New Geoffrey Jackson statement on Royal Commission's webpage!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida 40 Replies latest jw friends

  • Viva la Vida
    Viva la Vida

    Check his signature... it looks kind of childish/feminine (at least in my part of the world)... is this a grown man's signature for you?

  • Vidiot

    Conveniently omitting the OT passages that mention female judges like Deborah...

    ... insisting that congregation leaders are qualified to counsel victims (regardless of their experience), and implying that knowing the elders would "look into it" should be enough...

    ...claiming that the passages pertinent to sexual assault don't actually apply to child abuse allegations...

    ...consistently referring to the abuse as "sin" rather than "crime"...

    ...and implying that it's (indirectly) the secular authorities' fault for instances where reporting was not mandated by law.

    He even threw in an "evidently" on page 5.

    Is anyone really surprised?

    Like most of us have been saying, they're not going to budge on this.

    Line in the sand, people.

  • shadow
    I don't care about his signature but the statement essentially says our procedures are correct and we are not going to change anything.
  • OneEyedJoe

    Has he had a stroke? His face seems to be quite asymmetrical and his childish scrawl seems to support the idea.

    Seems like he took the coward's way out here - seem somewhat agreeable to change and review when before the commission, then retreat and have one someone else write up a hard-line rebuttal for him to sign and send on.

  • Vidiot

    At this point, I'm long past the "are they crazy, or just plain stupid?" stage...


    This is how True Believers act, folks.

  • OneFingerSalute

    Noticed too that the assertion was made that "guilt" was already established as an assumption.

    Then he claimed that the referred to verses only dealt with the woman's fault, using the statement that prior verses mandated two or more witnesses.

    If they are going to take that literally in that manner, why do those nit wits shave their faces? Lev. 19: 27

    Straining out the gnat while gulping down the camel!

  • Viva la Vida
    Viva la Vida

    @shadow: I agree the signature might no be the most important part of the document, but it is the only thing that was really provided by Jackson. I don't think he drafted the document himself.

    I think you can see a bit of how the person really is by his/her handwriting style. In this particular case it seams childish to me... and this person is ruling over 8 million people.

  • Splash

    Issue number 2 has only one thing to defend it, the God's Love book from 2009 where it says
    "In rare instances, one Christian might commit a serious crime against another--such as rape, assault, murder, or major theft. In such cases, it would not be unchristian to report the matter to the authorities, even though doing so might result in a court case or a criminal trial."

    It's so rare, in fact, that it has never happened in 65 years.

    The WT know how to print two sides to every story and cherry pick which reference best suits them when needed.

    Of course they never mentioned:

    *** w04 7/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
    Paul reprimands Christians for going to court “before unbelievers.” (1 Corinthians 6:6)

    *** w01 8/15 p. 23 par. 13 Have Faith Like That of Abraham! ***
    Abram’s example shows that it is better to suffer financial loss than to bring reproach upon Jehovah’s name or to damage the peace of the Christian congregation.

    *** w96 3/15 p. 15 par. 4 Meeting the Challenge of Loyalty ***
    For example, two Christians once got into such difficulty with each other that they improperly resorted to a worldly law court. The judge asked, ‘Are both of you Jehovah’s Witnesses?’ Evidently he could not understand what they were doing in court. What a reproach that was! ... Certainly, the course of loyalty to Jehovah God is to suffer personal loss rather than bring reproach upon Jehovah and his organization.

    *** w91 10/1 p. 10 par. 7 Trust in Jehovah’s Saving Arm ***
    Suppose you were associated with the first-century Corinth congregation. At one time, factions threatened its unity, and toleration of immorality endangered its spirit. Believers took one another to worldly courts, and some wrangled over various matters

    *** w78 9/15 p. 13 par. 8 What Does Jehovah Require of You? ***
    Also, [elders] may be called on to arrive at decisions concerning fellow believers who commit serious sins. (1 Cor. 6:1-6;

    *** g79 3/8 p. 12 Living with Law—Now and Forever ***
    But for handling most differences between Christians, men well grounded in Biblical principles are available in the congregations. They are even now helping many to resolve such matters without the public notice and consequent reproach of court action. In some cases Christian love may even move one to “suffer injury” rather than harm the good name of the congregation before those outside.

  • Vidiot

    OneFingerSalute - "...he claimed that the referred to verses only dealt with the woman's fault..."


    Just a little too close to the "she-was-asking-for-it" defense for my comfort.

  • Muddy Waters
    Muddy Waters
    I remember asking a question about this Deborah, who judged the nation of Israel. I do not have the Watchtower reference, but the gist of why a woman was allowed to judge the nation of Israel was because it showed Israel's "poor spiritual state or condition" in that there was no spiritually worthy man at the time qualified to judge.

Share this