ARC Live Streaming site ?
will be interesting to compare the 2 responses
I told the Uniting Church they are fortunate to be following on from the JWs, as they could never come across as poorly.
That was painful.
Weird, pathetic, and predictable.
Truly painful. Like watching someone at the dentist.
When will it resume...??
It was pathetic.... Spinks could never give a straight answer....
It's like WT has thrown them under the bus, and they are getting eaten alive! All these new "letters" and directions from the Society (within only the past TWO WEEKS!) to get ready for today (presumably). Unbelievable!!
Just like they hadn't prepared for the first time around, though in some ways they were better prepared today, but their organization sure dropped the ball. You could almost wonder if they'd been groomed to parrot special phrases repeatedly: "Yes, we will absolutely report child sexual abuse if there are mandatory reporting laws to do so."
And when the judge asked Spinks/O'Brien, "But why should you need a law to do so...? What about basic compassion for the victim, and seeing they get the help and protection they need?" (paraphrasing), It was like that was a whole new weird idea to them....
And LOVED the point about the age of consent, and that if the law had a specific limit for that, then why not simply follow the law...? (They were talking about a minor who could be found "guilty" of sexual misconduct because they would be close to the legal age... And Mr. Steward and McClellan tried to press them on what, exactly, would be an age considered to be "responsible" (or giving consent)....?
Lots of gems brought out.
Loved the part too, where Mr. Stewart was expressing frustration about trying to find anything on a new policy that was in writing somewhere, without the WTS referencing out-of-date (regarding these new policies) publications and materials and elders-only letters.
Oh, there was so much gold in these first few hours....!!
When will it resume?? I don't want to miss a second of this fascinating, and unbelievably inept (on the part of WT/JWs) hearing!!!
I'm watching the Uniting Church Case Study 55 session now which follows the JW's Case Study 54 and what a difference. These folks, two women and a man representing, are being asked by Angus and they've taken all the counsel from the ARC to revise their Organizational Framework.
Their interaction with Angus is quite conversational, and you don't see the tension there was with Spinks and O'Brien answering Angus' questions.
These folks sound quite educated and informed, they sound sincere. Wow! What a contrast with Spinks and O'Brien!
Looking back at how Angus questioned the two WT lackeys, you can see that Angus must have been very disgusted with their half-truths and obfuscations, very telling indeed!
These company hollow men could not compute the concept of shunning being "cruel."
MuddyWaters: And LOVED the point about the age of consent, and that if the law had a specific limit for that, then why not simply follow the law...? (They were talking about a minor who could be found "guilty" of sexual misconduct because they would be close to the legal age... And Mr. Steward and McClellan tried to press them on what, exactly, would be an age considered to be "responsible" (or giving consent)....?
I think that O'Brien inadvertently answered that later in his testimony. When the issue of shunning following disassociation was being discussed, he made the remark that someone who was baptized had made that commitment when they were an adult or "approaching adulthood" (the exact same phrase used in the first discussion concerning age of consent). So, O'brien said that baptism was done by those "approaching adulthood" - not yet adults but close. How close? See this thread here for boasting in the March 2017 of children getting baptized at ten years of age.
If that is the litmus test of "approaching adulthood" - the age of baptism - it isn't difficult to see where the problem lies.
The WTS promotes a distorted understanding of "child" and "adult".
When will it resume??
I think that was it. There were only the two witnesses presenting. They did that - they answered all the questions - well, sort of and not at all sometimes, badly mostly - and now we wait to see if the Commission responds. I would think that will take a bit of time for them to put together, if that is the plan.
The WT duo said the WTS has a publication about to be released - that is supposed to be out shortly. A procedural handbook for congregation members on how to handle child abuse. For Australia only
Another thing I picked up at the beginning I thought was interesting was Obrien getting transfered to PNG after last round of hearings seemed to be news to Angus.
Thank you, Orphan Crow.... That probably was it for now...
And did you also pick up something about a new law or procedure in Australia and neither Spinks nor O'Brien were aware of it! Stewart & McClellan seemed very surprised.
And it was bizarre to hear O'Brien talking about "redress" or money going to be given to WT's victims of child sexual abuse to help them with their care or counselling.
At the end, it looked like McClellan seemed almost eager to unleash some punitive measures, you could see him flexing his hands and getting ready to give WT a good what-for. Did anyone else get that impression...?
And to hear Spinks' voice trembling so many times as he tried explaining the unexplainable.... Poor buggers, thinking they're taking a "stand for the truth" or whatever, and WT wouldn't even lift a finger to help them out. Nice "worldwide brotherhood"....
Anyway, I've been looking forward to this!! It was great to see and hear Stewart & McClellan in action again!
Just watched the Uniting Church reply, what a huge contrast, they make jws look like idiots, and they made a heart felt apology to all children abused, can't see jws will ever give one.