.
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.
51:50 G. Jackson - "We make changes, your honor, because those changes in the actual technicalities of the policies are not affected by the actual Bible principles [...] We will make further changes [to our policies regarding child sex abuse reporting] when we consider the recommendations of the [Royal] Commission."
Eden
.
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.
Oh my, I loved this one. At 41:10 :
The presiding judge took Jackson through some scriptures cross-referenced in the Silver NWT: 1 Timothy 3:4 "Subjection" > Ephesians 6:4 "Discipline" > Proverbs 13:24 "Rod", and asked Jackson what "Rod" means. Jackson replied with the footnote: "discipline, punishment". Then the judge asked him if if it meant inflicting corporal punishment to children. Jackson replied 'absolutely not'. Then the judge asked him if that wasn't the original meaning of the text when it was first written. Jackson conceded that was a possibility. Then the judge asked this brilliant question:
"Your religion, your church, is prepared to interpret the Bible having regard to contemporary social attitudes and standards, is that right?"
Jackson reluctantly conceded: "Obviously, your honor, we need to take that into consideration".
Then the judge was very adamant in questioning Jackson if corporal punishment of children was acceptable among the Jehovah's Witnesses. He didn't let him dance around the question and insisted twice on getting an answer. Then Jackson, after much squirming, finally had to say "No". The judge cut deeper: "But is it prohibited?". Jackson then evaded a straight answer. So, under oath, a member of the Governing Body stated that corporal punishment of children is not acceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses. We'll, see about that ....
But to me the important question asked here is whether the Bible interpretation made by the Governing Body makes concessions to contemporary social attitudes and standards. To which Jackson conceded. This is a key argument from the Royal Commission.
Eden
.
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.
I think that this is an impressive statement made by bro Jackson. Mark these words he said at 21:05:
"Our primary allegiance is to Jehovah God. The Governing Body realizes that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's Word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses who have the Bible would notice that, and they would see that is wrong direction."
Seems to me that brother Jackson, without realizing it, has given grounds for any Jehovah's Witness to challenge Governing Body's doctrines and procedures, as long as it can be proven scripturally that they're not sound. Of course we all know that in the real world this is BS, because Elders and CO's enforce the Governing Body's directions as if they were God's own words and prosecute anyone who even dares to think differently. But this would be a useful quote to use on a JC by someone who is accused of apostasy, to say that the Governing Body is willing to accept a challenge to their direction, because the primary allegiance is towards Jehovah, not the Governing Body.
Also noticed that, by this time, G. Jackson started to loosen up a bit and is now using his hands to communicate. That's more "normal".
Eden
.
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.
I'm watching it now. One thing strikes me immediately - Jackson's initial body language (or lack thereof). His hands, with the exception of the times he is holding the Bible, are constantly kept under the table and out of sight. that's very atypical for a JW elder accustomed to make gestures while addressing others. Either was he tense of was coached to do so.
At around the 11:30 mark, Jackson reads from Acts 6:3, 4 and tries to imply that the Governing Body equates to the apostles and the 30 Governing Body helpers equate to the "seven reputable men". Angus then noted sharply that the text indicates that the "7 reputable men" were first selected by the congregation and only THEN appointed by the apostles, pointing out that the JW's have a different arrangement from the biblical example they profess to follow, since it's the Governing Body that selects and then appoints those helpers. Jackson failed to provide biblical argument to counter this, dismissing it as the interpretation of a secular commission.
Eden
i believe this shows how the org.
doesn't want to be held accountable to secular legal authorities.. in the 1991 green elders handbook (used between 1991 and 2010) there is a blank page (page 143) and at one elders school we were instructed to write six expressions that "should not be used on s77 + s79 forms (df and da forms)".. 1) anything alluding to or naming one of the society's legal advisers.. 2) any mention of the legal desk.. 3) any comments referring to direction from the society.. 4) any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a possible influence in the decision reached.. 5) any comment that might suggest someone with a critical eye that the committee did not reach its decision on its own but instead somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party.. 6) any comments indicating the elders mishandled the case or committed any error in the investigation or the judicial committee process.. i have in my possession two elders handbooks with these exact words written in each in different handwriting.
.
I also used to ask myself - why don't they just print this on the "Shepherd" book? Wouldn't it be simpler? Now I know why. It's all about liability.
Eden
oz branch coordinator terrence o'brien opined a number of times at about 1:00:00 until about 1:15:00 of his testimony, that a dub does not need to da, they can become "inactive.".
i sent our beloved angus stewart my personal experience, as well as observations about official borg teachings.
(he replied in short order.).
I concur with WitnessMyFury and OTWO ... you CAN fade, but expect to be shunned anyway. Perhaps part of your family still "in" will keep on speaking terms with you, one or another may exceptionally keep some association with you, but for the most part, those loving brothers and friends will discreetly shun you. The difference between you and a DF or DA is that normally they won't overtly avoid contact with you if you happen to meet casually. They will be polite, even say they miss you at the meetings, but the conversation will be kept short because, as an inactive Witness, you're no longer considered a "good association".
Unless you physically move out of your territory, you won't ever really leave the radar of your congregation elders, and if you're caught doing anything forbidden to a JW, you'll be swiftly denounced and DF'd (even without you being present at your JC) and the elders will wash their hands off responsibility over you.
As WingCommander said, there's no way a cult will let anyone leave honorably.
Eden
recently i have fallen ill with a serious case of chickenpox (shingles).
three weeks down, high fevers, and the blisters attacked mostly my scalp and face, but then also my whole upper body.
i looked horrid, truly like a mutant monster out of a nuclear disaster.
Marvster, you make a good point. In general, love and compassion among JWs seems to be, not a genuinely spontaneous feeling, but an obligation, meeting a commandment. Once they fulfill their obligation to display love as they are constantly indoctrinated on how it must be shown - reaching out for strangers in an attempt to recruit them and report that effort on a slip of paper at the end of the month - they feel self-satisfied and little motivation is left to spontaneously care for their own brethren.
Eden
recently i have fallen ill with a serious case of chickenpox (shingles).
three weeks down, high fevers, and the blisters attacked mostly my scalp and face, but then also my whole upper body.
i looked horrid, truly like a mutant monster out of a nuclear disaster.
zeb, unfortunately I had just started a new antibiotic on a friday evening for an ear infection when I started having fever and itching, so I thought at first I was having an allergic reaction to that penicillin-based antibiotic. I couldn't get back to the doctor until monday and by then i was too late to take Zovirax or any other antiviral medication. Those are only effective on the first 24 hours.
cultBgone, it's absolutely alright and thank you for the encouragement. I hope you're mending as well.
LisaRose, isn't it pathetic that as JW's we move mountains to make recruits and when we do, all we can teach them is a compassionless version of christianity, devoided of genuine humanity and concern for those who are closer to us? Reminds me of what Jesus told to the pharisees: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as fit for hell as you are!" - Matthew 23:15
ToesUp, dubstepped- It doesn't matter if you're fully in or partially out, this unloving treatment from those whom you are told to regard as closer than your own family and blood, will always hurt. This is what is getting to me at this stage of my fading ... that the "friends" we once held in such high regard will dump you in a snap if you're not walking the company line. And the fact that they feel they're entirely justified because...yeah, we are the ones who "abandoned jehoober" and thus we've brought it upon ourselves.
Steve2 - Funny you mentioned it, i had the same idea: make known to the congregation elders that i had been hospitalized and was being pressured by the doctors to take blood. Would be fun to clock how fast they'd come out of the woodwork - if nothing else, just to see if they would find incriminating material to finally disfellowship me.
Everyone else, thank you for the get well wishes. I'm a rag today, but I'm happy that I helped my son to get his his way to university. He was accepted today. Hurrah!
Eden
recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.
i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.
first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.
recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.
i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.
first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.
Thank you for this post, Viviane.
Eden
