Then there was the question about the woman raped in the field. Jackson said they did not have the answer and would like to ask Jesus in the future. A few weeks later, they miraculously found an answer and forwarded it the Commission.
Australian Royal Commission mentions that G. Jackson was inconsistent
by Daniel1555 25 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
FatFreek 2005
The Royal Commission obviously didn't deserve the truth. So JW's can use their secret weapon -- tell a lie. Totally endorsed by The Watchtower.
Does being truthful with others mean that we must disclose every detail to whoever asks us a question? Not necessarily. While on earth, Jesus demonstrated that some people are undeserving of a direct answer or of certain information. . . . Similarly today, Jehovah’s people need to be on guard against apostates and other wicked men who use trickery or cunning for selfish purposes. The Watchtower, 2009, 6/15 p. 17, par 6
-
stuckinarut2
What he actually meant by his response was this:
" it would seem to be presumptuous to you mere low scum of the earth worldly people. However because I will take part in destroying each and everyone of you, I can say whatever I like. "
-
Xanthippe
Yeah I noticed the 'it would seem' which they could use to back peddle later to the R+F and say it was theocratic warfare, but using it to the ARC was sheer stupidity. Doesn't the GB think lawyers and judges are trained to recognise this sort of language? They are trained in law for gods sake. They tried double talk on the wrong guys.
-
smiddy
G.Jackson was trying to use theocratic warfare tactics which didnt quite work on Angus Stewart .
Surely the statements the GB /JW put in print such as the official magazine the Watchtower and their many published books ,tracts,pamphlets etc. would someday catch up with them ?
Inconsitentcy is the only consistent thing Jehovahs Witnesses publish or preach.
-
notsurewheretogo
Er well they just admitted that the GB are not inspired nor directed by god and thus get things wrong in policies and doctrines thus was that them admitting they have been presumptous???
-
steve2
I get that the GB openly state they are not infallible. I do not get that, as infallible men, they expect of you unquestioning loyalty upon pain of being shunned by your entire community.
-
stuckinarut2
Steve2: I get that the GB openly state they are not infallible. I do not get that, as infallible men, they expect of you unquestioning loyalty upon pain of being shunned by your entire community.
WELL SAID SIR! Well said indeed!
-
UnshackleTheChains
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"
So lets get this right. Given that Jackson was under oath to speak the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth under God; either he was lying about their own (ie GB) fundamental teaching or he cares little about this teaching!!!
-
UnshackleTheChains
Inconsitentcy is the only consistent thing Jehovahs Witnesses publish or preach"
Well put smiddy 😉