Posts by StrongHaiku

24

A question the Chair (Mclellan) may want to ask G. Jackson

by Indian Larry in

mr. jackson, we have heard testimony from mr spinks and mr. obrien that women will never have leadership positions in the congregation.

as i understand it mr. jackson, you interpret revelation 7 to mean that only 144,000 will go to heaven and that these 144,000 will rule the earth.

i also understand that your organization teaches that women are part of this "remnant" of 144,000. can you explain why jesus christ is willing to put women in leadership over the entire earth but you are not willing to permit them to have anything to do with helping victims of pedophiles in your congregation?

StrongHaiku

"Mr. Jackson, in light of the clear indication by your own publications that JWs are to follow the instructions of the FDS without question ("Listen, Obey, be Blessed"), and in light of the fact that you were aware of the critical/serious nature of these hearings, and in view of the Bible principles/admonitions (e.g. 1 Peter 3:15) to be "ready to provide a defense for your faith", and considering other Bible principles/admonitions to care for the "orphan and widows", and in light of the fact that JWs are taught to make personal sacrifices (including death) to live up to these principles...Can I ask you one thing?

Why did it take a subpoena/request to make you show up?"

75

If you could ask Geoffrey Jackson one question that he had to answer what would it be?

by jwleaks in

what question would you ask geoffrey jackson, as a member of the governing body of jehovah's witnesses, to answer?

.

jw leaks.

StrongHaiku

Really enjoyed and agree with other poster's questions and comments. I think the RC members are pretty savvy and are likely to try ensure that when it is all over they nail down the question as to "who is ultimately responsible for past and future policies?". The JW elders/representatives have been trying to dodge that by obfuscation, pleading ignorance, and even lying ("Theocratic Warfare").

Every JW and Ex-JW knows that no one in the Organization does anything without direction from the GB. Getting G. Jackson on the record to state this truth clearly and on the record is essential because it tee's up who will ultimately be responsible for following (or not following) the RC recommendations. I can imagine G. Jackson trying to wriggle out of that by saying he is "part of the GB" but not the "GB" (like they are some sort of "Voltron" or something) or throw Jehovah under the bus ("Hey, we are just following his direction..."). But I would imagine that the RC has already thought this through and is prepared.

The one good thing is that their policies are indefensible so G. Jackson will fare no better at defending them that anyone else who has come along.

Oh, and if there was time, I would like to have them ask "What's the deal with those pinky rings? I mean, really..."

30

If you could do anything publicly to get JWs out

by cognac in

jw
friends

and money wasn't an issue, what would it be?

StrongHaiku

How about offering a full time college scholarship to any one who is willing to remain unbaptized and leave the Organization?

9

Direction the elders rarely follow.

by notoneoftheboys in

here is a quote from a w/t article a few years ago.

in all the 8 kh i attended [work locations changed] not one body of elders followed this direction, so if they are not minding the sheep who is?

it galls me that they will quickly act if you grow a beard, or voice an opinion, or ask a question, but when your family fall foul of abuse where are the elders then?.

StrongHaiku

What does it say about a group of people who need to be reminded to care for people and treat others with a modicum of humanity? This seems to me to be a natural impulse of most people - i.e. to be kind, to help, to look out for others, etc. One of the problems with the JWs is that they are so concerned about obeying the rules they rarely let their natural human impulses move them to what they know to be right.

You can see evidence of this in the RC hearings. A number of elders showed obvious embarrassment by the gap between what they thought they should have done versus what they were told to do.

34

Mr Jackson declines to appear in RC

by StarTrekAngel in

http://www.jw-archive.org/post/125844213823/geoffrey-jackson-declines-to-appear-before#at_pco=cfd-1.0&at_ab=per-15&at_pos=0&at_tot=14&at_si=55c27690475c6bb3

StrongHaiku

The good news is that there is no way G. Jackson could provide better responses and testimony than the elders/representatives that have already testified. When your position is indefensible it does not matter who presents it.

If he is purely a con-man, his sense of self-preservation should kick in and he would flee the country. However, I can also imagine him being so delusional about his own special position that he thinks he could provide a good defense and "stand for Jehovah". I think his next move will say a lot about what he truly believes.

17

Dude, JW's are getting crushed by the committie!

by thedepressedsoul in

i've been catching up on the videos and news articles.

the elders, lawyers, branch members, hired reports are all getting slammed!

that dude has a response and point to bring up on everything!

StrongHaiku

thedepressedsoul - "Did they not prepare for this event?"

I favor the idea that, as part of preparation, they may have been told NOT to review a lot of the details in order to maintain some level of plausible deniability. "I can't remember", "I can't recall", "I'm not sure" sure sound more convincing when you haven't done your homework.

On the other hand, I do not put it past some of these people to be deluded enough to think the "angels" would give the words to say and they needed no preparation.

8

Official photo of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses - without Geoffrey Jackson

by jwleaks in

jw
friends

governing body of jehovah's witnesses meet to consider replacement for recently retired member geoffrey jackson.. .

.

StrongHaiku

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.

StrongHaiku

Considering that the majority of us got baptized without knowing the information in the elder's book and other confidential, but relevant information, as shown by this hearing, then our understanding of what we were getting ourselves into is suspect.

I really wish this could be the basis to have our baptisms annulled. Not gonna happen, I know, but given the amount of information that is withheld from the R&F (as shown in these hearings), I do not see how we could be held to such a dedication with such a lack of full disclosure.

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.

StrongHaiku

One thing I would hope comes out of this hearing is that, as part of deliberation/recommendations, they require the Organization to collect ALL material (confidential or not) on their policies of abuse in detail, consolidate it into one book/document, and provide it to ALL of the R&F. There needs to be a full disclosure to all members and the RC should try to make that requirement. And, further, that documentation would reviewed by the RC (or some future secular/impartial board) to ensure compliance.

One can dream...

13

Why is the GB so concerned with the well-being of the accused in matters of sexual abuse?

by paradisebeauty in

i'm reading some documents from the royal commission and i don't get it, why so much concern for the accused and his reputation???

i'm starting to think maybe some gb members have things like this in their past, because a normal human being would not take the side of a sexual predator over a child....united states branche x e c u t i v e o f f i c e sto watch tower societyaustraliagsc/as january 21, 1999 no.

176sit is understood that if the law requires elders to report cases of child abuse, they should complywith the law and do so.

StrongHaiku

paradisebeauty - I do not agree. God is concerned with us all, that is why He sent Jesus, to save us!

Not sure if you are being serious or not, but if you are, we have plenty of evidence that God is more concerned with this name than with human beings. If he exists, he may be concerned with people, but it is a lower priority compared to the vindication of his name. Otherwise, he would have probably developed a better loop-hole for salvation that did not necessitate the killing of a human being (e.g. Jesus).