers know that you don't deem that as a sin.


You further show ignorance, when you stated the following:

YOU:  "how could a statement where you had no knowledge of be considered a lie,a lie is a result in knowing the truth of a matter and deliberately misleading."

REPLY:  Easy...the fact you have no knowledge, should, as a Christian, cause you not to make the statement in the first place.  When the defamatory statements were made, the person making them knew that he didn't really have such knowledge, and his intent was to try and defame the person, namely, myself.  So yes, that certainly qualifies as a lie...the person DID know that he was making the statement up with no factual evidence, and chose to post it anyway.  

That's a lie, any day of the week.  I am sorry the JW standard on lying isn't as high as that of the Christians in this forum.  


Like the example earlier of you being homosexual.  I guess by your logic, it is only bad taste, but not sinful, for me to say..."Benyamin Grunbaum is a closet homosexual."

Now, its true that I don't have such knowledge of you, but I guess you're saying that I wouldn't be lying, since I don't know one way or the other.  Especially if my motive for saying it, was to deceive and defame you.

But according to your logic, I didn't lie...it was just in bad taste.  By your own words, it isn't a lie even though I don't know you are a homosexual.  Because hey, I don't know that you are NOT one, either.

Wow, Dude...You have a weird way of looking at things, and I would expect better from a high ranking official in the one "true" religion.

But let's just cut through the chase, shall we?  All this gobbly-gook from you, is basically an admission on your part, that you KNOW that false statements were made by the JW "brother".  You have said so yourself, in private, haven't you Selinski?

So, you know the statments were false, and you know that the JW made those statements, with no basis in fact.  Otherwise, why even bother with the silly analogy, if you thought the slanderous statements were true.  

So, I gather what you are saying, is that this is acceptable, and all your talk about keeping Jehovah's Organization "clean" is just that...talk.


YOU:  "Does the person know personally of Johns martial problems
If he knows John brutally beats his wife then it a true statement

If he doesn't know Johns personally business and is saying it to a 3rd party its nothing more than tongue in cheek"


REPLY:  Now that is interesting.  Let me make sure I understand...

We both agree on the first one...If the person who is accusing John of beating his wife, has personal knowledge that this is so, then we both agree he is not lying.

The second part of that comment, is where I take issue.

You apparently do not know what "tongue in cheek" actually means.  This expression denotes something said as a JOKE, and not intended to be taken as a fact.

I think if you read the context of the defamatory statements, the JW making the comment, was not joking in the least.  Looking at his numerous posts, and scores of comments, they show a pattern of slander and defamation.  So, again, your analogy fails miserably.  There was no attempt at humor...there were attempts at slander.

So, are you saying that your religion does not view these things seriously?


YOU:  "simply because he has no knowledge if any party even has a wife,bith parties could be single."

REPLY:  Uh yeah, that was the whole point....no person without knowledge of another person, should make statements against that person's family, as if they do have that knowledge.  And when the statements turn out to be false, they constitute lying and slander.

It really isn't that hard to understand, is it?



YOU:  "What is really is you are following the example of the Devil;

(Revelation 12:10) . . .because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!. . ."


REPLY:  You know, I am really not sure how you managed to write this comment with a straight face.  It is almost laughable.  Why?

Simple...I am not the one following the "example of the devil" by making false accusations.  I have made no accusations that were false...I merely responded to the defamation of my character, perpetrated by a liar in your "true" religion.  It was your Witness brother who made the slanderous accusations.  Man, are you really that thick?

You name just one false accusation that I have made, that gives you the right to twist the Scripture like you just did, and apply it, not to the one who made the false accusations, but to the one who responded to them.

Now, let me get straight what you are saying...Your JW brother who invented the lies, and posted his lies and slander, making false accusations, is NOT the one acting like the devil....My responding to them, exposing him for the liar and phony he is, and asking you as a ranking official in this "clean" Organization, to advise him to make a retraction, is ME acting like the devil?

Wow, Dude...that is amazing.

I believe you should have thought that comment out a little more, before you wrote it.  It is your JW brother who was fulfilling that Scripture to a tee.


YOU:  "Even if he did it  to cause harm to you why cant you as he himself said to me :

forgive!"


REPLY:  What do you mean by..."as he himself said to me"?

Are you implying that he wants my forgiveness?  I would certainly never deny him that.  But forgiveness is not the issue....his claiming to be a Christian, and allowing LIES to stand without retraction, is the issue.

He owes a retraction, and apology, for one simple reason...He lied.  

Now, you valiantly tried to turn this back on me, by saying I should forgive.  Forgive what, Selinski?  You mean the lies that you KNOW have been told?  Isn't this another admission on your part, that you know he is guilty of lying and slander?

Look, I forgave long ago.  I practice forgiveness.  I pray for the man's soul, as he is deceived into thinking he has God's favor, when he is actually going to be under God's wrath.  This isn't about forgiveness...its about doing the RIGHT thing.

I'm a Christian...If I lied about you in public, I would make it right in public, even if you had already extended forgiveness to me.  I would want to leave no trace in the public, of my lies or my slander.

Because that is the right thing to do.

Nice try, Dan.


YOU:  "The person in question emailed me and said:

if someone sins against you, how often are
you to forgive them?? NONE???

So you are telling everyone you're a Christian, but you won't
forgive??  Isn't that hypocritical"


REPLY:  Yet another statement that I don't see how you had the nerve to write.  Basically, this person (Rando) and you are talking about how unchristian I am being, for not allowing his slander of me to go unchecked.

Look...I have asked for something very simple and reasonable...a retraction and an admission.

Don't give me this stuff about keeping it going for years.  No, HE has kept it going for years by continuing to do it.  If he were a Christian, he would have retracted and apologized LONG ago, and it would be a dead issue.  The only reason it is still alive after all these years, is because he has let it STAND all these years.

HELLO?

Yes, I'm a Christian.  And a forgiving one.  But the fact that you and he talk about how I should forgive, is proof that you both know he is guilty of lying and slander.

So, why do you think he shouldn't retract?

Explain yourself on that one, Sir.  You seem to be trying awfully hard, to NOT do the right thing here.

Answer
This will be the last exchange on this or any other subject because you dont have spiritual understanding on sin,or adultery and a host of other spiritual subjects.

You stupidly ask why do you think he shouldn't retract,I recall saying he should but you are so blind on this that you cant take yes for an answer.


You keep bringing up your mother in public forum for some reason knowing this is not private,I asked you not to do this thats why I responded in private,I explained Gods mind on this subject and the Watchtowers that if a married person scheme to leave their mate and marries another without grounds and then run to the Elders later hoping to be reinstated it will fail.


Just because they are reinstated by humans doesn't mean its over in the eyes of God who can read the heart and motives.


In your religious beliefs you can but not in JWs,they probably wouldn't have any action taken against Adultery and no scriptural grounds to marry.Would the Adulterers be removed from your church,only action if any would be if they were in a choir would sit for 2 or 3 weeks and be right back singing just as big as if nothing ever happened.






Now that is interesting.  Let me make sure I understand...

We both agree on the first one...If the person who is accusing John of beating his wife, has personal knowledge that this is so, then we both agree he is not lying.

The second part of that comment, is where I take issue.

You apparently do not know what "tongue in cheek" actually means.  This expression denotes something said as a JOKE, and not intended to be taken as a fact.




First of all no one was accusing anyone of anything,I must know what tongue in cheek" actually means since I said it,I said it meant something said not to be taken literal then you come right back and say it means a JOKE, and not intended to be taken as a fact.

How is that different than what I said ,see this just demonstrates how blind you are,if I said black you will say white if I say white you say black,I say up you say down,so we just cant agree because one of us is in blackness and this tongue in cheek meaning shows its clearly you.

Anyone reading just this exchange will see you are in error and your whole argument is in question by saying something as dumb as this.





Like the example earlier of you being homosexual.  I guess by your logic, it is only bad taste, but not sinful, for me to say..."Benyamin Grunbaum is a closet homosexual."

Now, its true that I don't have such knowledge of you, but I guess you're saying that I wouldn't be lying, since I don't know one way or the other.  Especially if my motive for saying it, was to deceive and defame you.

But according to your logic, I didn't lie...it was just in bad taste.  By your own words, it isn't a lie even though I don't know you are a homosexual.  Because hey, I don't know that you are NOT one, either.





Again you show you dont understand what a lie is or just gossip idle personal talk; groundless rumor with no facts.Gossip can lead to slander:



*** it-1 p. 990 Gossip, Slander ***

Gossip is talk that reveals something about the doings and the affairs of other persons. It may be unfounded rumor, even a lie, and although the gossiper may not know the untruthfulness of the rumor, he spreads it nevertheless, thereby making himself responsible for propagating a lie. It may be someone’s faults and mistakes that the gossiper is talking about. But even if the things said are true, the gossiper is in the wrong and reveals lack of love




If you just said this in tongue in cheek to a 3rd party its just gossip not fact not a outright lie since you dont know me,but if you spread this gossip to others then it becomes slander because it not meant any longer as a joke or tongue in cheek ,here we would have you telling several people Grunbaum is a closet homosexual knowing its a lie.



By the level of your spiritual understanding which is zero you have demonstrated you dont understand what sin is,adultery,slander,gossip,salvation and just about every other subject.


Now I noticed you mentioned the other party by name so the readers need to know who you are :


Derrick Holland !


As I said no need to fllow up with more of your nonsense because any more from you or anyone else it will be rejected,I love brother Rando and nothing you can do to change it.


BTW you lose yet another argument when you thought I had Randos email,I didn't, brother DW provided it,so calling me a liar without getting all the facts again shows just how you think
so you just did the very same thing,you called me a liar when I stated I didn't have personal info on the brother,you sneak and kept checking to see if he was maxed out and I contacted him so I must have lied and even as you said I know where he is.


Yet again this shows how desperate you are,everytime you come up against me you will lose not that you are a loser by nature but I'm on the winning side so you cant possibly win any discussion.


Follow up if you want and it will be rejected,I dont want anymore back and forth with you again.







http://www.allexperts.com/ep/1617-114018/Jehovah-Witness/Benyamin-Gr-nbaum.htm

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Benyamin Grünbaum

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.