I wonder if it's better that it's him. If he's sincere, loving and humane in his actions, I would think he couldn't help but be honest in the way he takes the stand. Maybe this would wake him and countless others, because of his sincere nature and the fact that the RC won't let them get away with anything.
Whereas, anyone else would tow the line.
The more I think about it, the more I'm glad it's him...
"If he's sincere, loving and humane in his actions, I would think he couldn't help but be honest in the way he takes the stand. Maybe this would wake him and countless others, because of his sincere nature and the fact that the RC won't let them get away with anything."
Are you hoping that Geoffrey Jackson is another Raymond Franz? I doubt that he would have lasted long in the organization if he were.
1) He never shows up.
2) He shows up with the biggest whoppers of all time, namely, the GB agree that changes are needed, and they were just getting ready to release nu-light on pedo issues.
They would have released them, but the RC happened and they felt the obligation to obey the Superior Authorities. Then they provide some conveniently back-dated, "progressive" policy changes.
He will find a way to pass the buck, I guarantee it!
I'm with you on this: Mr. Stewart first of all needs to somehow positively confirm exactly what Jackson's role is in the GB or the Jackman is gonna weasel out of it.
Village Idiot - at least a few people on this forum who have met him got a very good impression of him.
I doubt he would have lasted this long either; however, we really don't know anything for sure.
It's just another perspective. Either way; it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Does anyone here know what Jackson's role/title on the Gb is besides Writing/Translation committee that was mentioned during the trial?
Or does being on the writing staff automatically affirm that he is indeed a policy maker (in legal sense that Angus can hold him to)?
All excellent observations of Angus Stewart. He doesn't go on the attack does he?...He first establishes if he has understood some aspect of this religions teachings and actions and beliefs., He even refers to the bible for support, quoting the scriptures they all know, hell we all have heard them.... By now, the elder or what ever is feeling cosy in bible land or should I say WTland..............Stewart then topples the entire basis of these elders actions into complete disarray. And he does this with his cool and largely unreadable facial or physical expressions. He is so hard for these men to anticipate.
Add to that, he has. with the consent of the elders; established the "sins" that are so wrong as to merit disfellowshipping, such as adultery, smoking, lying etc.... He proceeds to show how inconsistent, flawed, cruel.... incredible even; is their form of applying God's laws....So flawed indeed,that a child merits nothing, compared to the adultery or lying, or some other sin.
The clincher was in how he revealed, without having to say it. That in reality, the excuse given for disfellowshipping her father had been kept so deliberately hidden, for a purpose...And that purpose could only be one of two. One, to keep the society looking squeaky and better than anyone else in the realm of child sexual abuse.. Or two; They didn't give a dammed about the rights of a child being sexually abused. Which one would they choose?
There was no way out of the trap. I fell in love with Stewart from day one........spiritually speaking of course ahem.....