It's been a steady stream of half-truths and double-speak so far. I don't expect anything less than the most spectacular smoke-and-mirror denial, evasion, and forgetfulness.
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
JoinedPosts by Billy the Ex-Bethelite
-
7
My two great hopes regarding Geoffrey Jackson's RC testimony
by Esse quam videri inmy greatest hope is that when geoffrey was a youngun' that his momma taught him to 'tell the truth'.. if geoffrey does not tell the truth, my second great hope is that his momma 'wallups him, but good'.. here's hoping he doesn't 'crawfish' on the witness stand.. crawfish :
a] to cheat, decieve, or otherwise do a person wrong b] go back on what you said previously
-
-
-
4
True Statement in the Watchtower!!
by freemindfade inlast sunday i looked at next weeks study article, the first sentence states the truth!!!.
chastity is not a popular virtue.
.
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
CHASTITY is not a popular virtue.
And Horny is not a popular dwarf:
-
8
Ron De Rooy is the worst
by StarTrekAngel insorry had to come and rant.. been watching all the videos from the rc.
i am at day 5 and so far mr de rooy has been the worst.
many of the others are pretty bad too but at least they show they are concerned for their own fate.
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
I'm finally finishing up the last day. They all get more barfworthy as it goes along.
They have a file of 1000 crimes and they don't see a problem with that. Then they twist it as if to blame the government for not requiring them to protect the children.
-
65
Yes!!! We will see Jackson's face!
by OrphanCrow ini emailed mr. stewart about jackson's testimony, asking if the video link would be visible to the public.. this was his prompt reply:.
thank you dianne for your interest.
the it people tell me that mr jackson will be on the screen for all to see and hear.regardsangus stewart.
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Glad to hear that his face will be seen for the sake of all the YouTube clips that will probably come out of it.
I emailed Mr. Stewart.... This was his prompt reply:
Lucky y'all that have gotten prompt responses. I sent him 2 emails that I thought had some useful material that I hadn't seen covered, but haven't gotten a reply. Had some other things in mind, however I don't have the time to write more that I'm not sure will be of any help.
-
39
Billy's comments to the RC #1 - "We always require at least two witnesses... except for when we don't."
by Billy the Ex-Bethelite ini'm still trying to catch up on the rc broadcast posted to youtube, and i haven't been able to keep up with everything discussed here about it.
however, there have been a few points that i wish i could submit.
repeatedly it has been stated that unless there is a confession, jcs can only act on testimony if it is corroborated by two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing.
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Max: But this seems to be about the standard for determining the freedom to remarry, not the standard for finding guilt of porneia / adultery at a JC
Thanks for the input. I have a couple of responses to that, but I'm thinking I might email them to Mr. Stewart instead of posting them here. If Jackson does have to appear before the RC, maybe I shouldn't put my material on here in case there are some bethel trolls monitoring the Interwebs.
It would be a dream come true for me to see Mr. Stewart grill a GB member with some of these things related to abuse and JCs that have plagued me for decades.
-
39
Billy's comments to the RC #1 - "We always require at least two witnesses... except for when we don't."
by Billy the Ex-Bethelite ini'm still trying to catch up on the rc broadcast posted to youtube, and i haven't been able to keep up with everything discussed here about it.
however, there have been a few points that i wish i could submit.
repeatedly it has been stated that unless there is a confession, jcs can only act on testimony if it is corroborated by two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing.
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
steve: it would be more accurate to say they only do what is their current understanding as comunicated by the GB of what is in the scriptures.
Looking back on my JW history, so much about the witnesses has always been too slippery to me. For an organization that seemed to be so black & white, it could be impossible to get a straight answer sometimes. As Mr. Stewart noted, they're like trying to grab mercury. I'm trying to come up with some published information to try and put some substance to what is otherwise just my opinion on the matter.
-
39
Billy's comments to the RC #1 - "We always require at least two witnesses... except for when we don't."
by Billy the Ex-Bethelite ini'm still trying to catch up on the rc broadcast posted to youtube, and i haven't been able to keep up with everything discussed here about it.
however, there have been a few points that i wish i could submit.
repeatedly it has been stated that unless there is a confession, jcs can only act on testimony if it is corroborated by two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing.
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
johnamos, THANKS for adding that reference. Interesting note on how JW teachings and practices evolve.
Freegirl: You should email that info to Mr. Stewart. It would be a good source of questions in the grilling of Jackson if he shows up.
I have a few other points I wanted to bring up here on the forum and bounce it around first... you know... before 2 or 3 ex-Witnesses. LOL
-
43
G.B. & J.W.'s Becoming Clap-Happy
by The Searcher inat the regional convention (national!!
) for scotland, mark sanderson elicited 13 rounds of applause during his closing talk, (for the least little things!
) plus a final one for his closing prayer!
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Can you be a GB without being a fat-ass? Or is it a prerequisite?
Fat and/or bald
-
39
Billy's comments to the RC #1 - "We always require at least two witnesses... except for when we don't."
by Billy the Ex-Bethelite ini'm still trying to catch up on the rc broadcast posted to youtube, and i haven't been able to keep up with everything discussed here about it.
however, there have been a few points that i wish i could submit.
repeatedly it has been stated that unless there is a confession, jcs can only act on testimony if it is corroborated by two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing.
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
I just finished watching another installment. After hearing the JW mantra, "We only can do what's in the scriptures," the above listed examples from the elders' manual do not cite any scriptural support. These exceptions are based on instructions written in Brooklyn. Where are the scriptures backing up this WT procedure?
More later...
-
39
Billy's comments to the RC #1 - "We always require at least two witnesses... except for when we don't."
by Billy the Ex-Bethelite ini'm still trying to catch up on the rc broadcast posted to youtube, and i haven't been able to keep up with everything discussed here about it.
however, there have been a few points that i wish i could submit.
repeatedly it has been stated that unless there is a confession, jcs can only act on testimony if it is corroborated by two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing.
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
I'm still trying to catch up on the RC broadcast posted to YouTube, and I haven't been able to keep up with everything discussed here about it. However, there have been a few points that I wish I could submit. Here's the first:
Repeatedly it has been stated that unless there is a confession, JCs can only act on testimony if it is corroborated by two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing. Basically, they said that unless someone happened to walk in and be an eyewitness to wrongdoing, there was no other way for a JC to ever judge a case. That is not true. The elders manual includes two exceptions to that rule on the same page, p. 129.
The first,
12. In some cases adultery is not proved, but it is established by confession or by two or more witnesses that the mate stayed all night in the same house with a person of the opposite sex (or a known homosexual) under improper circumstances.... Even if adultery is not established, it may be that the Christian was involved in an immoral sleeping arrangement.
In this case, it is not required for there to be two witnesses to adultery/fornication. It requires two witnesses to circumstantial evidence that the JC can choose to accept or reject as proof of an "immoral sleeping arrangement". Witnesses of such circumstantial evidence is not the same as being witnesses of seeing two people engaging in sexual relations.
Next,
13. Even if the accused mate is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses (disfellowshipped, disassociated, or never baptized), two witnesses are also generally required to establish wrongdoing that would provide a bases for Scriptural freedom. An exception may be made, however, if the unbeliever privately makes an unambiguous confession of adultery to the Christian mate. In such a case, if the innocent Christian mate believes that the confession is true and does not wish to reconcile, he can submit a letter to the elders outlining his situation. The body of elders should then consider the letter. Is there any known reason to conclude other than that the unbelieving mate has been immoral?.... If there is no known reason to conclude otherwise, the innocent mate can be allowed to take responsibility before Jehovah for obtaining a Scriptural divorce; if he remarries, no judicial action will be taken.
In this case, no two witnesses are required. The JW only needs to be aware of this rule in the elders' manual and he can be the only witness testimony required, emphatically state that his nonJW wife had privately made an unambiguous confession of adultery, and submit a letter stating that. The elders will not look for any evidence that the nonJW was unfaithful, rather "Is there any known reason to conclude other than that the unbelieving mate has been immoral?" Basically, the nonJW is considered guilty unless someone on the judicial committee is prepared to prove her innocence. (WT chose to use "he" in the last sentence, I'm just following that example.)
So when the dubs at the RC keep saying that JWs have to stick to the biblical requirement of two eyewitnesses to wrongdoing, that's not true. They accept two witnesses to circumstantial evidence in order to prove wrongdoing, or they accept the word of one witness who is aware of that loophole in the rule.
Was this covered anywhere in the RC? Are there other exceptions to the two witness rule? Is this even making sense? I'm really tired and trying to be coherent and not ramble... okay, now I'm rambling...
