Posts by EdenOne

10

RELIGION IS.... (memes)

by EdenOne in

post a meme, original or not, about what you think religion is.

i'll start:.

eden.

RELIGION IS.... (memes)

by EdenOne in

post a meme, original or not, about what you think religion is.

i'll start:.

eden.

EdenOne

Post a meme, original or not, about what you think religion is.

I'll start:

Eden

190

Geoffrey Jackson - Royal Commission Live Hearing Now!

by LostinJapan in

.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.

Towards the end of part 1 of the video, he establishes a parallel between the situation described in Deuteronomy, where a woman is raped in the field. She screams but no one listened, so she is exempted from guilt, while the man is stoned to death. Angus questions: Where is the second witness to this crime? After all, the woman screams and no one listened so to come to her help. Jackson was truly uncomfortable at this point. All he could mutter was "Well...there would be circumstances..." Angus then asked him, if Jesus, who made reference to the two witnesses rule on Matthew 18, would also concede the same exception as in the case of the woman raped in the field. "That is a question I would like to do to Jesus myself...it's hypothetical", Jackson said.

He also referred to the Elder's manual about the use of circumstantial evidence to establish a sin, such as the case where a man is found guilty of adultery after being seen spending the night alone at the house of someone of the opposite sex or a known homosexual.

Then Angus drove the point home. He asked if there would be any possibility that the Jehovah's Witnesses would be willing to consider likewise "circumstantial evidence" and "opportunity of sexual abuse to take place" as the second witness [he gave the example of a child's trauma] to establish the credibility of a case of an allegation of child abuse. Jackson, after much squirming, conceded that the possibility of a 'second witness' requirement could be fulfilled by circumstantial or corroborating evidence is something the Governing Body is willing to reconsider.

Eden

190

Geoffrey Jackson - Royal Commission Live Hearing Now!

by LostinJapan in

.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.

EdenOne

1:13:05 This is important: The presiding judge asked Jackson, repeatedly, if the Jehovah's Witnesses would be willing to consider modifying the process of verification of the truthfulness of sexual abuse allegations, so that women would be involved in such a body. Once such investigation were completed, it would be then the Elders to make the decision to disfellowship or otherwise the accused. In this way, the involvement of women would make the process less traumatizing for young women to bring forth their allegations, because they wouldn't be forced to tell their story in details to a group solely composed of men; at the same time, this wouldn't require women to be made Elders. In fact, what is being suggested by the Royal Commission is an intermediate body that would HEAR and INVESTIGATE and DETERMINE if the allegations of sexual abuse are true, whereas the actual JUDICIAL DECISION would be up to the Judicial Committee, composed solely by male Elders.

Either Jackson was genuinely surprised by the suggestion, or he was trying to work out the implications of such a suggestion, he danced around it, pretended he didn't understand the question, but finally he said to that: "The answer, your honor, is, such a situation would be worthy of us considering and doing research and checking the Scriptures, yes. The possibility of considering that is there."

Eden

190

Geoffrey Jackson - Royal Commission Live Hearing Now!

by LostinJapan in

.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.

EdenOne

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

190

Geoffrey Jackson - Royal Commission Live Hearing Now!

by LostinJapan in

.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.

EdenOne

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

190

Geoffrey Jackson - Royal Commission Live Hearing Now!

by LostinJapan in

.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.

EdenOne

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

190

Geoffrey Jackson - Royal Commission Live Hearing Now!

by LostinJapan in

.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.

EdenOne

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

16

Would this be any use to the Royal Commission?

by freddo in

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.

.

EdenOne

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

37

Can You Really Become Inactive Instead of DA'ing and Keep Your Family

by truth-or-consequences in

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.).

EdenOne

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