by steve2 49 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse


    Hi Steve2 - I suppose we had certain expectations of a kinda thrust and execute - but if you see the comments elsewhere by umbertoecho regarding a response from the ARC received shortly after it ended and I think when you get to look at the Transcripts in depth a little later you will see the delusional man come very much to the fore -

    Hang in there friend !

  • Heaven

    I think to the average person outside of the JW world, Jackson appears as you say, steve2. He certainly didn't bumble around as much as the elders. It was apparent though that he did not give direct answers to some of the questions asked of him. The Royal Commission knows this.

    But knowing what goes on within the religion, knowing that these GB 'fellow workers' autograph Bibles and are definitely elevated above the role of 'fellow worker' says Jackson attempted to downplay the GB's importance to the public and Royal Commission when in fact, they are and have stated they are, God's Sole Channel of Communication. This is not a mere 'fellow worker' type role. Jackson is a liar. And the Royal Commission knows this.

    GJ attempted to display a humble and Biblically knowledgable appearance, but was not convincing to me. He could not give any scripture that stated only men should be Judges for example. This is a to-do for the Watchtower to get back to the Royal Commission on. I do not think he/they will be able to do it. There IS a scripture that clearly states women can be judges in, what d'ya know, Judges 4:4-5 where Deborah sat in judgment in Israel.

    As I have felt all along, their use of the Bible and their interpretation is where they falter, as do all religions because they have an agenda which is also flawed. He kept saying that taking scripture out of context is where secular people have issues. So who says the Watchtower is taking scripture in the correct context? And what if scripture is flawed/incorrect/inaccurate/contradictory/illegal? What if there is no scripture for an issue they are facing? How can one determine what to take literally versus allegorically versus false? Believing that all scripture is inspired and from God is a foundational flaw. But I bet Jackson has never conducted a comparison of the 4 Gospels. I wonder if he read Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" what his reaction would be (I can pretty well guess).

    GJ also stated they do not go beyond what is written. This is also a lie. Some, if not all, of their key doctrines do this. No where in the Bible does it state that you cannot celebrate birthdays, Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, etc. No where in the Bible does it state handing out Awake! and Watchtower magazines is the definition of 'works'. No where is the term 'Governing Body' used. Hell/Hades is definitely Biblical and they have chosen to not believe in it.

    One thing that Jackson did make clear. It will make things a whole lot easier for them if reporting of child abuse is made mandatory. This is what needs to happen for all the human rights violations this group is committing, not just child abuse.

  • _Morpheus

    I agree steve, jackson did come off well, much as on a smaller scale tomo3 did when cedars pranked called him. More than a few voices on this forum warned as much. You simply were not going to get a gotcha moment or even a satisfying grilling, although i did think the judge and AS did a good job disecting his nonsense.

    Here the simple reality though: as much as there was no real satisfaction from jackson being on the stand there will be no real satisfaction from the recomendations made by the comission. Its simply not going to change the org one iota. Stupid theories about female elderets doing investigations and some new level of transparency or warning the congregation about pedos are now and will remain apostate pipe dreams. It will not happen. The commission can recommend whatever it wants. The org will do as it wishes. The absolute most that will change is some form of mandatory reporting to authorties. Thats it. At most. No apologies. No money. No future protection for kids (beyond the manditory reporting which is positive).

  • done4good

    Steve2 - Spot on post.

    Despite their extreme delusion, the GB are not your "ditch digger by day, power tripping part-timer by night" elder. They did not get where they are in the corporation without a level of political savvy. This is the sole reason Jackson's presentation did not appear as undignified to the viewer.

    Having said that, as I have been consistently stating from the beginning, this is not about a short-term windfall. The RC's work is a key example of societal change at large. The RC is an example that makes clear that "worldly" modern governments do a better job at protecting human rights than any "theocratic" system.

    To the degree the organization makes changes from this or not will affect the organization's future. If they do make changes, this has a level of reprieve for victims or would-be victims moving forward, which is obviously a positive development. Unfortunately, this will likely be limited, simply because none of the changes will come from the need for the organization to make ground-up social reforms for the benefit of its members and society as a whole. Any change will be made in the name of the organization's own survival only. There will not be much more than bare minimum changes, however if these save one victim, they are worth it on a localized scale.

    Longer term, this will hasten the organization's demise, along with other organizations that stubbornly refuse to accept social responsibility for the well being of members under their care. This RC was a most excellent example of social evolution, its work is not over and larger social change will take place because of it directly, as well as others that will undoubtedly take place in other developed countries. We should celebrate this. It is a big win.


  • jhine

    Steve2 , of course you are right about the RC it is not a trial , and as much as AS and the others might have wanted to punch some people , they had to show restraint . Which they did- to a remarkable degree !

    As to your " confession " about GJ it takes a big person to admit in public to something so shameful LOL


  • DesirousOfChange

    "What the law cannot compel, public shaming can accomplish "

    I respectfully disagree.

    Public shaming (or embarrassment) my affect some of the R&F JWs who still have some conscience, but the only thing that will rock those at the top are the lawsuits. Perhaps some of the testimony which is now in the public domain will be advantageously used in future litigation.

    Follow the money. Putting their money at risk is the only thing that gets the WTS scrambling to make changes.


  • Magnum
    Thanks steve2, I have not yet seen any of the video of Jackson's appearance, and I was wondering how he did. I was scared that some (justifiably) so wanted to see him flounder and fail that their assessments would be biased. Thanks for your honest assessment.
  • eyeuse2badub

    We all need to frame his words; "that would be presumptuous" when questioned about the gb being god's spokesmen here on earth. Those words should live on in infamy and he is sure to get a good tongue lashing from the other 6 gb 'gods' when he gets back to Brooklyn.

    just saying!


  • leaving_quietly

    There's some very intelligent and respectful posts in this thread, so thanks all, for that.

    I have only watched a portion of Mr. Jackson's testimony. Time is not on my side at the moment. What I've been able to glean is more of an inside look into the functioning of the governing body and it's role in relation to the rest of the organization. This, to me, is very key from a doctrinal perspective. The portion where I stopped watching is where they were just starting to get into the real issue at hand, but the first 40 minutes or so of the testimony is, in my opinion, quite damaging to the claim of being the "faithful and discreet slave". And it's out of the horse's mouth, so to speak.

    Two phrases that jumped out were "Guardians of Doctrine" and calling the Bible our "constitution. "Guardians of Doctrine" never appears in any literature, so that's a new one. However, calling the Bible our "constitution" seemed to be somewhat popular in the 1970s and 1980s, the last reference to it that way in the March 15, 1984 Watchtower (p. 19 par. 18).

    As for the phrase, "Guardians of Doctrine", that too is telling. They truly have placed themselves in a position, a self-appointed position, that even the Bible says is not necessary or required. Note Galatians 3:23-25: "However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed. So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian."

    I do hope some good comes of all of this. At the very least, the light is shining into this critical area. It's on the world stage for all to see. It's on the internet, and it won't be going away any time soon.

  • Vidiot

    Heaven - "...their use of the Bible and their interpretation is where they falter, as do all religions because they have an agenda which is also flawed."

    I'd argue that the Bible itself has an agenda, but whatever.

    Regardless, Jackson clearly gives off an "it-ain't-broke-so-don't-fix-it" vibe.

Share this