Apostles, Judas, GB, Raymond, Satan, Holy Spirit

[JW Insider]

On 1/22/2019 at 9:03 PM, FelixCA said:

Oh! I think we can give Raymond credit for mentioning Carl in his book as though new light was thrust upon his eyes.

I've been thinking about this claim for a while. I don't consider Carl Olof Jonsson nor Raymond Franz to be apostate. Not apostates from Christianity, nor apostates from Jehovah's Witnesses, nor apostates from the Watch Tower Society.

The reason is because they didn't "go out from among us." Both of them acquiesced for several years. Both of them were kicked out -- pushed out, instead of just leaving. They didn't go out on their own. And questioning certain doctrines does not constitute leaving the religion, according to directives given in our publications today. Besides most of the doctrines that were questioned have already now been shown to be incorrect anyway. The 2010 change to the generation doctrine was already an admission that 1914 was no longer tenable as the start of the generation that would see Armageddon within their lifespans. Back in 1980, Brother Schroeder himself had questioned this doctrine when he proposed that the Governing Body change that date for the beginning of the generation from 1914 to 1957. I don't think this makes Brother Schroeder an apostate, nor would it even if he had been disfellowshipped over that proposal.

So yes, I think R.Franz should get credit for mentioning Carl Jonsson. They both had studied the same material on chronology, and both of them had decided to go to the experts. But one of them (Jonsson) had decided to carefully question the Society first, and give them several opportunities to respond, and even several years to respond to specific points, before finally going public with the research he collected. So, even after becoming convinced in his own mind, he acquiesced to Witness protocol. Even though he did not originate much of this research, he made it accessible to many more Witnesses. It was very important research in my opinion, especially as it cleared up the problem that the Watch Tower Society was facing at the time. He basically found that the Biblical, scholarly, historical and archaeological evidence perfectly supported the Bible's accounts and resolved the chronology issues that the Watch Tower had been struggling with, changing, stretching, and fretting over for over 100 years. When a Christian Witness has a gift and talent for research, it is a fine thing to share it with others -- to bring one's gift upon the altar -- especially after Carl Jonsson had given the WTS the benefit of the doubt that they would handle things appropriately in time.

Almost exactly a year after Jonsson's manuscript got to Bethel, Brother Bert Schroeder traveled to WT Branches in Europe in 1978 with the idea of building a case against Carl Jonsson during a couple of these meetings. I traveled a good portion of this trip to about 10 of our European branches with Brother Schroeder and met up with him at several of the same cities he visited. But, after breaking schedule in Athens, I was not in Wiesbaden, Copenhagen or Oslo on the same days, and I knew almost nothing of any portion of Schroeder's meetings regarding Jonsson. It was a few months later that I was told that Jonsson's document had now been at Bethel for a year already, still spending almost all of that time on a shelf, untouched.

On 1/22/2019 at 9:03 PM, FelixCA said:

Evil has the tendency to blind people to the truth.

This is quite true, but just because the Society made many mistakes about "1914" and the "1914 generation" over the course of many years, it doesn't make them evil. The intention was probably very good on the part of almost all believers in the doctrine, in all its forms at least between 1879 and up until 2010. The idea that the Watchtower could make very specific claims about certain dates might have been based on haughtiness and presumptuousness, but there is no intention to be presumptuous or haughty. So I don't think even a falsehood need be labeled "evil" in any way. 

On 1/22/2019 at 9:03 PM, FelixCA said:

So, it’s not just a matter of mimicking what others had said before about 1914, 1925, 1975 etc. it’s laughable on how one belief was strong but when explained in such a disingenuous way, it became wrong.

Quite true. I'm guessing you are referring to C.Jonsson's book influencing R.Franz. I'm referring to the dozens of disingenuous ways that our chronology doctrine had been supported, although, fortunately, most of these ways of explaining it have now been dropped.

On 1/22/2019 at 9:03 PM, FelixCA said:

But it’s true those books are for people with a weak heart and wish to follow in Raymond’s footsteps to become as confused as he ended up being.

No one need follow in R.Franz' footsteps. It's true that many of the points he made will cause confusion to some. But they are already out there, and this is why they need to be explained and discussed honestly. If they are true, we should be prepared for how we deal with such truths. If they aren't true, we need to search out evidence to defend against those points. But, no matter what, they need not result in leaving the Witnesses or getting disfellowshipped. Because what happened to R.Franz has nothing to do with whether the points he makes in his book are accurate and true. His books can and will be misused. Just as encyclopedias, and websites, and Watchtowers are misused.

But if he said some things that are true, do they suddenly become untrue just because R.Franz was the one who pointed them out?

R.Franz pointed out that the generation doctrine was going to have to change again in the next few years. He turned out to be right. But do you say he was wrong just it because he said it in his book? R.Franz pointed out that it was the Watch Tower Society that put restrictions on our ministry in Mexico and not the Mexican government. It was the Watch Tower Society that later lifted those restrictions on our work when they determined that the circumstances were right. R.Franz pointed out that the situation with imprisonment of brothers in South Korea and other areas was about to change because it had already received enough votes to change. (But then Lloyd Barry reversed his vote, so that nothing changed.)  We know that it finally changed more recently, after a long delay. But do you doubt the accuracy of the R.Franz book? If so, on what basis, specifically. Just because it was R.Franz who pointed it out?

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I guess when we go into Walmart, The manager gives us an account on their daily operation, and they mention what the corporate members are saying.

There was a meeting in Jerusalem once, and the Bible tells us in Acts 15 what the argument was on both sides of the issue. The Bible gives us the reason for the question, what they decided, and even some further commentary on who was involved in Galatians 1 and 2.

I think the Bible should be our model, rather than Walmart.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I think the irony here would be that some say it is important to understand Raymond’s thoughts about the goings-on inside Bethel, yet some here find it necessary to develop a JW only section to keep personal thoughts secret. This is indeed amazing how people think without discernment enough to say, what would be the difference? Ephesians 4:29

You make a good point. I hadn't realized at first that people outside the "club" can't even read the comments. I thought the purpose was just to avoid extraneous comments, but that anyone could still read it. If they thought what they read was important enough, they could just comment on them over here in this "public club."

I see you are right. When I log out, I get a "do not have permission" notice. I am happy to put all of my own comments from there out here but I doubt you would think they are worth much.

[TrueTomHarley]

Maybe what rankles is the title, Crisis of Conscience. Isn’t that a bit self-aggrandizing? Why not name it “Memo From One Whose Eyes Are Too Pure to Look Upon Trouble, Though it Apparently Doesn’t Bother My Colleages Any”?

Now, had he named it TrueRay vs the Stalwarts, it would be a different thing entirely 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Maybe what rankles is the title, Crisis of Conscience. Isn’t that a bit self-aggrandizing? Why not name it “Memo From One Whose Eyes Are Too Pure to Look Upon Trouble, Though it Apparently Doesn’t Bother My Colleages Any”?

Well-said. I see your point. It's also true that we only have his side of the story. And I know there was some concern among at least one of his peers to take care of some of the issues he exposed as soon as possible.

But these issues he brings up, along with a review of our own organizational history from WT publications, all support the idea that someone in his situation could easily have had a crisis of conscience. I think he should have had one. I thought it should have led to him resigning from the Governing Body before he was asked to resign, rather than just take a leave of absence from the Governing Body during this time of crisis.

His crisis seems to be initially about whether he should have continued to work for more scriptural policies from the inside, or whether he should stand up more strongly for his own beliefs, or whether he should acquiesce. For years, apparently, he always acquiesced. Within the Governing Body, he would vote against creating a new rule that married couples could be disfellowshipped for oral sex, for example. But then when overruled by at least two-thirds of the rest of the Governing Body, who got the assignment to write it up?

He would be the one asked to write up the Watchtower article to provide the scriptural defense of something he conscientiously believed was not scriptural. Kind of like your point (in TTvTA) about how people are taught to debate by being assigned either side of an argument.

Now as a member of the Governing Body, he could remain and fight for what he thought was the scriptural position: that there was no explicit Bible rule stating that married couples must be dragged through a judicial hearing if, for some reason, the couple admitted to a friend, for example, that they had engaged in oral sex of some kind.

At the same time, the Watchtower claimed that a man could have homosexual relations with another man or an animal, and it was not "fornication" and thus did not constitute grounds for a scriptural divorce. R.Franz still believed, as did his colleagues, that these forms of sex were wrong, and not to be engaged in, and that the person could be disfellowshipped. But for some reason he did not stand up for his conscience and take a stand against what was clearly an unscriptural case of using the supposed "letter of the law" to kill the "spirit of the law."

Of course, he reports that he did fight for the change, from the inside, and sometimes it would take months of collecting letters to the Service Department, and sometimes it would take years. And patience. But in large part, apparently, these areas of conscience were resolved and the rest of the Governing Body finally acquiesced. We have the Watchtower articles that provide evidence to fit his claims.

This might sound self-aggrandizing for R.Franz, but it makes perfect sense considering the persons who made up the Governing Body.

Working as an artist for most of my 4 years at Bethel, I knew who was writing which articles and books. In fact, the initials of the writer and an additional series of initials of those who had seen and approved the article were always at the top of the first typewritten page. This also helped proofreaders and artists know who their department head might talk to if there was a question.

Listening to the Governing Body members rotate through their 15 minute talks every day, sometimes rambling unprepared, and sometimes well organized, it was easy to tell who deferred to whom, and which members were interested in Bible topics and which were interested in organizational rules, and rarely did the twain meet.

Between that experience of hearing them speak daily and knowing which Watchtower articles a GB member had written lets me know that everything R.Franz says in the book makes perfect sense with respect to those who spoke up and what they probably would have said during GB meetings. I should also add that I could sometimes hear L.Swingle and F.Rusk (non-GB) speaking to other writers from their offices. (Most GB members never wrote a Watchtower article, and most had almost nothing to do with Writing of any kind.) It also makes sense why, by way of explanation, R.Franz goes into the history of the creation of the Governing Body from the time it began in the early 70's.

[JOHN BUTLER]

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Maybe what rankles is the title, Crisis of Conscience. Isn’t that a bit self-aggrandizing? Why not name it “Memo From One Whose Eyes Are Too Pure to Look Upon Trouble, Though it Apparently Doesn’t Bother My Colleages Any”?

Now, had he named it TrueRay vs the Stalwarts, it would be a different thing entirely 

Jealous ? Is his book getting more attention than yours ?  

[JOHN BUTLER]

Quote " Within the Governing Body, he would vote against creating a new rule that married couples could be disfellowshipped for oral sex, for example. " 

Quote "The Watchtower claimed that a man could have homosexual relations with another man or an animal, and it was not "fornication" and thus did not constitute grounds for a scriptural divorce.. "

Oh dear it's gets funnier every day. I'm sorry but I'm sat here laughing.

It really does make the GB look like a group of perverts. 

@JW Insider   So can you please tell me the GB / JW Org views /rules on these two matter now ? 

If I had been asked about what my wife and I did in our sexual activities, I would have told the Elders it's none of their business. It is between Jesus Christ (who has been given the right to judge) and my wife and I. 

The threefold cord, does not include the GB or the Elders. 

Sorry I've just got to add a comment from my wife here, after I talked to her about all this, She said about the GB

" They're not the Messiah, they're very naughty boys " (A line from a film you may know) 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It really does make the GB look like a group of perverts. 

@JW Insider   So can you please tell me the GB / JW Org views /rules on these two matter now ?

I don't think it makes the GB look like perverts. But it does support the claim that R.Franz made in his book, that there was too much concern over legalistic rules without as much concern about the overall "spirit" of Christianity.

First of all, the idea that consenting oral sex within marriage is a disfellowshipping offense comes from the Watchtower, 12/1/1972 p. 735, 2/15/1976 p.122, 11/15/1974 p.704. The idea that homosexuality and bestiality on the part of a spouse in marriage will not qualify a marriage mate for a scriptural divorce comes from the Watchtower,  1/1/1972 p. 32.

In both cases it was due to a definition that F.Franz gave to the Greek word "porneia." Since at least the time of Rutherford's death, Fred Franz was always considered the only one who could come up with a change in scriptural doctrine, or "new truth" as we called it. Creating the Governing Body in about 1971 didn't change this. In fact, when a few people started speaking up with questions about doctrine, the GB was expanded with a lot more " F.Franz loyalists" who would never dare vote against F.Franz. For a while Schroeder was about the only one who would dare to test this deference to F.Franz and try promoting new scriptural teachings on his own by putting them in assembly talks or Gilead lectures. But he got shot down on anything major. Many of his ideas really were crazy, but he had one major good idea that finally got approved, about a decade after he died. It was not an idea that could have been changed during F.Franz lifetime. (Brother Splane admits that Schroeder had been a source of the idea in one of the JW Broadcasts. I'll explain elsewhere.)

At any rate, these practices are considered wrong and one still could be disfellowshipped for oral sex within marriage, but it will be a much more rare occurrence, because elders are instructed not to go out of their way to investigate allegations or follow up even on confessions, except to give counsel. If the person had a title (elder, ms, pioneer) they would likely lose the title for a time, and only be disfellowshipped if they said they would defy the counsel and continue the practice. Also, bestiality and homosexuality are now included in the definition of the Greek word porneia and can now constitute scriptural grounds for divorce and remarriage. (A couple could always separate, although it was optional, but now they can remarry after a scriptural divorce.)

[FelixCA]

Well, then it appears that you hold the same misguided understanding on what the definition of apostate means.

Studying the same material with a blind eye doesn’t constitute good results. That just means there are witnesses willing and able to accept obscured thoughts by questionable people that were not qualified to make certain determinations with their own personal opinion.

The devil here indeed works in mysteries ways. It’s good you follow the same thought as True Tom.

To make false claims is to make an argument meaningless. especially when it comes to 1914, etc. Therefore, thanks for crediting misguided people for an opinionated argument. Have you ever thought of writing your own book about accepting apostasy?

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 It's also true that we only have his side of the story. 

You seem to correctly anticipate that I have still not read his book. Though I read all the time, I have read very little of this sort of material, which might seem surprising since I have written four books in support of Witnesses and their organization  I could spin this as being  'obedient,' I guess, and it is that in part. But in greater part it is that I look at such material almost as red herrings that distract. Everyone has a history. Everyone has had experiences. Everyone has acted or not acted upon them. It's not people that count, ultimately, but God, and having been around long enough, you can pick up on and originate words that adhere to the 'pattern of healthful teachings' that Paul spoke about. The doings of others just distract, as they pursue their own service and relationship to God. As long as you do not become obstinate with regard to the earthly organization, you do fine (usually). If you do not, you take your licks, dust yourself off, pay whatever price you must, and get back into the mix. Maybe that will be your fate someday. Maybe (gasp!) it will be mine. But I think not in either case. If it should prove to be, the 'damage' is repairable.

Almost everything on every thread here (at least the ones I frequent) are advancing or defending against an attempt to undermine the earthly organization. The appeal of undermining it is irresistible. That way, if you don't like something, you simply 'interpret it away' and there is no one to call you on it. No harm done.

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But these issues he brings up, along with a review of our own organizational history from WT publications, all support the idea that someone in his situation could easily have had a crisis of conscience. I think he should have had one. I thought it should have led to him resigning from the Governing Body before he was asked to resign, rather than just take a leave of absence from the Governing Body during this time of crisis.

For once I will do a Butler and say that I am looking at things that are too great for me. What is the interplay of the divine/human interface? It's not anything that I am willing to say "this is" and "this isn't." Become minute enough and one might say that there is no interplay at all - that it is all but human politics, but then how does one account for the truly monumental building work that JWs have accomplished in worldwide support of the good news, a coordinated 'shout of praise' that nobody else manages to get off the launching pad? No, I think "too great for me" is where I will hold.

'Acquiescing' appears to be where it is at. For many decades now the emphasis has been on elder bodies reaching unanimous agreement, an almost impossible feat for humans to manage, and then, the 'losing' side to refrain from criticizing the 'winners,' with unity being the important consideration. It wasn't something that I was much good at, and if some 'blockheaded' brother won the day, I was hard-pressed to not carry on about it afterwards. Still,  I managed to do it to a reasonable degree. 

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Jealous ? Is his book getting more attention than yours ?  

Furious. The little creep.

I don't have it in for him for writing his book, nor even his title. After a lifetime at Bethel, leaving with but a suitcase, what else is he going to do? I am even reasonably charitable towards a former Witness turned movie-maker that I write about in my book. He must be given credit, if only begrudgingly, for redefining the game. It is still winnable--how can it not be with Jehovah?--but it may call for a new approach in dealing with the malcontents.

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

@TrueTomHarley  Quote " Almost everything on every thread here (at least the ones I frequent) are advancing or defending against an attempt to undermine the earthly organization. The appeal of undermining it is irresistible. "

Sorry to hear you have such a pessimistic view of debate. 

How about considering that some of us are actually looking for truth. God's truth, not GB / JW org truth. 

And again some of us are giving a warning about certain things within the JW Org that may be a danger to others.

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

 @JW Insider  Quote " Fred Franz was always considered the only one who could come up with a change in scriptural doctrine, or "new truth" as we called it. Creating the Governing Body in about 1971 didn't change this. In fact, when a few people started speaking up with questions about doctrine, the GB was expanded with a lot more " F.Franz loyalists" "

Is this the truth or just your opinion ?  If it is truth then it is a big worry. 

So who rules the GB now then ? 

Each thing i read makes the JW Org seem worse and worse, hence i ask if this information above definitely true or just opinion ? 

Reminds me of when ONE Elder threatened to disfellowship me for slander. He thought he had that authority.