[Day 8 - 14/8]Governing Body, Geoffrey Jackson - Royal Commissions On Child Sexual Abuse, Australia. + VIDEO

by C0ntr013r 34 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Mickey mouse
    Mickey mouse
    It has been pointed out on another forum that he appears to be wearing an Apple watch.
  • flipper

    Thanks Orphan Crow & Umbertoecho- I thought it might be a good idea to give a blow by blow since watching Jackson's almost 3 hour testimony is 3 hours of my life I'll never get back ! LOL ! Figured I'd make that time worthwhile. The guy was so Witnessy it was pathetic.

    So here are my notes on part 2 Day 8 -

    2:00 to 3:00 Angus Stewart asks Jackson, : " If a person wants to leave your organization musn't they dissociate or get DFed ? " Jackson states, : " They don't have to dissociate. They can tell anybody they want that they aren't JW's . " Uh-huh.

    4:50 to 6:00 Angus Stewart attempts to read WT instructions contradicting Jackson and Jackson rudely interrupts Stewart and says, " they have total freedom. If they don't want to be JW's nobody prevents them from doing so. "

    7:15 to 8:00 Angus Stewart unswayed states, : " They are still held accountable if inactive when they break the rules of the organization. "

    8:30 Jackson starts playing " dumb " and states, : " It's not my field I don't understand." Stewart replies, : " Well Mr. Jackson it IS your field, correct ? You've been a GB member for 10 years now. " Stewart continues and asks, " If an inactive JW celebrates Christmas could he be DFed for doing so ? Is he still held accountable by the church ? Jackson replies, " No, I disagree he would not get DFed. "

    11:00 to 13:00 Angus Stewart like a dog with a bone in his mouth continues and says to Jackson, : " Isn't it true that an inactive JW is still subject to the organization's rules ? If two elders call on an inactive person's door and asks if they still want to be a JW and the answer is " No " - won't that person be DFed ? " Jackson replies , : " No, that doesn't happen . " Then Jackson claims elders try to readjust the person, blah, blah.

    14:00 to 17:35 Angus Stewart continues and doesn't let up , he asks, : " A person inactive is still subject to the discipline of the church, correct ? If elders found a person living in sin would they discipline that person if inactive ? " Jackson admits , " In that case the person could be DFed. Remaining JW members cannot associate with him " Jackson continues, " We don't have a spiritual " police force " running around spying on people. But Stewart makes his point by saying, " You're either IN the organization or you're OUT of the organization. "

    18:00 to 20:00 Jackson still stubbornly refuses to admit that the elders will DF inactive ones for celebrating Christmas. And Angus Stewart remarks, : " Well, what choice do inactive ones have ? They are faced with gaining their freedom from the organization on the one hand- but losing their family and friends on the other hand . "

    20:00 to 22:00 Angus Stewart dug deeper he asks , : " It's a difficult choice for a person who has been sexually abused to leave the organization. Does shunning these abused ones harmonize with the JW's views of Christianity ? "Jackson replies, " You are jumping to conclusions " .

    22:00 to 24 :00 Stewart continues and asks, : " You baptize young people, even at age 11. Is someone old enough to make a decision like that which will affect the rest of their lives ? Jackson states, " Oh yes, I've known plenty of people who are still faithful to their decision years later holding true even though they were baptized young. " Stewart turns up the heat and asks, " Indeed, where else will they go ? They have to stay in it or they'll be shunned. " Then Jackson coldly states, " Anything is possible. "

    24:00 to 25 :30 Angus Stewart says, : " Shunning is in conflict with JW's belief of freedom or choice of religion. It is dishonoring the thought of a compassionate and loving God. " Stewart states, " In fact isn't it true that Jehovah's Witnesses are a " captive organization " ? Jackson disagrees. Stewart asks , : " Will your organization change their policy of shunning ? " Jackson emphatically states," no , we will not. "

    26:00 to 28:00 Stewart states, " Your organizations policies on child abuse HAVE caused many problems. " Jackson replies, : " We have made changes . "

    28:00 Jackson states, : " The GB is always interested in refining our policies. There is love among the organization. We treat victims with love. " Uh-huh.

    29:00 to 34:00 Judge McClellan asks Jackson, : " Would the organization apologize to child abuse victims ? " Jackson replied, " We've apologized about other things in the past . " ( yeah- right. Liar. ) McClellan asks, : " Would the GB compensate child abuse victims ? Jackson replies, " There is a possibility for us to give help to the victims. "

    34:00 to 38:00 Judge McClellan asks, : " What does the church do about helping the abused child when there is only 1 eyewitness to the crime ? " Jackson says, " The elders let the parents or guardian know that they can take it to the authorities. " Jackson continues as if making excuses, " What happens in the home is beyond the jurisdiction of the elders. But everyone is put on alert. " ( Another untruth )

    38:00 to 40:00 Jackson states that , " We hope that the conscience of the elders would inform the police. " McClellan asks him, " Are there written instructions given ? " Jackson says, " We make the families aware of their rights " Jackson continues, " We are adjusting our policies. We put restrictions on the child molesters associating with minors " .

    44:00 to 50:00 BGC's attorney states how her client received NO comfort from elders with her child abuse situation. She said, " My client was told to take solace in the coming Paradise and was just given scriptural guidance as comfort. " BGC's attorney said, " Your organization's methods need to improve. Child abuse victims need help NOW more help needs to be given. Just giving scriptural guidance can be more damaging.

    57:00 to 1:02 Jackson seemed to indicate that children's testimony could be " less truthful " giving the example of one divorcing parent turning the child against the other one. " McClellan asked Jackson, " How would testimony of a child be doubted anymore than an adult where it involves child abuse ? " Jackson states, " We just have to be more cautious if an unbeliever is testifying or if they are DFed - has to be weighed carefully as they may have a vendetta against the organization. "

    So that's about all I have. It was very interesting. I feel Mr. Stewart and McClellan and BGC's attorney extracted about as much as they're going to get out of this mind controlled GB member. They made him shake in his boots a little- but you can tell he's definitely a company man. I hope they abolish the two witness rule. It's so stupid. And as Angus showed not scripturally relevant . Take care, let's save the children ! Peace out, Mr. Flipper

  • cha ching
    cha ching
    Nice summary, Flipper!
  • Retrovirus

    An interesting change of direction at about 27:55, when Angus Stewart had just asked GJ if he would deny that "apostate lies" dismissal of the RC's work. . . .Jackson first spars for time, then actually says that it is a "broad question (WTF??) because "such people make many other accusations"

    Then realises he's digging a deep hole and changes tack to " it doesn't matter who makes the accusation. . ."

    Yes, he's quite saccy but not word perfect either!

  • flipper

    Wanted to bump up GB member Jackson's testimony if some had not seen or heard it on you tube. Peace out, let's save the children, Mr. Flipper

Share this