The Royal Commission and Watchtower - A game changer

by Hidden-Window 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Hidden-Window

  I had finished watching all the videos on the Royal Commission's investigation of Jehovah's Witnesses (yes, I know more videos are being released). I am still processing the information of everything that has emerged. I do not plan to cover it all here, but I would like to point out that it is patently obvious that some of the WT representatives provided misleading information. Just today, I watched Governing Body member Jeoffrey Jackson.

  There are many parts of his testimony that I could talk about, but one that is clearly a lie is the one related to corporal punishment. Although he was trying to evade the question of whether or not the Governing Body interprets Proverbs 13:24 as meaning corporal punishment, when cornered, he answered no and stated that he does not encourage it.

  This is obviously a lie. There are many instances on the publication and on talks presented in the meeting and at conventions in which parents are encouraged to physically punish their children. Although it is not done so often now, it is still recommended. But I guess Mr. Jackson was using the theocratic warfare principle by clearly lying to people that, from his perspective do not deserve the truth.

  I don't have much time now, but just felt compelled to state that this investigation is a real game changer. The fact that it is made public exposes the flaws of the WT and its governing body. For the first time in history, the WT is systematically subjected to public scrutiny and many so-called confidential documents are being exposed.

  Some of the WT representatives have spoken as humble, but deluded men, but several others have have shown an unbelievable level of arrogance, which emphasizes how outrageous the cult's believes and attitudes are.
  

  The issue of whether women could be involved in investigations of certain type of misconduct in the congregation has been discussed extensively.

  I may be wrong here, but given everything I have heard from people who gave testimony, including Jeoffrey Jackson, I anticipate a very interesting change in the congregation's judicial process. I anticipated that in the near future a committee composed by women would be given the assignment of investigating certain types of misconduct.

  Although, as Mr. Jackson stated, there is no way of women ever becoming elders, he and others have hinted on the possibility of agreeing to have women as decision makers in the investigation of the truthfulness of abuse allegations.

  Since I stepped down as Elder some years ago, I have never been so confident that change is coming. Now, don't get me wrong, I have no hope of major transformations, but I look forward to the emergence of loopholes that would allow me to finally leave, which I could have done a long time ago, but I won't do it without my family.
  
• 

  JustVisting

  Yea like a loophole to allow exiting through the front door without dishonor.
• 

  WingCommander

  Cults don't change. In fact, I'd wager that they'll buckle down twice as hard and try to oust any dissenters and leave only a smaller, more fanatical, more zealous group of brain-dead followers. In the JW's, if you have a brain you are to leave it at the door or else don't bother being baptized.
  
• 

  nugget

  I think that it is unlikely that women will be involved in the judicial process. Mr Jackson stated that women are already involved in the process although they do not and will not form part of the committee that passes judgement. In Watchtower speak it would indicate that there is no need to change what happens already.

  Technically women can be involved in the ~JC process as complainants, victims or witnesses they have no part in the investigative process or the decision making process. Mr Jackson emphasised headship and the importance of women knowing their place anything that may encourage them to step over the lines firmly established by the society will be discouraged. The RC wanted a defined role for women and I cannot see this happening since the suppression of women is firmly entrenched.
• 

  sir82

  given everything I have heard from people who gave testimony, including Jeffrey Jackson, I anticipate a very interesting change in the congregation's judicial process.

  WTF? Why would you expect anything to change?

  Do you really think for 1 second that the GB will change anything because a "worldly" commission made them look stupid?

  Dude, nothing, NOTHING, will change unless forced upon them by law with seriously serious penalties (e.g., millions of dollars of fines and/or jail time for leadership) for non-compliance. Even then they will do it with heels dragging.

  I wish it were different, but that's the way it is. Jackson did his time on the stand, minimized the potential damage, and he's done. Now it's business as usual for the WTS until, as noted above, they are simply forced into change by law.

  And just to emphasize, I wish it were different.
  
• 

  Hidden-Window

  "Dude, nothing, NOTHING, will change unless forced upon them by law with seriously serious penalties (e.g., millions of dollars of fines and/or jail time for leadership) for non-compliance. Even then they will do it with heels dragging."

  My statement presupposes laws and penalties after the commission's investigation ends. I appreciate your frustration with lack of change in the past and lack of substantial change in general (which I admitted on my post), but I am sure the Governing Body will decree changes if that is what it takes for them to survive as a religion.
  
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  re: Corporal Punishment Although it is not done so often now, it is still recommended.

  I have never seen it recommended. The way I have seen it put is that it depends on the child. Some children are timid and just a firm word suffices, some other children may need "stronger" reminders. If slapping my child works and he will not cross the road without me, then I would rather take that option than lose him to a car accident because I was too "sparing". This should not even have to be explained as it is common sense. No one here is insinuating beating a child! O.K, well perhaps this IS what Mr. Stewart had in mind, and Geoffrey Jackson understood and replied accordingly; No, JWs do not believe nor recommend beating children.
  
• 

  Hidden-Window

  "I have never seen it recommended"

  Check these references when you can: “Rod of Discipline, The”—Is It Out-of-Date?: g92 9/8 26-27

  I have them in a different language, but it basically states that the "rod" implies both correction and physical discipline and that the physical disciplines can be used when the other methods have not worked. I checked JW.org for the English version, but it only has publications from 2000.
  

  This is only one among many references. I am surprised you have never seen this or similar information.
  
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Yeah, when I was growing up the popular interpretation of "use the rod" seemed to be "beat the shit out of your kid if he makes a noise during the meeting." However, I seem to recall in the last decade or so the cult published something about the rod being a reference to how a loving shephard would simply guide the sheep, not beating them with it.
• 

  sir82

  I have never seen it recommended.

  It is not so much explicitly recommended now (unless you have a 70+ year old speaker who still fondly recalls teh "good old days"), but it was quite explicitly recommended in public talks, assemblies, conventions, and even in print thru the 70's.

  I will admit, young JW parents these days are much more enlightened than their own parents were. Beating of JW kids is far less frequent than what it was 40+ years ago - although it still occurs, and when it does occur, it is almost never condemned by anyone within the JW ranks.