Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing
I've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the Royal Commission. Seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon. They are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.
The tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.
These people are incorrigible. But then when an organization thinks they are superior race, they'll thumb their nose at anybody.
I don't have the time to create a nice summary....sorry.
It's an interesting read.
Watchtower's response to Royal Commission
In case of emergency, claim persecution...
"Jehovah’s Witnesses consider, however, that some of the criticisms made by Counsel Assisting go beyond what is necessary to assist the Commission in fulfilling its task or what is required by the Terms of Reference. They appear to be unjustified attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses as a faith and the individual members thereof. These attacks seem to be the result of misinterpretations of the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses and of the Bible and the law."
Wryly amused that that they even try to disagree with points where the commissioner has already told them they have issues.
But morally bankrupt leadership yet again. They claim they assume elders will be moved by their conscience to report, whilst being absolutely adamant that they need mandated reporting because it's just too difficult for them to say it explicitly and actively put elders through a process to figure out whether or not they're legally obliged to report.
More of the same on other issues. Whitewashed graves as one chap was meant to have phrased it.
Oh wow! The ARROGANCE is outstanding!
Simply amazing that they have tried to manipulate the royal commission....
They are above the lowly laws of "Caesar".
They only answer to "GOD" (Guardians of Doctrine).
That response is old. Let's see how they respond to the findings just released.
F69 Members of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation who no longer want to be subject to the organisation’s rules and discipline have no alternative than to leave the organisation which requires that they disassociate from it.9.367 The policies and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses do not require any individual who no longer wants to be subject to their “rules and discipline” to formally disassociate themselves. They can simply stop associating with the congregation. Such individuals are not shunned.
If you have a JC for apostasy here you go........ Omg
My thoughts on the WTBTS answers to the RC. I just have to say first off. I read the whole thing and man I'm pissed! They are SO arrogant!!!! They did not agree with them on one single point. Not one!
And I want to comment on the overall tone. When you read their whole response and you get a real feel for them, you get a sense of where they are coming from, you know what I mean. Well, they are not concerned about the victims. They do not show interest in children. They do not show an interest in "continuous improvement". They were not there to learn. They were not there to brain storm. Their response was completely one sided and one sided only. Their main thought was "REBUTTAL". All they wanted to do was argue with the RC. It really sounded to me like when the 8 year old is giving mom excuses why he didn't clean his room. It's not my fault because.... Any way, here's some of my take-aways.
4.6 Child sexual abuse is a matter of concern to any right thinking parent or adult,and to see it only as an “institutional” problem would be to miss an essentialtruth: that much abuse occurs within families. The reasons why one personwithin a family might abuse another vary. That is not to say that institutionscannot be helpful in addressing the problem, but it helps to put the responseof institutions into context.- Really? is the GB trying to teach the RC here about child abuse? It's actually the other way around.
8.2 The Commission’s report will be read by many in Australia and around theworld as it would seem to be both the largest and most thorough inquiry of itstype anywhere in the world. Its views will no doubt influence futuregenerations of Australian legislators and others.- This has got the GB really scared, I think. And too bad for ya!
9.17 ...The faith is not an agency or instrumentality of governmententrusted with the responsibility for the supervision and care of children.- Good comment! Now the truth really comes out. We're not responsible.
9.367 The policies and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses do not require anyindividual who no longer wants to be subject to their “rules and discipline” toformally disassociate themselves. They can simply stop associating with thecongregation. Such individuals are not shunned.- LIE.
9.374 For example, Mr O’Brien stated:284 “They don’t have to disassociate themselves to stop associating. They don’t lose their spiritual or familialassociation by being inactive.”- LIE #2
The RC wrote:F70 The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s policy……. is adopted and enforced in order to prevent people from leaving the organisationand thereby to maintain its membership.
to which WTBTS replied:(e) it is an unfounded, unfair and unnecessary attack upon a voluntary faithbasedorganisation that is law-abiding and does much to promote lawfulconduct within Australia and around the world through its exertions; and(f) if the finding could not be made in a Court of law, it ought not be madeby the Commission.
If I could guess what WT will do in the end, as far as what they will actually change, then 10.4 sums it up. (nothing):10.4 Jehovah’s Witnesses have demonstrated that they make adjustments wherenecessary and within the confines of their Scriptural beliefs. Severalexamples were given during oral testimony of what Jehovah’s Witnesses areprepared to do: for example, to review procedures, to consider whetherprocedures and practices should be consolidated into one document, and toseek additional independent legal advice.
Wannaexit " Watchtowers response to the Royal Commision shows they learned nothing and will do nothing"
The Rebel (A) I am sure the Watchtower have learnt a lot from the Royal Commission in Australia, so it will be interesting how they approach the Royal Commission in England.
I say the above because ;-
A) Two members from my former congregation contacted me by email and mentioned the lack of sincerity G,B member G .Jackson showed. This is huge to me, because I am now disassociated, and yet two former friends in good standing renewed friendship with me, and are questioning the organisation because of G.B Geoffry Jacksons insincerity and evasive answers to questions.
As for your second question I agree " they will do nothing" practical as a result of the commissions findings. I say this because I believe they have no interest in the tragic moral conflicts that were raised about child abuse,
Therefore I have concluded :
A) image and superficiality is all the G.B is concerned about
B) I believe they are aware they damaged their image as a result of the Royal Commission.
C) I am sure they are aware this negative image has resulted in members questioning their authority.
An off topic observation , in my opinion the more members are exposed to the G.B on Watchtower media, the more obvious enough it becomes the G.B are simply playing fictional characters pretending to be something they are not.
Here's a good indication of their attitude
9.304 The suggested finding wrongly assumes a broad obligation upon Jehovah’s Witnesses “to protect children in the community” but fails to identify how such an obligation exists.
Do they really need to be told why they have an obligation to help protect the community?