Australian Royal Commission mentions that G. Jackson was inconsistent

by Daniel1555 25 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Daniel1555

  It's great that the following is officially mentioned in the Royal Commission's report:

  When asked if the Governing Body members saw themselves as ‘Jehovah God’s spokespeople on earth’, Mr Geoffrey Jackson answered that it ‘would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using’. Mr Jackson’s response seems to be inconsistent with the documentary evidence before the Royal Commission, which shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Governing Body is the ‘channel’ by which Jehovah’s ‘will’ is communicated to them.
• 

  Daniel1555

  So if you are hounded by elders with the "loyalty question" (Do you believe that the gov. body is the faithful and discreet slave), print page 14 of the ARC report and give it to them.

  You don't even have to say anything. It speaks by itself.

  And.... most elders know about the ARC.
• 

  steve2

  But then how could it ever be possible for a member of the Governing Body to be consistent?
• 

  Heaven

  Mr Jackson’s response seems to be inconsistent with the documentary evidence before the Royal Commission, which shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Governing Body is the ‘channel’ by which Jehovah’s ‘will’ is communicated to them.

  Bazinga!
  
• 

  stuckinarut2

  Absolutely priceless !

  The smugness of the brothers has been clearly shown up by those in the legal field
• 

  Listener

  Jackson also said that he hopes to be a disciple of Jesus, they made mention of this in the report.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Mr Jackson’s response seems to be inconsistent with the documentary evidence before the Royal Commission, which shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Governing Body is the ‘channel’ by which Jehovah’s ‘will’ is communicated to them.

  

  
• 

  NewYork44M

  The whole FDS concept is so goofy a primary beneficiary of the belief system could not confirm what is the basis of his power. I wonder if he really is a non believer.
• 

  neat blue dog

  He said it would "seem to be" presumptuous, not that he thought it was.

  Double talk = Theocratic warfare
• 

  steve2

  At first gloss, Geoffrey Jackson's answer would seem to be humble; but upon careful consideration, it could more accurately be described as pompous doubletalk.