Posts by Marvin Shilmer

20

An Obvious Contradiction Mr Stewart is Missing

by cofty in

all jws on the stand have stuck to the same line that they have no problem with cooperating with mandatory reporting when state law requires it.. if the law does not require it then bible principles absolutely prevent them from taking away rights of the victim to report abuse to the police or not.. we have already heard from a jw rep a couple of days ago who proudly asserted that when the law conflicts with bible principle they will always obey the bible and quoted acts 5:29 "we must obey god rather than men".. please join the dots!.

Marvin Shilmer

"We have no qualm at all about mandatory reporting. If the government wants us to report every allegation of sex abuse that ‐ of child abuse that we ever hear, we're more than happy to do it. But the problem we have is, scripturally, elders don't have the right to take away that right to decide what's in the best interests of the family from the family. If the law requires us to do it, we have no hesitation in doing it."--Mr. Toole testimony to the Royal Commission.

So, according to Toole, elders DO NOT have the scriptural right to decide what's in the best interests of the family when a family does not what child molestation to be reported. Yet if the law tells elders they have to decide what's in the best interests of the family by reporting allegations of child abuse then they will do so despite NOT HAVING scriptural right to decide what's in the best interests of the family by reporting when a family does not want it reported. Hence, it's contradictory to claim when the law conflicts with bible principle elders will always obey the bible principle.

24

ROYAL COMMISSION: ARE JWS TAUGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SWEARING ON THE BIBLE OR NOT? JW.ORG PLEASE EXPLAIN!

by steve2 in

during yesterday's rc proceedings (wednesday 5th august 2015), one of the victim's lawyers questioned mr vincent toole, the jw organization's legal counsel for the australian branch office.

she asked him why at least two of the jw elders who gave evidence last week refused to swear on the bible.

mr toole appear puzzled by her question and said he did not know.

Marvin Shilmer

Wow as far back as 1976 the Watchtower stated swearing on the Bible is a matter for conscience. THis clearly did not filter through to my JW family.

It goes back much further than that.

"There is no Scriptural objection to taking an oath to testify to the truth. This is called being "sworn in" as a witness. It is an agreement to tell the truth on matters that the court is entitled to know."--Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News, published by Watchtower, 1950, p. 19

I've heard old-timers talk about how a JW should take great care about when and where they let themselves be put under oath, including before courts of law. I think because of misunderstanding and presumption there crept into JW lore a notion that it was somehow wrong to swear an oath with hand on the bible. The misunderstanding was that JW listeners did not understand the speaker was talking about the Theocratic War Strategy doctrine. The presumption was the oath was the typical oath with hand on the bible. But those old-timers knew they were talking about how JWs had to take care about oaths to tell the truth because when before a court once such an oath was given then the JW no longer had scriptural basis to deceive but, instead, had to tell the truth IF they opted to answer. Problem was, when before courts of law opting to not answer would leave a JW in contempt and probably incarcerated. Hence the JW had to take great care when and where they let themselves be put under oath, including before courts of law. Which is precisely what the old-timers said.

24

ROYAL COMMISSION: ARE JWS TAUGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SWEARING ON THE BIBLE OR NOT? JW.ORG PLEASE EXPLAIN!

by steve2 in

during yesterday's rc proceedings (wednesday 5th august 2015), one of the victim's lawyers questioned mr vincent toole, the jw organization's legal counsel for the australian branch office.

she asked him why at least two of the jw elders who gave evidence last week refused to swear on the bible.

mr toole appear puzzled by her question and said he did not know.

Marvin Shilmer

Actually it has been allowed long before 2003.
*** w76 7/15 p. 447 Questions From Readers ***
If a Christian must testify in court, is it proper for him to place his hand on the Bible and swear to tell the whole truth?
There is no Scriptural objection to doing so, though each person must decide whether to comply or to ask to be excused from this.

Honestly, I don't recall a time when Watchtower expressed a notion that swearing on a bible was somehow wrong. But JWs have since the 1950s held a hesitancy to let themselves be placed under oath to tell the truth because of a peculiar aspect of the religion's Theocratic War Strategy doctrine. Old-timers know this and from them the hesitancy has some depth among JWs, but no so much among newer-comers. I recall JWs who didn't want to be placed under oath for simple civil matters because once under oath they feared that unannounced some official might come forth and use the opportunity to ask questions about something they'd rather not give answers to under oath.

And, for readers, it's little wonder that Watchtower took its Theocratic War Doctrine underground because once it put it out there so blatantly in the 1950s law enforcement agencies all over the world were served notice that JWs may or not be telling the truth in response to investigations, that is unless investigators succeeded in putting a JW under oath to tell the truth before asking their questions.

24

ROYAL COMMISSION: ARE JWS TAUGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SWEARING ON THE BIBLE OR NOT? JW.ORG PLEASE EXPLAIN!

by steve2 in

during yesterday's rc proceedings (wednesday 5th august 2015), one of the victim's lawyers questioned mr vincent toole, the jw organization's legal counsel for the australian branch office.

she asked him why at least two of the jw elders who gave evidence last week refused to swear on the bible.

mr toole appear puzzled by her question and said he did not know.

Marvin Shilmer

Clearly the JW organization's position has changed across the decades.

Yes, but not when it comes to Watchtower's Theocratic War Strategy. That position has not changed.

Though claiming ignorance of this as a doctrinal position, Toole as much as admitted the doctrinal position remains in effect because he offered some of the same explanations for why the position was invoked in the first place. So the doctrinal position of TWS remains intact, which means the part dealing with statements made under a sworn oath also remain intact.

24

ROYAL COMMISSION: ARE JWS TAUGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SWEARING ON THE BIBLE OR NOT? JW.ORG PLEASE EXPLAIN!

by steve2 in

during yesterday's rc proceedings (wednesday 5th august 2015), one of the victim's lawyers questioned mr vincent toole, the jw organization's legal counsel for the australian branch office.

she asked him why at least two of the jw elders who gave evidence last week refused to swear on the bible.

mr toole appear puzzled by her question and said he did not know.

Marvin Shilmer

steve2,

There is another more specific historical and doctrinal reason why some JWs are apprehensive about giving testimony under an oath to tell the truth.

We all heard Toole claim ignorance to Watchtower's Theocratic War Strategy (TWS) question. (Sideline: Toole said he had not read the 1950s era Watchtower addressing this in detail since he was baptized in the 70s. Unfortunately the RC lawyer was apparently unaware that in the 1980s there was a Watchtower article citing this doctrinal position, and presumably Toole would have read this and at least wondered what that term meant.) So, getting back on track, Toole denied knowledge of TWS as a doctrinal position. But it turns out there is a peculiar twist to Watchtower's TWS doctrine. That doctrinal position EXPRESSLY allows outright deception by knowingly giving false information but just as EXPRESSLY it prohibits giving false information if the JW is under a sworn oath to tell the truth. Older JWs are certainly familiar with this, and as a practicing JW attorney Tools should be. So, a JW can be intentionally dishonest in order to 'protect the interests of the kingdom' UNLESS he or she is under a sworn oath to tell the truth. THEN the JW is prohibited from being intentionally dishonest for any reason. In the latter case the JW would have to refuse to answer and face punitive measures accordingly IF they were asked for information that would compromise 'interests of the kingdom' but did not want to give up the information. This because TWS doctrine requires telling the truth when under a sworn oath to tell the truth.

Hope that helps.

15

If Jackson is not available due to compassionate reasons, can other GB member take his place?

by Viva la Vida in

jw
friends

i would think the only christian organization on this planet would be more than willingly send another gb member to australia in order to answer rcs questions, taking the place of jackson who is taking care of his ill farther.

.

if someone should show compassion to jackson those are his gb pals.

Marvin Shilmer

There are three options:

1. The health of Jackson's father improves. In this case the health of his father will cease to be a reason why Jackson cannot make himself available for a few hours of testimony before the Royal Commission.

2. The health of Jackson's father lingers at the present state. In this case Jackson will presumably find away to continue carrying on with life and will no longer have to holed up wherever he is, which would mean Jackson should be able to make himself available for a few hours of testimony before the Royal Commission.

3. Jackson's father expires. In this case the health of his father will cease to be a reason why Jackson cannot make himself available for a few hours of testimony before the Royal Commission.

If Jackson leaves Australia without testifying before the Royal Commission and does so despite the Royal Commission desiring to hear his testimony, the his departure will be nothing short of fleeing the jurisdiction in order to avoid giving testimony in public and under oath.

And, unlike what Watchtower's attorney has said, there is a caveat to Watchtower's Theocratic War Strategy doctrine having to do with testimony given under oath. Under Watchtower doctrine once a JW places him or herself under a sworn oath to tell the truth then WHATEVER they say has to be true. To put it another way, once a JW places him or herself under a sworn oath to tell the truth Watchtower doctrine forbids them from offering deceptive testimony.

68

My thoughts on Geoffrey Jackson

by thedepressedsoul in

first off, i don't think that dude is going to show face.

he's most likely on a plane already.

if he shows it's bad pr and if he doesn't show it's bad pr.

Marvin Shilmer

Given representations made to the RC, if Jackson leaves Australia without submitting to answer questions before the RC it will demonstrate utter contempt and deceitfulness of what the RC has been told as to why Jackson need not present to be questioned. Either he shows up and lets himself be questioned or else he fails to show up and deceit will be demonstrated. It's that simple.

12

Australian branch co-ordinator Terrence O'Brien gets called out for lying to the Royal Commission

by Mickey mouse in

watch from 1:47:00 as angus stewart of the royal commission investigation into child abuse calls out the australian branch co-ordinator for lying about geoffrey jackson's role on the governing body.

.

Marvin Shilmer

The chair needs to issue a summons for Jackson. It may be the last (only!) chance he gets to have one of Watchtower's top decision-makers answer for what that organization has done and intends to do for abused children in Australia.

It's of course understandable to give Jackson some room to deal with his aged ailing parent. But what of the thousands of children exposed to Watchtower's inept and torturous policies? I thought JWs don't sorrow as the rest because, after all, they have such firm hope on a resurrection. Right? So why should Jackson not be summoned to speak for a policy for which he sits on the organization's ultimate decision authority?

Better get that summons on the way, and now!

239

Royal Commission Live Hearing Now

by LostinJapan in

wednesday 5 , day 7 live hearing.

case study 29, july 2015, sydney.

Marvin Shilmer

If we believe Toole then Watchtower's legal department does not have the foggiest idea what Watchtower's service department does, and this despite constantly harping away about "the organization".

WHAT exactly is ORGANIZED about an arrangement of two departments that supposedly act in concert yet one has no idea what the other does or how it does it?

This guy Toole perfectly demonstrates the maze of mumbo jumbo JWs with serious questions have to navigate only to come away with nothing.

15

Another Elder has developed amnesia.

by umbertoecho in

the elder just being questioned is yet another sly manufacturer of deceit and the use of theocratic warfare.. how can these men say the can't remember when it's their own letters, their own implemented policies.

hell, it's their own books and magazines the commission is using, along with internal letters etc.

another dry mouth there........as he sat up all alone and experienced first hand the faith building experience of ....speaking with a thick tongue as all his juices dried up.........

Marvin Shilmer

Oh, and the questioning about letting the pervert go home and live in the same house with his other two smaller children was just spot on. Watchtower does not give a hoot about protecting children. Not one hoot. Watchtower is a business. It's run like a business, and it's run to protect that business.