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

by Indian Larry 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Vidiot

  umbertoecho - "The thing is, this Commission isn't really about actual beliefs..."

  JWs will perceive it that way, however, because at this stage in the game - and as far as they're concerned - policies are beliefs, and beliefs are policies, even if they're not consciously aware of perceiving them as such.

  Therefore, a consequence of the RC (unfortunately for the WTS) is that the exposure of the policies' flaws cannot help but - as far as JWs are concerned - inevitably call into question the validity of the beliefs.

  I suspect this is why, in the past, WT lawyers have tried to play the "religious freedom" card.
• 

  StrongHaiku

  Vidiot - A consequence of the RC (unfortunately for the WTS) is that the exposure of the policies' flaws cannot help but - as far as JWs are concerned - inevitably call into question the validity of the beliefs.

  I have to say that I was truly surprised at times at the questions the RC asked about beliefs in general. But it started to make sense after a while. I think the RC was trying to understand ("get a feel for") the limitations/constraints of the how the beliefs impact policy and where the Organization can/cannot flex/accommodate to possible recommended changes. I think they were trying to get a clear understanding on what is negotiable vs. non-negotiable for the JWs.

  At times, I even got the sense the RC was trying to help the Organization with finding a way to help them reconcile their religious beliefs (provide a loophole) in order to align to a more enlightened 21st century understanding of what is best. I think it is starting to dawn on the RC members who they are dealing with here and you can see it in their reactions. Pure, unadulterated shock and revulsion.
• 

  Indian Larry

  onthewayout I agree with you the RC has touched on theology but have focused on the problem areas in the JW church. I don't think His worship, will be to interested in talking about the 144000 or in other theology.

  I don't bring it up only as a question of theology. Mr. McLellen focused on having women be part of the process. According to the both Spinks and OBrian that was going to be a NO-GO. They are not suited to sit in judgement. I just thought that they might have a hard time explaining Jesus Christ supposedly chose women to sit in judgement (and execute judgment) on the entire earth but they wont allow a woman in the organization to be of help with this.
  
  It is clearly called for to help minimize the trauma on the poor girls that are be subjected not only to the abuse of the pedophiles but then to have to go through sharing intimate details of the abuse with men, men who are likely friends with the abuser. It is a messed up situation and anyone should be able to see that.
  
  I for one would like to see Jackson explain why that will not be the case - and you know they will NEVER allow that.
• 

  truthseeker100

  Keep the questions simple

  Just so we know we are talking the same language here If any reference is made to young kids and their generational problems approximately how many years are there in a generation and how many years have the present policies been in place?

  What constitutes a known child molester?

  The two witness rule in biblical times was used to determine when it was necessary to put a perpetrator to death,why do you need two witnesses?

  What is spiritual death?

  What is spiritual resurrection and how is it accomplished?

  Have you ever advised someone not to report a case of child sexual misconduct to the authorities.

  If not why not? If so when, where and why.

  And on and on and on.

  I can think of a million of them I like to ask.
• 

  Vidiot

  StrongHaiku - "... I think it is starting to dawn on the RC members who they are dealing with here and you can see it in their reactions. Pure, unadulterated shock and revulsion."

  Agreed.

  And I'm quite certain that that unadulterated shock is - in no small part - due to the JWs' very deliberately and carefully crafted public reputation as "very nice, polite, and generally harmless people".