Posts by maksutov

86

Geoffrey Jackson. Seems he will be compelled to front up.

by umbertoecho in

pray for brother jackson of the governing body!.

in todays news from australia it appears that, despite his previous declination to appear when invited, justice mcclellan from the australian royal commission on child sex abuse will officially summon brother geoffrey jackson to the stand after all.. ..... the commission was due to conclude its hearings into the jehovahs witnesses on wednesday but justice mcclellan said he will now call geoffrey jackson, a senior member of the churchs governing body in new york who is currently in australia, to appear next week.. .

source.

maksutov

It would be interesting if Mr Stewart were to ask Jackson whether any member of the GB, past or present had ever been accused of sexual abuse of a child.

13

shunning verses victamization

by Sabin in

i know i`ve put this out there before but i want to put it in a different context & see what you think.

i`ve shunned my parents for 20 years (farther, step-mother) because they victimized me every day of my life as a child, believe me when i tell you that writing this , is unbelievable hard, it is making me shake & cry to be pulling up the memories.

all of what happened i could have forgiven, but one thing.

maksutov

To my mind, the word 'victimization' is not very strong - it makes me think of someone who feels as though they have been hard done by (whether justified or not). 'Shunning' seems like a stronger word to me, although it might still not be clear whether the shunning is justified or not. I think the word 'bullying' is appropriate, although that can imply some form of ongoing active interference in the victim's life, which is usually not the case. 'Emotional blackmail' is another appropriate term, although it still doesn't seem strong enough to describe the devastation caused. 'Emotional abuse' might be used, but again that implies direct action, not withdrawal of interaction. I'm not sure there is a word or phrase in the English language that ideally fits the definition of JW shunning.

25

SO IM JUST WONDERIN.....

by brandnew in

jw
friends

as the story of "annointed" ones goes.....when their spouse is left behind on earth, are they free to remarry?

that would kinda suck, being in heaven...watching the wifey , or hubby gettin doinked by someone new.

just sayin.....shewt...i got way too much time on my hands..

maksutov

Blondie: Were those angels seeking sex (since they were neither male nor female in heaven) or power/legacy of having children, forming their own tribe and rulership? I believe it was not sex but the latter, building up their families and power and rulership on earth, something they could not do in heaven unable to have offspring.

But Gen 6:2 specifically says that they were enticed by the women's looks:

Gen 6:2: the sons of the true God began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful. So they began taking as wives all whom they chose.

22

Evolution is not even a theory! So says the WTBTS writing dept!!

by DATA-DOG in

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.

maksutov

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.

22

Can disassociated ones get reinstated without proving repentance?

by maksutov in

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?.

maksutov

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!

10

Proceedings and Decievings

by Coded Logic in

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?.

maksutov

This could almost be a real transcript, rofl.

10

There is likely to be two parts to Geoffrey Jackson's Subpeona

by Listener in

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.

maksutov

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.

39

Rodney Spinks' Performance

by maksutov in

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.

maksutov

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!

49

I sent this to Angus Stewart this morning (Easter Standard Time)

by Viviane in

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.

maksutov

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!

39

Rodney Spinks' Performance

by maksutov in

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.

maksutov

I agree there were definitely plenty of faults to find, and he was dishonest at times, but I suppose I took it as read that that would be the case. Still, he seemed to perform much better than the others. I would think a moderate JW watching days 1-5 would feel very uncomfortable, but day 6 would make them feel soooo much better. If my wife were to watch any of the proceedings, I would hate for it to be just today's, as I think it would give the impression that everything is fine.