so last night i got to have some more fun at the meeting.. the serve us indoctrination session was thirty minutes of interrogation and answers about the "these words must be on your heart" video.. question three was, "what scriptural formula leads to the best chance of success in raising children?
" then before any answers the conductor had deut.
6:6,7 read.
OFS, Steven Hassan would be proud, but he'd wonder why you are still there!?!
Stuck, ah yes, the June 22, 2000 Awake! A brilliantly ironic piece of propaganda itself. Consider this little gem:
"Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies." - g00, 6/22, p. 6
via /r/exjw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc7vhu8l88k.
mr. jackson was pressured by angus stewart to answer if the org condoned corporal punishment, to which he openly stated that the org does not condone corporal punishment for j.w.
children.
this "fact" has never been revealed in the org's literature, in fact, this article which was published under geoffrey jackson's supervision, by definition demonstrates the org's approval of corporal punishment for j.w.
Searcher, thanks for sharing that excerpt from the transcript.
The evasiveness and the refusal to give a direct answer is very telling. It's pretty typical of all of the WT representatives throughout the RC hearings.
I'd love to ask any or all of them, "Why is it so hard for you to just give a straight answer? It seems like you're hiding something."
mr. jackson was pressured by angus stewart to answer if the org condoned corporal punishment, to which he openly stated that the org does not condone corporal punishment for j.w.
children.
this "fact" has never been revealed in the org's literature, in fact, this article which was published under geoffrey jackson's supervision, by definition demonstrates the org's approval of corporal punishment for j.w.
Liars gotta' lie. It's what they do.
Maybe Jacko didn't read that particular issue.
the wts has been keeping case files on child sex abuse for over 60 years that we know of.
*damn...my whole post disappeared.... .
the wts has been keeping case files on child sex abuse for over 60 years that we know of.
Millie: If a person were to be objective as a believer, the evidence would indicate the Holy Spirit is working against them.
True dat!
What a fantastic comment. The logic of this observation and it's conclusion is compelling. And yet the average JW will not be able to see it because of the powerful indoctrination which they have received, indoctrination and mind-control which prevents any thoughts which are in any way critical of the religion.
Let's review: It's a cult!
so i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
It seems that it's just to get attention.
so i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
TR: we should pay attention to our main task which is discussing " Did man land on the moon"
Yes. End of discussion.
Let's break for lunch.
so i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
TR: I would suggest it implies the woodcutter ( wood chuck) should pay attention to the main task, and complete it to the best of his ability.
The groundhog (Marmota monax), also known as a woodchuck, or whistlepig, is a rodent of the family Sciuridae, belonging to the group of large ground squirrels known as marmots.
so i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
Viviane: If a wood chuck could chuck wood, how much wood would that wood chuck chuck?
Obviously Viv, If a wood chuck could chuck, then a wood chuck would chuck a wood chuck chuck of wood!
this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.
i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.
a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!
The fact that Jackson couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't answer with a simple "Yes" or "No" proves one thing: He is a coward.
Let's cut through all the bullshit and the theosophical rhetoric. Geoffrey Jackson is a duplicitous coward.
They're not the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" and he knows it.
Let's review: It's a cult!
