Originally posted by bbarr
Yeah, I read that too, but there was no citation for the claim about allowing DNA or other forensic evidence to count as a "second witness". That's why I asked. Galveston says proof is proof, so...
the citation, number seven is given from our own literature i think. The fact is very
simple, we , or rather our elders deal with sin, the police and civil authorities deal with
crime. What that means is that if an allegation is made, regardless of whether there
were two witnesses or not, if its a criminal offence then it should be reported. In the
past there was some reluctance perhaps to go beyond the two witnesses principle, for
it was seen as a protection in case of false accusation being made, however, it became
clear, that in cases of criminality, regardless of whether there was two witnesses or not,
the matter must be reported, for its then a criminal matter, not just a Congregational
matter.