Geoffrey Jackson: "That would be presumptuous of us"... (page 6)

Calebs Airplane

So they let him go without calling him out on his false testimony... Oh well... This whole inquiry seems quite pointless now....

Mickey mouse

If there are inconsistencies between the statements under oath and other evidence it will be followed up.

_Morpheus

"So they let him go without calling him out on his false testimony... Oh well... This whole inquiry seems quite pointless now...."

hmmmm..., that sounds framiler... Like ive heard that somewhere before...

wallsofjericho

"presumptuous to say the we are the "only" spokesperson god is using...."

he should be DFd for apostasy. He is implying there could be someone else on earth used by Jehovah to teach truth.

wait a tic..... you didn't mean Jah was using angels did you? or that perhaps non governing body members could possibly be used and you don't know it yet, kind of like the old F&DS teaching?\

Are you playing games with this on GJ? so typical

kepler

"Nothing is going to change..."

Let's set aside for the moment the specific terrible issue that this RC inquiry is all about.

Let's consider for a moment what a lot of the forum's discussion is about, curtailing the absurd influence that this organization has in the first place.

Of course, I don't get it. I never was a JW. But the cult stepped into my life anyway. And the assumption was among those that bought into it was these people were spokesmen of God.

Now here's one of the GB testifying, contradicting the publications and policy. He's on the writing committee and responsible for interpretation of Scripture from the original language...

So he is as free with the translation as suits him for the moment - and no one dares to challenge.

Come on. You can't get those single interpretations out of the Bible. You have to squeeze them.

This to an outside observer ( e.g., me) is not the single source spokesperson or persons from God. He is trying to wiggle out of the present and the past and put the responsibility on other guys who are out of town. At the same time give promotional speeches.

The last time the likes of Jackson came out from under cover was in Scotland 60 some years ago with Fred Franz and cohorts appealing to get a full dispensation from UK national service. A lot of what they said dynamite, but it remained obscure until very recently. Now you can download the 100-mbyte transcripts.

Times have changed. Evidence on internet goes a much longer way than a Watch Tower magazine.

If anybody is listening to what he's said and ia still in - You should take it right inside the KH and quote it aloud! And in chorus. Point to his transcript and show his smiling face.

After all. It's not the Royal Commission's responsibility to drop attendance and stop this organization.

It's yours.

Tech49

I have been thinking about this comment (see Original Post by Caleb's Airplane).

Mr. Jackson DID in fact answer the question. His brain DOES work. His answer should be very eye-opening and appalling to his faithful followers..Here's why.:

READ THIS SLOWLY........He couldn't say YES.

Why not? Because he doesn't believe it either. He knows it fake, a facade, a mockery, a self-appointed position of oversight. Again, why?

He stumbled. He hesitated, and then chose his words very carefully. In fact, If he felt that he was in fact (or at least a part of) Gods Channel, there would be no hesitation. Right then, at that very moment, he lost all credibility. Why wouldn't he have said a confident "YES, WE DO!" Because he doesn't, .... they don't. To do so is foolish, arrogant, and yes, presumptuous.

In replying with the "that would be presumptuous of us" remark, he is saying that there is no good answer.... to answer YES would openly admit to the world in general that they are terribly haughty, self serving, and condescending.... when in fact, according to their own literature, that is in fact what they admit. According to the Glorious Seven, They are the ONLY TRUE spokesman of God.

If he were to reply NO, WE ARE NOT, he would admit openly that they were full of themselves, and had absolutely no backing from an almighty being, and everything they were spewing forth was absolute rubbish.

It reminds me of the counsel we all received, at some point I am sure. While in Field Service, or elsewhere...If someone asks us..."do you believe you have the only TRUE religion?" ...... You should have ZERO hesitation, if that's what you really believe! If you can't answer honestly, or you hesitate, or have to choose your words carefully, then a self examination is in order.

You, my friends, just got a Get-Out-Of-Jail-FREE card.. If someone, anyone, asks you that exact question... you know the one....

"Do you believe that the Faithful and Discreet Slave is God's channel here on earth today?"

You can say......

"UM..... That would be very presumptuous of me..."

defender of truth

This is the last time I'll say this.. The question wasn't worded specifically enough.

All JW's believe they are acting as God's spokesmen, every time they preach.

It wasn't a lie.

At best we seem to have an example of a GB member giving a misleading and nonspecific answer, to a nonspecific question.

Then again, asking:

"Are the Governing Body God's only channel of communication on earth today?" would, now I think about it, have produced a response like: "Well, we are certainly a part of that channel."

Can we move on to a more interesting topic:

What question would have forced Jackson to admit that the Governing Body see themselves as being the ONLY people on this earth who can interpret the Bible correctly, with God backing everything they put in print?

bradford

If elders or any other JW with a title above elder decides to ask a fader if they believe the organization is the true channel they can respond that that would be presumptuous, and here is why. ..play clip of Brother Jackson. .the end.

Vidiot

defender of truth - "What question would have forced Jackson to admit that the Governing Body see themselves as being the ONLY people on this earth who can interpret the Bible correctly, with God backing everything they put in print?"

Quoting recent WT publications (that staunchly reiterate that very thing) to Jackson, and then asking Jackson the same question again.

Joe Grundy

Please bear in mind that the point of the ARC was/is not to investigate JW theology, it is to put forward recommendations as to how abuse can be better dealt with. The questions about JW heirarchy and organisation were intended to identify, organisationally, whether and at what level change could be brought about.

Interesting that Jws giving evidence found the need to be so deceptive.

Geoffrey Jackson: "That would be presumptuous of us"...

Share this