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.