Geoffrey Jackson's Testimony Before the Royal Commission

[Claudelle]

Hello all.
In reference to what Mr Jackson said in regard to being the (my words but correct in essence without the transcript infront of me)
He was being asked about the role of the GB and the FDS. He was quick to say that it was presumptuous for them to think they were the only ones....."
He did not answer the question honestly. He was under oath to declare truth and whole truth at that, with his hand on the bible.

There are so many instances of the FDS and the GB in the 2011 CD that I have, it is virtually impossible to quote them.
So I will give a tiny sample for those who wish to determine if he was being truthful.
WT-2009 par 18 and onwards .........
WT-2010 Heading.......Your Leader is the quiet one in Christ......a good read.
WT-2010 par,3-4
WT-1993 par,8
WT-2008- Heading.....How the Governing Body is Organized.......
When searching out the FDS over 8.000 hits came up
When searching out the FDS and the Governing Body, over 2,000 hits came up. This was limited to using the Watchtower Study magazines. In 2010, Jackson was a GB member and this is easy to verify. The society at the behest or the complete approval of the writing department has never refuted their exalted status. Indeed it was said at the Commission by Mr Geoffrey Jackson that all publications are reviewed by the GB before final approval....Therefore he mislead the RC and they were not pleased with any of it.

They were not pleased to be misled by any who testified and became vague, requiring many instances of the actual hard copy, ie documents they had signed being put before them at times.

[Claudelle]

By extension it is impossible for one to believe that G.Jackson and O'Tool were unfamiliar with such terminology as Theocratic Warfare. It was one of the questions asked of me as a part of the baptism prelude. Or should I just say..." I was asked if I would lie for the WTBTS?" My answer...No. Not if under oath. I know some small amount of law and the legalese they all use to squirm out of a straight out answer. There is no worse thing than this aspect of WT priesthood. A lawyer who will do all in his or her power to diminish the damage done to a child...That is just disgusting.

[Marina]

Survivors criticise Jehovah's Witness elders for failing to act over child sexual abuse claims

Note use of gaslighting

"And then after that, they continued to tell me that I'd misunderstood it, and continued to tell me that I'd got it wrong, and that I was almost like this crazy person that had made up this disgusting thing.

"I actually got told off for not sitting on his knee, not talking to him, not being nice to him, not respecting him."

So someone even criticized this helpless one for the only defense the she had. Her defense was to keep away from him. There are criminals and there are accomplices in their wicked works.

(2 John 10-11) . . .If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into you homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.

The Watchtower organisation knows exactly how damaging child abuse can be.

*** g91 10/8 p. 6 The Secret Wounds of Child Abuse ***

Spiritual Damage

The most insidious effect of all that childhood abuse can wreak is the potential spiritual damage. Molestation is a “defilement of flesh and spirit.” (2 Corinthians 7:1) By performing perverted acts on a child, by violating her physical and moral boundaries, by betraying her trust, an abuser contaminates a child’s spirit, or dominant mental inclination. This can later impede the victim’s moral and spiritual growth.

The book Facing Codependence, by Pia Mellody, further notes: “Any serious abuse . . . is also spiritual abuse, because it taints the child’s trust of a Higher Power.” For example, a Christian woman named Ellen asks: “How can I think of Jehovah as a Father when I have this concept of a cruel, raging man for an earthly father?” Says another victim, named Terry: “I never related to Jehovah as a Father. As God, Lord, Sovereign, Creator, yes! But as Father, no!”

Such individuals are not necessarily spiritually weak or lacking in faith. On the contrary, their persistent efforts to follow Bible principles give evidence of spiritual strength! But imagine how some might feel when they read a Bible text such as Psalm 103:13, which says: “As a father shows mercy to his sons, Jehovah has shown mercy to those fearing him.” Some may grasp this intellectually. Yet, without a healthy concept of what a father is, it may be hard for them to respond to this text emotionally!

So it is expected that the child speak to its abuser, but the abuser demands silence from the child ABOUT THE ABUSE.

*** g93 10/8 p. 5 How Can We Protect Our Children? ***

AFTER using children to satisfy perverted lusts, after robbing them of their security and their sense of innocence, child molesters still want something else from their victims—SILENCE. To secure that silence, they use shame, secrecy, even outright terror. Children are thus robbed of their best weapon against abuse—the will to tell, to speak up and ask an adult for protection

How twisted, perverse, cruel and fundamentally unchristian.

[Bruno]

[Orchid61]

At 7.59 there is this zalving voice saying things that makes you want to vomit. Comparing a childabuser with Jesus in one sentence. Shame on you mister Splaine.

Maria

[Proselytiser of Jah]

Babylon is crumbling.

The talks from David Splaine and from Stephen Lett at the recent convention were terrible. Telling Witnesses not to believe the media, whether there was proof or not. Which really is unbiblical as it tells us to "test" words to see if they are true or not. The whole "don't drink poison" logic is a fallacy.

To know if something is poison, what do you do? You read the label, he is correct there, but in our case that "reading of the label" is examing the claims. Examining a claim to see if its true is not the same as "drinking" poison, drinking something would be to "believe" something, to "use" it 'after' finding out it was poison (lies).

Splaine's example of dealing with poison would be like closing your eyes and then trusting someone to give you a random bottle without opening your eyes to see what's on the label. That's what the Organisation is doing with its talks and materials "close your eyes, don't read the bottles, trust us").


"The media is all poison lies", unless it exposes the Catholic church of course... then it's true, and anyone defending the church is obviously some evil pedo preist. There is no equality there, truth applies to all equally. It is true that the media can li or blow things up with lies and truth mixed together, but we have to detirmine which is which. For example Lloyd Evans (who appeared in the interview) has done some great work exposing the Organisation, but, at the same time he attacks the Bible and uses half truths and misinfomation to do it (for example I checked out his 40 unscientific claims from the Bible, and found it to be a lot of nonsense as it was based on a misreading or misunderstanding of the texts). He's a militant athiest/antithiest.


On the other hand. It's true that at least these days, individuals have the right in the Organisation to go to the police, two witnesses or not (and that's in writing on the website in a document). However, the downside of this is that the sex offender is allowed to remain at large in the community with people not being informed, regardless of a report to the police or not (until found guilty by police/courts that is, and then that is considered the testimony of more than one witness, so fair enough).

But it also does not excuse paying off courts to keep a database of sex offenders secret. One has to ask "why" would the Organisation pay money out of its pockets (donations) to not be required to show the police these records? The claim that the records are to protect children does not excuse preventing authorities from seeing the list.

I only imagine the logic is on part of the GB "they repented, so we can't judge them, which means not telling people", but this is a dangerous mentality, and isn't biblical when we consider the law of love. Is it loving to hide a pedophile? Even a repentant one? To the pedophile themselves perhaps.. but is it loving to the rest of the congregation? To society? These things have to be balanced. It's well known pedos are repeat offenders, they have a mental problem. It's like keeping Jack the Ripper in the congregation just because he says sorry every time he does it (yet ironically, they disfellowship people and tell all of the Organsation to shun THOSE people, merely for a sin [such as forniation] they discover which was done 20 years ago which was a one time thing they repented over, I know this because I've seen this happen).

The princible of "two witnesses" simply means "make sure you have proof" or you are "certain" of the Elder's wrong doing in order to be removed. Logic dictates that pedos never have another witness, because it's a private offence, just like rape. Even the Old Testament declared a raped woman "alone" in a field away from public eyes could accuse a man, and he would be dealt with if found guilty.

Like Jesus said, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice", when he spoke about certain people doing things on the Sabbath which were usually unlawful. In this case, I do think such a princible applies considering.

[Proselytiser of Jah]

Also, on the note of comparing Jesus to pedos in court..

Jesus said Christians would be brought before courts, true.. but "on an account of his NAME" (aka for doing nothing but being a Christian - so for example, Russia banning small Christian groups or individuals for being politically neutral, disagreeing with the Russian Church orthodoxy is one such thing, they have been proven with video footage to use dirty tactics [such as planting false evidence] to arrest JWs and other Christian groups), but Jesus didn't say "you will be brought before courts on acccount of pedophile cases", if such was the case then the Catholic church is the truest church in history as they are "fulfilling prophecy".

[apollos0fAlexandria]

As the initiator of this thread I have to say that I was doing my best to not impute any bad faith at the outset.

I think Splane & co disabused me of that notion thanks to their extraordinary performances this past convention.

When there is a systematic problem, you have to figure out where the buck stops. And when those people in ultimate positions of responsibility are only interested in covering their own tracks and keeping their adherents in check, then it's probably beyond recovery.