has anyone read the new awake ragazine??
it's a doozy!!
i thought we had a thread concerning this subject, but i can't find it.
Finkelstein: Biological evolution isn't a theory anymore its an accepted and proven science.Its was a proposed theory in Darwin's day.
The word 'theory', when applied to a scientific theory, does not mean what most people think it means. Biological evolution by natural selection is a theory, and always will be. It is also a fact. A scientific theory is not just a guess, a hunch, or a hypothesis - it is a model that explains how and why something works.
one of the jw high-ups questioned by the australian royal commission (i think it was o'brien) stated that those who had disassociated (as opposed to being disfellowshipped) do not have to undergo a lengthy reinstatement procedure of proving repentance over many months, but can simply ask to be reinstated immediately.
is this true?
has anyone heard of this ever happening?.
One of the JW high-ups questioned by the Australian Royal Commission (I think it was O'Brien) stated that those who had disassociated (as opposed to being disfellowshipped) do not have to undergo a lengthy reinstatement procedure of proving repentance over many months, but can simply ask to be reinstated immediately. Is this true? Has anyone heard of this ever happening?
I was not disfellowshipped, but an announcement was made that I am no longer a JW (without my knowledge or request), thus, I was forcibly disassociated (according to them, 'by my actions'). I find it very hard to believe that they would let me undo that simply by requesting reinstatement!
you may be seated.. peter mcclellan: now, mr. ministerial servant, as i understand it, you are authorized to make decisions in regards to child abuse cases?.
now, mr. elder, as i understand, it you are authorized to make decisions in regards to child abuse cases?.
now, mr. slick, as i understand it, you are authorized to make decisions in regards to child abuse cases?.
we've been focusing on the fact that geoffrey jackson will be subpoenaed to be a witness at the australian royal commission but he will also be required to present a witness statement before his appearance.
even if he continues to wiggle out of the appearance he has no excuse for not presenting his witness statement.. this statement will have to address questions set out by the commission and will need to be answered.
without doubt the answers he is able to be aided by his lawyers and more 'experienced' jws but as he is signing the document they will be his answers and he will be responsible for their truthfulness.. had he shown more willingness to appear prior to yesterday the questions asked by the commission in that statement would not have been written with the same amount of insight that they now have.
username: I have an uncomfortable feeling that this may have all been staged. All the elders playing dumb to give the Royal Commission a false sense of security, then Jackson steppes up to the board and has them spinning!
I highly doubt that. If they actually had any defense for their policies, they would not have gone to all the trouble of making themselves look foolish, committing perjury, and being uncooperative, just so that they could say 'ta da!' and reveal that they're really shining examples of how to respond to child abuse. If they had actually wanted Jackson to testify, they would have volunteered him. They clearly do not want him to testify, and are willing to make themselves look terrible, and throw even the branch coordinator under the bus to prevent him having to.
it seems like there has not been as much discussion here about the rc testimony on day 6 (4th august) as there has been about previous days.
i was quite surprised by rodney spinks' testimony, which was a marked contrast to the bungling and inarticulate testimony of the elders that appeared before him.
spinks seemed reasonably co-operative, and a lot more willing to concede points than anyone else has been.
OrphanCrow: He was horrible to the women lawyers.
Really? Interesting. I haven't watched the whole thing, I only saw parts 2, 3, and 4, and did not see any female lawyers asking questions.
@Axelspeed - I love the chess references, very apt! GB = king, but the real power is in the Queen/legal department. Spot on!
i just sent this email to angus stewart:.
i hope this email finds you well.
i would like to say thank you for your work on the royal commission, particularly in your handling of the jehovah's witnesses elders and experts during questioning.
I also sent Mr Stewart an e-mail yesterday, and received a reply this morning. As we're sharing, here's what I said:
Mr Stewart.
I would just like to thank you and your team for the tireless and relentless work you have put in to exposing the tragically destructive flaws in JW attitudes to child protection.
For many years now, ex JWs have been trying to call attention to the problem, but this is the most robust and competent investigation I have ever come across. I am very hopeful that your efforts will have a positive impact on the lives of hundreds, possibly thousands of children. By cutting deftly through the Watchtower spin and deflections, you are giving victims of abuse an eloquent voice and standing up to those who would silence vulnerable children in a misguided attempt to protect the reputation of an organisation.
I'm sure there are times during this hearing that you want to scream, but your skill and professionalism is a pleasure to behold, and adds further weight to the solid arguments you make.
Thank you!
it seems like there has not been as much discussion here about the rc testimony on day 6 (4th august) as there has been about previous days.
i was quite surprised by rodney spinks' testimony, which was a marked contrast to the bungling and inarticulate testimony of the elders that appeared before him.
spinks seemed reasonably co-operative, and a lot more willing to concede points than anyone else has been.
it seems like there has not been as much discussion here about the rc testimony on day 6 (4th august) as there has been about previous days.
i was quite surprised by rodney spinks' testimony, which was a marked contrast to the bungling and inarticulate testimony of the elders that appeared before him.
spinks seemed reasonably co-operative, and a lot more willing to concede points than anyone else has been.
so, i am back at it.
i give you day 5 of the royal commissions proceedings:.
part 1 has been uploaded and part 2,3 and 4 will soon be available.. part 1:.
firstly, thank you to anyone who is in support of this rc.
no one has shown anything but great interest and empathy for those who were abused.. i don't know who this simonsays character is though and i find him to be very rude and ignorant.
it takes all kinds to make the world go round i suppose.. today i was contacted by a staff member of the royal commission.
