AA said- I could only conceive of their errors being either "honest mistakes" or "done with evil intent". I couldn't see evil intent, so I figured they were honest mistakes. Here's what I learned: There's a "middle ground" between these two extremes. I'll paraphrase him/her because I have no better way of putting it: "most of the damage done by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is due to the unintended consequences of their actions, rather than the intention to do damage to people. The real problem is their callous, pharisaical attitude caused by indoctrination". That's a real eye opener. Thought I'd share it here
Fink said-I think what AlainA is trying to assert on this thread is that the GB men or past presidents of the WTS were just misinformed good willed and well intended people.
Then AA-said-"I think what AlainA is trying to assert on this thread is that the GB men or past presidents of the WTS were just misinformed good willed and well intended people."
No, I'm not trying to assert that. I'm wondering about it.
Does anyone else see a major discrepancy with this post? I have yet to figure out why the back and forth with AA on this when it seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't, type of response.
It may not 'intended' that way but it sure reaks of troll to me.