From: Brother Geoffrey Jackson
Date: August 15, 2015
To: Fellow members of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses
While I was in Australia looking after my ailing father, Satan managed to haul me before his representatives in the government: the so-called Royal Commission.
It seems this commission has been misled by apostate-driven lies into suspecting that there is something wrong with how we handle allegations of child abuse in our congregations! Something to do with a little over a thousand pedophiles that elders supposedly knew about but didn’t report to secular authorities due to our biblically correct two-witness rule.
And I guess they had a couple of apostates testifying that they were abused and felt the elders didn’t do enough to protect them (Boo-hoo!) I can’t tell you anything about that because I didn’t listen to their testimony; being disfellowshipped or disassociated apostates. I didn’t tell the judge that this was the real reason, though (since he’d never understand the importance of our never listening to such people); I just told him I was too busy with my father. And even though I later made references to other parts of the hearings I had heard, Jehovah prevented the judge from seeing through my subterfuge.
A Fine Witness for the Truth by our Australian Brothers
I was surprised that they wanted me to appear after all the elders, Watchtower lawyers, and even branch servants had testified so eloquently as to our sterling policies which are without equal. Please see the attached video compilation, below, showing some highlights of just how loyally and faithfully these brothers practiced Theocratic Warfare Strategy (TWS), and how holy spirit gave them words to speak, just as the Bible promises:
When they bring you in before public assemblies, government officials, and authorities, do not become anxious about how or what you will speak in defense or what you will say, for the holy spirit will teach you in that very hour the things you should say.
We even paid a third-party expert to testify on our behalf (unfortunately Judge McClellan rejected her report after he got her to admit that our policies were “not best practice” and did not meet the “standard of care.”) In any case, I was summoned by “Caesar,” and to Caesar I did go. Below, I have attached a complete video of the morning session I took part in. My comments will reference time-spots on this video if you care to follow the links to witness the fine testimony for the Truth that I was privileged to give with the help of the holy spirit. Perhaps a Watchtower article can be published based on these notes, or we could use this as a training video for anyone else hauled before Satan’s court.
0:50 Oath taken.
Here I picked up the Bible which, as you know, clearly states:
However, I say to you: Do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, since you cannot turn one hair white or black. Just let your word ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no, for what goes beyond these is from the wicked one.
Above all, my brothers, stop swearing, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath. But let your “Yes” mean yes and your “No,” no, so that you do not become liable to judgment.– MT 5:34-37; James 5:12
and I proceeded to swear “by Almighty God” to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” What a joke: swearing to God to tell the truth with God’s word in your hand which says not to swear at all! But I made the pretense as part of TWS, and tried hard not to laugh.
20:34 Spokesmen for God
Stewart: “Do you see yourselves as being God’s spokes-people on Earth?”
Jackson: “That, I think, would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The Scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God’s spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations. But if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly Jesus said that in the last days… there would be a slave: a group of persons who would have the responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.”
Notice how I deftly skirted around this question? Giving “comfort and help” has nothing to do with “being God’s spokesperson” — I was just blowing smoke there, and I think they fell for it. Ha ha! Can you imagine their reaction if I had told them outright what we really believe about this? Such as quoting this from the Watchtower:
Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind… Jehovah poured out his spirit upon them and assigned them the responsibility of serving as his sole visible channel, through whom alone spiritual instruction was to come… Those who recognize Jehovah’s visible theocratic organization, therefore, must recognize and accept this appointment of the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ and be submissive to it. … in submitting to Jehovah’s visible theocratic organization, we must be in full and complete agreement with every feature of its apostolic procedure and requirements.
–Watchtower, 10/1/1967 pp. 587, 590, 592 (emphasis mine.)
Of course we are God’s sole spokesmen on Earth. I didn’t deny that. I just said that our truthful stance on the matter seems presumptuous to the world. Thank you, holy spirit for putting it so well and blinding our enemies so that they cannot see the truth!
25:40 The Safeguard of Feedback from Bible Students
Jackson: “The Governing Body realizes that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God’s word all of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide who have the bible would notice that and they would see that it is wrong direction… there are provisions for those branch committees to get back to us if they see there is something that doesn’t work and then we can adjust it accordingly.”
See how I implied that we accept feedback from the rank and file (people like Carl Jonsson must’ve seen red when I said this!), when actually all I admitted to was listening to the branch committees. Frankly (and confidentially), after the commission had seen the type of men heading the branch office I’m surprised they let this fly. After all, there’s not much hope that these brothers would catch something wrong when they never caught on that something was wrong with a father abusing his daughters even after two witnesses and a confession!
Now, before any of the rank and file gets ahold of this court transcript and claims that “Brother Jackson said the Governing Body must accept our feedback,” let’s arm ourselves with the real truth of the matter.
We all know that the Witnesses are lost without our direction and have never recognized when we have inadvertently (or strategically) given “direction not in harmony with the Bible” (except those who left or we disfellowshipped for their apostasy.) I mean, get real: the Governing Body once directed that vaccinations, organ-transplants, and blood fractions were against God’s law. These things were taught for years and years, and no one caught on until the Governing Body told them the “direction was not in harmony with God’s word.”
Where was all the feedback from Witnesses when we taught that the “generation” meant the people alive in 1914? Those who questioned that doctrine were summarily disfellowshipped for “apostasy” and are now viewed with the utmost hatred and loathing as “mentally diseased“!
How could publishers ever recognize wrong direction when we have explicitly told them time and again:
Avoid independent thinking…questioning the counsel that is provided by God’s visible organization.
–Watchtower 1/15/1983 p. 22
A mature Christian … does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and ‘the faithful and discreet slave.’”
–Watchtower August 1, 2001 p. 14 [emphasis added.]
All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.
— Watchtower, Nov. 2013 (study edition) p. 20 par. 17.
No, brothers, we do not accept feedback (if we did, we’d have known to change our pedophile policies long ago); we are God’s sole channel of truth. To reuse one of my favorite metaphors: we are the pilots flying this plane, the rest are just passengers: forced to follow our lead or jump to their deaths. [Hey, that’s rather good: we could use that in the Watchtower article, though I’m not sure it’s “translatable.”]
48:46 Taking verses out of context
Jackson: “One of the problems that many folk have when they read the Bible is they take one verse and they assume it means something out of context or not in reference to other scriptures.”
I couldn’t resist this. Everyone in the religion business accuses their competitors of taking things
“out of context.” So, I thought we might as well put it to good use too. But I took a gamble here: the Commission might’ve come back and showed how the Two Witness Rule itself is just a bunch of verses taken out of context! Or worse: that our rule against blood is based on verses taken out of context! You think we have law suits now? Just think what would happen if this was found out about the blood issue!
47:14 Corporal Punishment as Another Form of Child Abuse
Proverbs 13:24 was quoted: “Whoever holds back his rod hates his son.”
Judge McClellan: “What does that mean?”
Jackson: “…In the application of this the term ‘rod’ is used as a symbol or a metaphor to indicate the authority to give some punishment. For example in the modern-day setting my father could say to me I don’t go to the movies because I had broken some of the rules of the home.”
Judge McClellan: “So, it’s not about inflicting corporal punishment then?”
Jackson: “It absolutely is not about inflicting corporal punishment.”
Judge McClellan: “It would’ve been when first written, wouldn’t it?”
Jackson: “How people applied it at that time back then of course is open to question… I could argue the case that even back in ancient times God did not have in mind for children to be beaten up in a bad way.”
Judge McClellan: .”..Does your church accept corporal punishment of children?”
Jackson: “…In our literature I think you will see time and time again we’ve endeavored to explain that here ‘discipline’ is referring to more a mental point of view.”
50:30 Judge McClellan: “I regret to tell you you’re still not answering my question. Do you accept corporeal punishment?”
Judge McClellan: “You don’t?”
Jackson: “Not personally, no, and not as an organization; we don’t encourage it.”
Judge McClellan: “But do you prohibit it?”
Jackson: “Our literature has pointed out that the true way to discipline children is by educating them, not giving corporal punishment.”
Sorry, brothers, I danced around this question as long as I could, but here the holy spirit may have slipped up and allowed me to go too far in trying to sound reasonable and not cult-like. But you see, the judge was trying to get me to admit that we have interpreted this scripture in light of modern-day morality: that originally it was physical punishment, and we have softened it to “mental punishment.” I could see where he was going with this: if I had admitted to this, then he’d question why we couldn’t do the same with the Two Witness rule! I had to choose the lesser of the two evils here, and lie about corporal punishment.
But now we’re going to have to figure out how to wiggle out of this one. First thing: we need to take the following entries in our Insight On the Scriptures publications off of our website ASAP:
Rods or staffs were used for support (Ex 12:11; Zec 8:4; Heb 11:21); for defense or protection (2Sa 23:21; Mt 10:10); to punish children, slaves, or others (Ex 21:20 [“stick,” NW]; Pr 10:13; 23:13, 14; Ac 16:22);
Parental authority. “Rod” is used also to symbolize the authority of parents over their children. The book of Proverbs makes many references to this authority, the term symbolizing all forms of discipline used, including the literal rod used for chastisement. The parent is actually responsible before God to exercise this rod, controlling the child. If the parent fails in this, he will bring ruination and death to his child and disgrace and God’s disapproval to himself also. (Pr 10:1; 15:20; 17:25; 19:13) “Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him.” “Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die. With the rod you yourself should beat him, that you may deliver his very soul from Sheol itself.” (Pr 22:15; 23:13, 14) In fact, “the one holding back his rod is hating his son, but the one loving him is he that does look for him with discipline.”—Pr 13:24; 19:18; 29:15; 1Sa 2:27-36.
— Insight On the Scriptures (Vol. 2) pp. 817-819 (emphasis mine.)
The Scriptures repeatedly emphasize the value of strokes as a disciplinary measure. Proverbs 20:30 shows that discipline can go very deep, resulting in good to the individual. It reads: “Bruising wounds are what scours away the bad; and strokes, the innermost parts of the belly.” The person being disciplined in this way should recognize that he has acted foolishly and should change. (Pr 10:13; 19:29) A really wise person can be corrected by words and will avoid the need of strokes.
Since all mankind are brought forth “with error” and conceived “in sin” (Ps 51:5), the Scriptures counsel that the parental rod of authority must be strictly exercised, sometimes in the form of the literal rod. (Pr 22:15) Thereby the child may be saved from disfavor and death.—Pr 23:13, 14.
— Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1 pp. 271-273 (emphasis mine.)
Unfortunately, I’m told there are endless experiences on the Internet of Jehovah’s people following the above direction and beating their children. And anyone who attends a meeting will witness this firsthand as fidgety children are regularly hauled into the restrooms and beaten into submission. So, we may have to do a little damage-control here. Maybe put something in the Kingdom Ministry recommending that parents be a little more discreet in public. One sister related how she merely threatened at the Kingdom Hall, and fulfilled the promise of those threats once in the privacy of their home. This is an excellent example to recommend.
53:30 The Role of Women
Jackson: “The role of women in the Jehovah’s Witness religion is a very dignified role… we do not want women to feel like second-rate citizens. In God’s view men and women are equal. But even people who fly airplanes realize that you can’t fly an airplane by committee: there has to be a pilot and a co-pilot. And that’s the Bible arrangement. Not because of any lack of intelligence or ability or lack of ability on the part of women.”
I think we’re okay with those statements, even though co-pilots are seldom required to wear a head-covering and remain silent. But we might have some explaining to do if someone stumbles upon the talk brother Herd gave some years back where he admitted that we feel women are “not equipped” for the role of elder due to their smaller craniums; that trying to do a man’s job borders on homosexuality; and that if wives do happen to be smarter than their husbands they must assume the “dignified role” of pretending to be dumber:
I guess we need to present a united front on the issue of women, one way or the other. Or fall back to saying that these statements were just “taken out of context” with no further explanation. (That usually works fine, given our “captive” audience, as the Commission would style them.)
1:5:15 Does the Bible Prohibit Women From Being Judges?
Jackson: “The role of judge in the congregation lays with men. That’s what the Bible says and that’s what we endeavor to follow.”
Judge McClellan: “Can you give me the reference for that?”
Jackson: “Ah, yes.”
Judge McClellan: “That is: judges being only men. Not elders: but judges being only men.”
Jackson: “Okay, I would have to check. I think Deuteronomy is one of them… But definitely, when it speaks of judges at the gates of Israel we’re talking about older men. But I apologize, your honor, seeing that you ask this question; I cannot give you the exact scriptural reference but we’ll be happy to do that.”
Judge McClellan: “Well, we would appreciate it because one possible modification to make this issue of the lack of women as judges of allegations brought forward by women against men may be a modification of your process to include women in the judicial determination step. Do you understand?”
Jackson: “I do understand, your honor. And we will make sure you get those references.”
I got away with that one! No one thought to bring up Judge Deborah from the Bible!
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.
I’m at a loss, in light of that scripture, to know how to support my statement that women can’t be judges according to the Bible. I’ll rely on your help on this point, brothers.
Jackson: “I think very clearly Mister Toole pointed out that if the Australian government in all the states was to make mandatory reporting it would make it so much easier for us. But the ethical — or let’s say the spiritual dilemma that an elder has is to consider: how did he get the information that he has been told? Now there’s a scriptural principle in the book of Proverbs chapter 25. And I’m not saying, Mr. Stewart, that any one of these principles takes precedence. But it is something that the elder would need to take into consideration. So Proverbs 25:8-10:
Do not rush into a legal dispute, For what will you do later if your neighbor humiliates you? Plead your case with your neighbor, But do not reveal what you were told confidentially, So that the one listening will not put you to shame And you spread a bad report that cannot be recalled.
“Now I’m not saying, Mr. Stewart, that this is the only factor. But it is one factor that all ministers of religion have grappled with when it comes to an issue such as this.
“The second issue is that elders are told, as in 1 Peter 5:2-3… that he does not have the authority to ‘lord it over’ or take over control of a family arrangement where a person — let’s say it’s a victim who is 24-25 years of age — has a right to decide whether or not they will report that incident. They also respect the family arrangement that the appointed guardian, who is not the perpetrator, has a certain right too.
“So this is the spiritual dilemma that we have, because at the same time we want to make sure that children are cared for. So if the government does happen to make mandatory reporting that will make this dilemma so much easier for us because we all want the same goal: that children will be cared for properly.”
Stewart: “Let’s take the situation in a family where one of the children, let’s say the eldest, reports having been abused by their father. If that report is accepted as having validity, you would accept that the potential is that the other children in the family remain at risk?”
Jackson: “That is correct.”
Stewart: “And by not reporting to the authorities, is the case not that the confidentiality of the one that reported is regarded as being more important than to protect those who are still at risk?”
Jackson: “No. Mr. Stewart, if I could just — what I’m trying to highlight is that there are several factors that make it difficult for a minister of religion to make a clear-cut or quick decision on this matter… There are other scriptural practices that may make that a little complicated. And it would certainly be a lot easier if we had mandatory laws on that.”
I don’t think anyone caught on to the fact that here I more or less admitted that the Bible isn’t such a great guide after all (or at least not when given our ‘holistic’ method of Bible interpretation.) As I admitted: we are frankly confused by its contradictory message to show love, and yet keep pedophiles’ secrets. We want to make sure that children are properly cared for, but following the Bible prevents us from doing the right thing in that regard. So I appealed to the government (aka Satan’s organization) to force us to do what is right. But we should have no problem with that: even our great God Jehovah has used Satan in the past to accomplish his goals.
Apostates, of course, will criticize us for implying that mandatory reporting would be the best way to ensure that children are cared for, while we admit that we don’t see the Bible, the “moral guidebook of our lives,” mandating this — all we see there is confusion — and we have to beg secular government to mandate it for us. They might also point out that we certainly don’t “respect the family arrangement” when we “lord it over” parents by demanding that they forego oral sex; shun their disfellowshipped children; and let their children die rather than receive whole blood or platelet transfusions. But then, we’ve given apostates so much else to criticize us for, that I guess we shouldn’t really worry about adding a few more logs to their fire.
Stewart: “I want to take you back then to the scriptural basis for that. So, you referred to Matthew 18 verse 16, and as I understand it — and correct me if I’m wrong — that it turn, really, is a reference back to Deuteronomy 19 verse 15. In other words what Jesus Christ was doing was referring back to that aspect of Mosaic law dealing with evidence.”
Jackson: “He did quote, as he often did, from the Mosaic law, but he gave it Christian application.”
Stewart: “But that is an element to be found in the Mosaic law as set out at Deuteronomy 19:15, is that right?”
Jackson: “It is an element that is found in both the old testament and the new testament.”
Stewart: “Now, what I’m interested in, and perhaps you can help me with this, is that: why that applies in the case of sexual assault, when clearly what was being addressed in the reference in Matthew that you gave us was not a question of sexual assault?”
Jackson: “…there are Bible principles… It’s not just a one-off verse. But this is a basic principle for rules of evidence as is done in the Bible… The rules of evidence remain the same, all the way through.”
Stewart: “Well, Mr. Jackson that’s exactly the point I want to get to. You will be familiar — and perhaps we can go to it — to Deuteronomy 22:23-27. Where it is said:
If a virgin is engaged to a man, and another man happens to meet her in the city and lies down with her, you should bring them both out to the gate of that city and stone them to death, the girl because she did not scream in the city and the man because he humiliated the wife of his fellow man. So you must remove what is evil from your midst.
If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.
“So, the point of this last example is that there’s no second witness, is there; because a woman’s in the field. She screamed, but there was no one to rescue her. Do you accept that?”
Jackson: Could I explain, you see, I think, Mr. Stewart that already under testimony some of Jehovah’s Witnesses have explained that the two witnesses needed can in some cases be the circumstances. Wasn’t an example given –”
Stewart: “I’ll come to that, Mr. Jackson. We’ll get through this a lot quicker and easier if we just address it one step at a time. So, the present step is this: in that example you accept that it’s a case where there was no other witness beyond the woman herself.”
Jackson: “There was no other witness except the woman herself. But added to that were the circumstances.”
Stewart: “Yes, well, the circumstances were that she was raped in a field.”
Jackson: “Yes, but there were circumstances.”
Stewart: “And it was sufficient — there being only one witness — nevertheless it was sufficient for the conclusion that the man should be stoned to death.”
Jackson: “Yes. Agreeing on the point.”
Stewart: “Now, is it not the case that if Jesus had been asked about a case of sexual abuse he may have referred back to this part of Deuteronomy and said that it’s not required to have two witnesses?”
Jackson: “I certainly would like to ask Jesus that, and I can’t at the moment: I hope to in the future. But that’s a hypothetical question which, if we had an answer, then we could support what you said.”
Stewart: “Well, it’s hypothetical in a sense, but really what I’m driving at is: Is the scriptural basis — and you’re the scholar: I’m not — Is the scriptural basis to the Two-Witness rule really so solid, or is there not space for your governing body to recognize that in cases of sexual abuse it need not apply?”
Jackson: “Again, if I could just mention the fact that we’ve already acknowledged that circumstances can also be one of the witnesses.”
Stewart: “Well, I’ll come to that. But my question is a different one: it’s whether the scriptural basis to the Two-Witness rule in cases of sexual abuse has a proper foundation.”
Jackson: “We believe that it does because of the number of times that principle is emphasized in the scriptures.”
I don’t think this worldly lawyer could fathom how being raped in a field supplied the circumstances to qualify as a second witness, while a little girl raped by her father is a circumstance that does not qualify as a second witness. It’s such a challenge trying to educate secular people on spiritual matters; they think so logically.
But I think I demonstrated here, once again, just how the Governing Body really responds to “feedback” on our interpretation of the scriptures: dismissing logically solid arguments with vague allusions (in this case to “circumstances!”)
In the end it came down to “the number of times a principle is emphasized in the scriptures.” Isn’t that logical too? Of course, slavery is emphasized even more times in the scriptures than the need for two witnesses — but who’s counting? Oh, that’s right: we are. Well, as brother O’Brien testified to the Commission yesterday: at least it’s ‘nice’ slavery rather than the bad kind (just as I implied above that you can beat children in other than a “bad way.”)
But the argument of lead counsel was very clever. I think if we ever need to dump the Two Witness rule, this argument would be very helpful. I was maybe too flippant in my response; because of course we do claim to know what Jesus would do in hypothetical situations. That’s why we can entitle our current convention “Imitate Jesus!” And since we claim to know what Jesus did invisibly in heaven in 1919, we’d better know how he would answer a simple question regarding the handling of child abuse allegations.
In the aftermath, I’m worried that apostates or those weak in the faith might wonder how we members of the Governing Body, who have “the mind of Christ” and have the holy spirit “teaching us all things” — presumably all the things Jesus left out while he was on the Earth — how it is that we don’t know what Jesus would do? They might start questioning whether the holy spirit is really giving us “new light”! Then who would read our publications — or be dumb enough to donate their “valuable things” to us?! But, I’m probably just being a worry-wart; we’ve said stupider things and haven’t seen a mass exodus yet!
Afternoon Session 25:19 Not “Apostate-Driven Lies”!
Towards the end of all of this I was getting tired of their reasoning and logic. I tried to play nice so I could get out of that “hot seat.” Unfortunately, Satan tricked me into being too affable, and into admitting that the pedophile problem is not just “apostate-driven lies.” Unfortunately, this directly contradicts what Brother Lett has stated recently (please see video below.)
In conclusion, brothers, though I feel that I fought a fine fight for the faith, I believe we have some damage-control ahead of us. But not to worry; as the young folks say, “spin-doctoring” is what we do best!
Warm Christian love,
Governing Body Member
P.S. As part of the Royal Commission’s punishment for what they perceived as my “dishonesty” they sent me to a Sunday School session:
Disclaimer: The above “letter” was not really written by Geoffrey Jackson. Ascribing it to him was done to make a point and in the cause of humor.
For More Lying for Jehovah, please see: