@ near blue dog made the comment earlier.
Jackson when saying, "It would SEEM presumptuous. . ." was implying that it would seem that way to those who did not drink the 'kool-aid'. He never said it would BE presumptuous.
Did Geoffrey Jackson lie under oath at the ARC?
by Vanderhoven7 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
FedUpJW
-
Vidiot
The most weaselly words any weasel has ever worded.
-
DesirousOfChange
Vidiot posted my exact thought!!
Maybe didn't cross the line as "LYING" (Of course, in a JC they'd have said YOU were lying if you were so evasive.) But he was as slimy as it gets.
-
Drearyweather
WT's view on corporal punishment has changed since the 1980's and the 90's:
The Bible associates such discipline, or instruction, with love. (Proverbs 13:24) Therefore, “the rod of discipline” should never be abusive—emotionally or physically.a (Proverbs 22:15; 29:15) Discipline that is rigid or harsh with no sense of love is an abuse of parental authority and can crush a child’s spirit. (Colossians 3:21)
In Bible times, the Hebrew word for “rod” meant a stick or a staff, such as the one a shepherd used to guide his sheep. (Psalm 23:4) Similarly, “the rod” of parental authority suggests loving guidance, not harsh or brutal punishment.
“The rod” refers to parental authority that must be applied lovingly to prevent children from going astray. Wielding such authority does not involve abusing the child in any way.
But parental authority—“the rod of discipline”—should never be abusive.b
Some shy away from the word “rod,” thinking that it implies some kind of child abuse. But it does not. The Hebrew word for “rod” referred to a staff, such as the one a shepherd used to guide—not assault—his sheep.a So the rod stands for discipline.
-
Vanderhoven7
Right on Dreary!
Mark Jones writes
Yes.
The transcript is available on the Australian Royal Commission website here:
Take a look at page 28. See what took place from line 8:
If you watch the video, you’ll notice that he appears nervous when he says “no” in line 26.
Why?
Because, as every Jehovah’s Witness knows, he’s lying.
"It shows real love on the part of a parent to do whatever he can to correct his child, including spanking him." - Watchtower 1973 Sep 15 pp.556-557
"A spanking may be a lifesaver to a child, for God’s Word says: “Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die. With the rod you yourself should beat him, that you may deliver his very soul from Sheol [the grave] itself.” Again, “Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him.” If parents hold their children’s life interests dear to them, they will not weakly or carelessly let disciplinary action slip from their hands. Love will motivate them to take action, wisely and fairly, when it is needed." - Making Your Family Life Happy (1978) p.132
“The Bible is clear that discipline includes good teaching and example, but does it exclude spanking? No, for Proverbs 23:13 says: “Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod [or hand], he will not die.”” Watchtower 1979 May 1 p.30
"Permissiveness breeds both juvenile insecurity and delinquency. … But both “rod and reproof” are needed." - Watchtower 1986 Nov 1 pp.22-23
Hell, every person raised as a Jehovah’s Witness will remember being taken in the “the back room” where you’d be smacked by your parents if you spoke during the meeting or they thought you weren't paying attention.
I wonder why a governing body member would tell the members one thing, but tell non-members the opposite?
You know, like a cult?
-
Listener
Dreary. you say that the org. has changed their views since the 80s and 90s. You then show a number of quotes that explain how discipline should never be abusive.
The only conclusion that can be made from this is that you admit prior to the 80s the org. taught parents to be abusive when it came to discipline.
Interesting,
-
Ding
I questioned an elder: "If someone asks a Jehovah's Witness if he or she believes the Watchtower organization is God's only channel of communication on earth today, what should they answer?"
He said, "'Yes', because that's what we believe."
I said, "Even if they know it will cause offense?"
He answered, "The truth often offends people but Jehovah's Witnesses must bear witness to the truth."
I then directed him to YouTube to listen to Jackson answer that question and added, "If the members of the Governing Body don't testify to what they really believe when asked a direct question, how can they expect rank and file JWs to do so?"
He said, "I don't know what Brother Jackson said. I haven't seen it."
I said, "If you are really a lover of truth, then look it up on YouTube and hear it from his own mouth."
I planted that seed with him and then left.
-
Vidiot
I seem to recall an instance back in the late 90s or early 00s where a JW dad beat his kid so bad she died (in Chicago, I think)…
…and not long after, the Org published material to the effect that the “rod” should be viewed like a shepherd’s staff, used to gently guide a flock, rather then beat them with it.
-
-
Dagney
My mom told me that as a little girl I lined up my dolls in chairs and played "meeting." She said I scolded the mute dolls to behave and be quiet. I then would take them out to spank, with the doll voice boxes yelping with each strike, scolding them to be good. She said it was very revealing to her because that is obviously what I was taking in from and mimicking from the hall, and it was not a good thing.
I was not treated that way to be clear. I'd get a thump or a short hair pull to get my attention.
Edited to add: WT may feel they are so clever with their use of weasel words, but are not fooling anybody but their own followers. Their insistence to protect perps instead of victims, (and in fact in most cases victim blame), fools no one. Legal issues always need to be sorted based on evidence presented, but they can't hide who they really are and what their motivation (protecting the corporation) behind their silver bibles and weaselly ways.
