What is an apostate, according to Geoffrey Jackson (GB member)
HIs fallback line about a topic not being his field belies his claim to be one of the Guardians of Doctrine - unless of course there is a raft of JW policies that are not formally view as "Doctrine".
"That is not my Field" !
Hey, G J ...You are on the (expletive!) Governing Body for goodness sake....one of the top seven people on the WT world. We expect you to give a straight answer to a simple question such is put to a 14 year old contemplating baptism.....
“Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates.” Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock
That definition doesn't specify that the "persons" were once active Jehovah's Witnesses. By that definition everyone who is not a JW is an apostate!
On page 49 of the transcript they go into his "it is not my field response":
Q. Mr Jackson, you say it's not your field, but you are
a member of the Governing Body which is responsible, as you
have said, for the whole field, and you have been a member
for 10 years, and all the committees are responsible to and
accountable to the Governing Body.
A. That is correct.
Q. So it is your field, isn't it?
A. Only as far as approving the basic scriptural
principles. So is there a scriptural principle that you
have in mind you want to ask me about, or are you talking
about policies and implementation of policies? There is
a difference there.
Q. Yes. And the policies are all subject to the
scriptural principles, aren't they?
A. Yes, and if you have a question on the scriptural
principle, I'm very happy to try and explain it.
Q. And, for that reason, the policies have to be approved
by the Governing Body to ensure that they are in keeping
with scriptural principles?
A. That's correct. But the fact that the policies at
times need to be changed shows that there is leeway there.
Q. And if it is not the case, as you seem to suggest
might be a possibility, although you say you don't know,
that someone who has not actively disassociated but merely
sought to fade or become inactive is not governed by the
rules, then where is the line drawn between those who are
subject to the rules and those who aren't?
A. That's a good question, and that's where judgment
comes in. By "judgment", I mean using a person's nous as
to whether someone is still perceived as one of Jehovah's
Witnesses in the community.
Q. Isn't that the point, that if someone is perceived as
one of Jehovah's Witnesses in the community, that's because
they have not disassociated or been disfellowshipped?
A. Well, it has to do with what the person is telling
So technically anyone that walks away from the organization is an Apostate.
"That is not my understanding"?
Dude, whose "understanding" is it then? You're the top dog, the head honcho, or at least 1/7th of it.
Angus was thinking. . . "Who the hell is running that circus?"