Australian Royal Commission Findings released
That's a good point AudeSapere. Think those of us who've been inside see how the WBTS uses words and how what things say isn't always quite what they mean. Classic case is the use of the word 'freedom'. To be told one is free to report sounds at least neutral-ish. But in the context of a religion which teaches 'freedom' is relative and uses examples such as 'one is free to jump off a cliff' then it takes on a very different meaning. Amusingly, Stewart, quite rightly, points out the GB's role in interpretation. The JW amendments change it back to 'the bible'. 'What Jesus evidently meant was...' vs 'What the GB currently think Jesus meant was...'.
Absolutely agree that there's no room for such silliness within child protection policies. They need to be clear, to the point, and if elders are not capable of following simple directions then education needs to be given so they know what they're meant to do when a child comes to them and reports abuse, or if they suspect abuse is happening.
"9.345 It is not possible to make such a broad finding based upon the evidence provided to the Commission of a single junior assistant prosecutor."
Now why do need to add the phrase 'of a single junior assistant prosecutor'? I don't care about the age or experience of the person who provides evidence, as long as the evidence is reliable. They may disagree with the finding, but it is low to blame a 'single junior assistent', as if the rest of the commission didn't review the evidence.
Not surprised at their response. Argumentative and attempts to divert are all over the place. Actually, it's a familiar "preaching" technique that I learned growing up as a JW.
Doubting Bro - "...Argumentative and attempts to divert are all over the place..."
Once again, for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...
...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, you beliefs don't deserve to be defended.
Go the Royal Commission!