Jump to content

JOHN BUTLER

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

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN BUTLER -
Space Merchant -
430
5192

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Anna said:

You should know TTH sense of warped humour by now.

You have displayed that you know very little of Einstein. If you did, you would realize that my sense of humor is spot on and everyone else’s is warped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Anna said:

You are taking yourself too seriously John. You should know TTH sense of warped humour by now.

I thought it was you who was going into the hidden cupboard, but TTH is in there with you i suppose. 

A merry mix of people tickling each others ears. 

As for TTH I know him not. Only that he sells books for a living :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Anna said:

I just want to pipe up here. The internal struggles ARE what shaped "what Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done" . I know, and I agree, we do't want to focus on the negative. But in my personal opinion it helps to know these things sometimes because it helps us become more grounded in reality, rather than what we think is the reality, and then get disappointed, to the point of being stumbled. I don't know if I have explained that very well. I'm not talking about fault finding or criticism. Just reality.

Only just noticed this one. 

But when I mention the reality I get told off for fault finding or criticism :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But when I mention the reality I get told off for fault finding or criticism :) 

Anna gets told off for fault finding and criticism, too. So do I. It depends on what someone is criticizing, to what extent, and how, etc. Sometimes I think you (and probably me, too) will criticize with too broad a brush, or harp on something that belongs under a different topic. Everyone's a critic (of something).

I just have one general rule. If someone signs out so @Foreigner can sign in and down-vote a post, then I know I must be doing something right. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 12:06 PM, FelixCA said:

. I'm, sorry friend, the world doesn't revolve around JWI, for as much as you admire his limited knowledge of Bethel.

I'm going to have another go at this.

I do not think that 'TrueTom vs the Apostates!' is a great book in its writing. It is adequately written. It gets the job done. It is even a little haphazard in its organization. Another person might do it better.

However, it is a great book in that it is the only one of its kind. And it should not be. There should be more, but there are not. I am convinced that there are many friends and onlookers who need such material. Maybe there shouldn't be, but there are.

@JW Insider, more than any single person, helped me in my writing of it. His input was very slight, no more than a sporadic word or two on occasion, sometimes publicly, sometimes not. Where I was too aggressive or undiscerning, his observations put me back on track. Where I was flat-out wrong on a few things, he bluntly corrected me and thereby made my work more effective. He knows where I am coming from. Where I ignored him I afterwards came to realize why I shouldn't have.

Whether it is wise for him to carry on at such length as he does here I do not know. But I do know why he does it and why he does it the way he does it. I respect him for it, and I cannot detect an ill motive. That is not to say that he might not be loony, but in my case, he has proven more valuable than he knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I do not wish to justify R.Franz' doctrines, per se. If some of his ideas seem worth looking into, I am only concerned with evaluating the evidence he offered for his perspective. I did not know that R.Franz thought that the 144,000 was a symbolic number until I read his book. I was not surprised however, because it was fairly common to hear brothers ask about why it had to be literal if the number 12,000 was symbolic, or the number 24 was symbolic (symbolic of the 144,000!?!, at that). And I knew that at least two other persons in the Writing department had been discussing this question.

Personally, I do not know if the 144,000 is a literal number or not, so I cannot give a scriptural example.

It appears you have the same reservation as Raymond when it comes to fully understand scripture on an ecclesiastical level. Perhaps that’s why you hate Fred so much.

Let’s take your comment about the 144,000 thousand that isn’t mentioned in scripture as a literal number. We both know this comment is a flat lie. But let’s see where you fail to understand the exegesis. Let’s take 14th part C of Revelation.

We know the saints (anointed) were purchased for the lamb, would amount to men gathered from the earth that wasn’t tainted and loyal to Christ. This, of course, doesn’t mean sinless just in case you want to misapply my words as you usually attempt to do to confuse the narrative.

These men are composed to reflect the 12 tribes of Israel. A symbolic initiative with literal numbers. Meaning, after Christ included others rather than just the Jews, ALL nations on earth were given that opportunity to serve in heaven as saints, and all the nations would receive the opportunity to be saved. Of course about the 12 tribes, we are referring to this literal number of 144,000 saints (anointed).

Shouldn’t these saints be positioned in a specific place somewhere in the new heavenly kingdom of Jerusalem? Just wondering with the other numbers mentioned.

I guess I would have to ask if you believe that we will get to see Jesus and the 144,000 saints in mount Zion, even though if we take that as a literal meaning, it wouldn’t be possible for millions that weren’t around a certain part of the world at that time to marvel and witness the Glory of Christ, since it would be impossible to literally see it from another part of the world. Ezekiel 37:22

Therefore, I guess all the nations that would stand to see Christ glory and victory from heaven is false, and shouldn’t be included in scripture. Perhaps I can see where you might agree with Raymond. A quiet man in public, but just as loud as Fred in private.

Revelation 7:9 King James Version (KJV)

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

I guess that would be the difference, Fred was not a hypocrite to hide his true nature like Raymond. Did it make him any less qualified? I wonder when I read the historical facts about  PETER and PAUL.

Since we all should know, 144,000 thousand saints is a literal number, my question to Raymond and Fred early on in my life, was, if some saints were still earthbound, would these saints be the ones to automatically be raptured into heaven to complete the cycle. After all, everything would have to be complete and set in place in heaven so the heavenly kingdom would have full control of all the earthbound survivors.

Now, I appreciated Fred’s answer even though it wasn’t an answer. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you, there is no question as to what scripture means. Perhaps I didn’t quite understand then because of my age, but it sunk in as I grew older.

On the other hand, when Raymond set me aside, he expressed an opinion with regard to rapture. This is when I asked him to elaborate since scripture clearly states the accounts of Enoch, Genesis 5:24 and Elijah, Second Kings 2:11.  After his comment, this is why stupid children need to grow up to understand, I left it alone. I’m assuming here since he never had kids of his own he had no patience with children.

This, however, would be a good argument for the final rapture of the saints “if” there are still some left. Now, not everyone who partakes will eventually be of the anointed class.

I had a second cousin that started partaking of the emblems. That was a joke since we knew what kind of person he was. That just means there are some that have a passion to believe. He eventually stopped.

Now, all my nephews and nieces that attended Bethel, are successful and righteous in serving Jehovah without reservations whatsoever. They don’t dwell in the past and keep their eye on the prize, promised by God.

So, which 12,000 do you think we should do away with?

Luke 12:32 King James Version (KJV)

32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

John 10:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Revelation 7:3-8 New International Version (NIV)

“Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,

from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,

from the tribe of Gad 12,000,

from the tribe of Asher 12,000,

from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,

from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,

from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,

from the tribe of Levi 12,000,

from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,

from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,

from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,

from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

Since you seem to be the favorite of True Tom and Anna with ecclesiastic wizardry, how far back do you wish to argue the interpretation of scripture?  I say this because you are so good with grammar and words that people tend to admire someone for the wrong reason. Well, at least TTH.

So, which ones should we dismiss, or where would you like to ADD to scripture to allow others aside from the 144,000 thousand anointed to rule in heaven as kings and priest?

Now, don’t respond with Watchtower literature. I’ve had enough distortion on the subject. Stick to scripture if it’s at all possible.

Just like the obsession you have with the 6000 years. Maybe if you look at it by someone else’s perspective. It’s pretty drawn clear you don’t trust or care for the Watchtower literature unless you find something to criticize about it. Perhaps this is the objective of this site and always has been.

To find the same kind of people with no faith and a weak heart.

HA1423

Similarly the pseudo- Barnabas, a very ancient though Apocryphal writer: "Consider, my children, what that signifies, He finished them in six days. The meaning is, that in 6000 years the Lord will bring all things to an end," &c.
The same expectation as to the six days of creation typifying 6000 years, as the term of the present world's duration,
continued, as we have seen, (see p. 230, &c, supra) even among the anti- premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Only they explained the sabbatical seventh day as typical, not of a seventh sabbatical Millennium of rest, but an eternal Sabbath: - - a view generally adopted afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

@JW Insider, more than any single person, helped me in my writing of it. His input was very slight, no more than a sporadic word or two on occasion, sometimes publicly, sometimes not. Where I was too aggressive or undiscerning, his observations put me back on track. Where I was flat-out wrong on a few things, he bluntly corrected me and thereby made my work more effective. He knows where I am coming from. Where I ignored him I afterwards came to realize why I shouldn't have

It could be, that’s the problem. Loyalty. I wouldn’t lose my personal relationship with God, for the sake of writing a book that is being collaborated by someone who is clearly a bad association and influence my decision to have an input of that book, right or wrong. Proverbs 3:3-13, 1 Corinthians 15:33

Too much of that kind have, authored books about the Watchtower, that allowed misinterpreted claims to stand. Raymond was one of them. 1 Corinthians 5:11

That just means, the desire of this world still dwells in the heart and minds of many Christians, instead of willfully trusting in Jehovah for guidance if they have a desire to print. 2 Corinthians 6:14

Could this be the reason TrueTom and JWinsider conspired to remove this Allen Smith JWI is so obsessed about? When it seems people like Butler can be more obnoxious yet still hold an account here? That would lead me to believe this person was proving some false claims here. That type of action should be embarrassing and shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

It could be, that’s the problem. Loyalty. I wouldn’t lose my personal relationship with God, for the sake of writing a book...

Hopefully that has not happened.

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

that is being collaborated by someone who is clearly a bad association and influence my decision to have an input of that book, right or wrong

Without weighing in on whether he is bad association or not, he is one of the very few who offered constructive criticism of CSA matters. Whether he should have done so on this forum is a matter for others to haggle over, but the fact is that he did and I benefited from it.

For example, the Philadelphia.com slimed JWs with a front page lead that must have been seen by everyone in the city and well beyond. It was too much for me.  I subsequently declared war on this sort of thing. I submitted a reply to them. This was a big deal for me, to reply at length to a prominent source and tell them they owed it to their readers to publish my reply as prominently as they published the slam. There was a chance that they would do so. I didn’t want to screw it up. I ran it by JWI privately, knowing he has Bethel experience, he reasons well, and he wants to see CSA matters resolved WITHOUT burning Bethel to the ground. (the solution of the opposers) He did not disappoint me. He made valuable suggestions, most of which I accepted.

What follows is what I sent to the Philly source, followed by the refined version that is an early chapter of TTvtAp.

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

So he helped me. A lot. I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you.

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

Could this be the reason TrueTom and JWinsider conspired to remove this Allen Smith JWI is so obsessed about? 

It takes a while to know the players & you do not know them yet. Both of us worked very hard to retain him on this forum. Besides, I am not sure that he is gone. As for JWI, he spots him everywhere as does the groundhog his shadow.

 I pleaded with @The Librarian (that old hen) that if for nothing else, Allen should be honored because he proves the resurrection.

As to your point about John being more obnoxious and still remaining here, THAT point is certainly valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you.

Up-vote!

 

Another thing.

It is good that You speaking about issue on your blog. No matter of your intention to defend GB. But it is positive that You talking how cases are open and they are in the midst of JW people. Those JW who will go on Your page will find, I guess, more information than from WT official channels of communication. hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

It appears you have the same reservation as Raymond when it comes to fully understand scripture on an ecclesiastical level. Perhaps that’s why you hate Fred so much.

Nonsensical non sequitur just to imply I might hate Fred Franz. I have never hated Fred Franz. I was always very impressed at his abilities. But I also felt badly for him, because he entered the Bible Students under Russell back at a time when the Watchtower freely admits that many of the Bible Students had turned it into a "cult." According to Rutherford it was a personality cult that worshiped Russell. Rutherford himself had apparently fallen victim for a time, if you listen to his eulogy at Russell's funeral. (And if you read the twisted logic he employed in order to defend Russell in the booklet "A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens.) Now that I have seen numerous additional examples of the same behaviors I saw in Fred Franz, I believe that he was a high-functioning autistic person. (Something akin to what many psychologists will now diagnose as "Asperger's Syndrome.") This does not belittle him as you might think. But it explains a lot of his anti-social behaviors, and it explains a lot of his talks and comments that were clearly intended to provoke, or push the envelope in terms of what he might get away with verbally.

If you think I have expressed something like anger here, and I hope I haven't, it might be related to the same way that that Raymond Franz felt anger, but not about his uncle, at a funeral of R.Franz' nephew. This was the funeral where F.Franz gave the talk, and started out, very loudly: "Isn't it grand to be ALIVE!"

[F.Franz] walked up to the podium, paused, and then in a very loud, almost
stentorian, voice said: “Isn’t it grand to be ALIVE!” After that
introductory exclamation, for several minutes he discussed, effectively
and dramatically, the meaning of the words at Ecclesiastes
7:1-4.  As yet my nephew had not been mentioned in any way.
Then, after approximately ten minutes, in referring to the words
about it being ‘better for us to go to the house of mourning,’ the
speaker said,  “And the reason why is that sooner or later we’re all
going to end up like THIS!” and, without turning, he threw his hand
backward in the direction of the coffin where my nephew’s body
lay. The talk went on with further commentary on the Biblical section
but with no other reference to the dead man until the close
when the standard statements of the reason for the occasion and
the names of the deceased’s survivors were given.

I felt a sense of burning anger—not at my uncle, for I sincerely
and honestly believe he thought this was the best way to deal with
the situation, the best way to combat the natural sensations of grief
and loss.
What I felt incensed at was the organizational attitude
that allowed a person to feel fully justified to speak in a way which
essentially transformed the dead person’s body into a vehicle or
platform on which to base a talk, a talk that expounded organizational
doctrine, but which throughout simply made no mention of
sadness at the loss of the person whose life had ended, as though
by ignoring this the hurt would be lessened.
I kept saying to myself,
“James deserves something better than this—surely the text
about a ‘name being better than good oil’ calls for talking about
the name he made for himself in life.

This is the kind of thing I remember most about F.Franz' comments in the morning, too. Fortunately, his assembly talks were rarely like this, although a couple of his Gilead talks seemed to test the limits. An nearly hour-long scriptural talk on "the Biblical meaning of the Liver," sounded like it could have been a F.Franz satire from "The Onion," in part, but was also intended to sound very serious by the Gilead Graduation audience. (Brother Schroeder implied to me that he took it as a satirical attack on a talk that he [Schroeder] had recently given.) Another example was his wearing of a T-shirt with the word "HELL" in its message, for nearly the entire week during his morning worship comments in response to Sydlik's call for a Kingdom Hall like dress code at Bethel breakfast.

But I liked that his rants at breakfast were not about dressing down specific Bethelites that he wanted to belittle, the way that Rutherford and Knorr had used much of their 'morning worship' time. He railed against certain questions that had come up, and process changes, but mostly he always tied what he said to a Bible passage or topic, even if it was a rule he wanted to talk about. Some GB members rarely spoke on Bible topics, like Henschel and Jaracz, for example. (Sometimes MH & TJ would literally start out a talk with: "Jehovah is a God of order, therefore . . . . " or, "Our God is a God of rules, so let's talk about . . . .") However, I always appreciated something in what F.Franz said every day that he spoke.

I think a lot of the things he said could be taken as funny and thought-provoking. But I don't think it was healthy for the organization that he carried on in such a socially immature manner for so many years. He seemed to have a bit of an obsession with the Russell and early Rutherford years, and more than once told the story of how Rutherford said he had made an "ass" of himself over his 1925 predictions. But he would always emphasize the word "ass" for dramatic effect. Some of his later talks highlighted Russell and Rutherford's Christmas celebrations, birthdays, pyramids, false expectations, dates, etc., but without a stated purpose except maybe just for effect. 

With F.Franz, there was a lot to like, and a lot to feel sorry for. I think he could be brilliant and foolish at the same time. Nothing to hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Those JW who will go on Your page will find, I guess, more information than from WT official channels of communication. hehe

“The Witness organization cannot be expected to defend itself on social media, if on any media. It takes the scriptural view of Jesus at Matthew 11, noting that grumblers slam him no matter what he does, before finally saying, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ “wisdom is proved righteous by its works.” It is like David who kept mum as ‘all day long they muttered against him.’ ‘It is like the plowman who knows that if you look behind while plowing, the furrows get all flaky.’ They don’t do it. The common view of opposers is that the Witness headship is telling members what to do, while it cynically manipulates all from above. That view is wrong. They practice what they preach and they do it themselves. The organization headship cites Hebrews 13:7 about ‘imitating the faith of those who are taking the lead among you.’ They don’t go on social media at all. They prefer a less raucous channel, and content themselves with news releases at the website that inform but do not kick back at the critics.

“It is scriptural. It is proper. But there is a downside. By staying mum on specifics, essentially our enemies get to define us to the news media who refer to a cover statement about “abhorring child abuse” as “boiler-plate” and then go to former members who will eagerly fill their ears with accounts that we could counter by adding context but don’t. What’s a reporter to do? He goes to who fills his ears.

“It will fall upon the Witness journalist to do it, if it is to be done, and there aren’t many of them. If fourteen years of blogging, not shying from controversial things, does not qualify me to take a shot at it, what does? If you are in a spiritual paradise, or even a vacation paradise, you do not have to concern yourself with removing the trash. It may be even dangerous to do so, because there is broken glass and used syringes. It’s not for everyone, and maybe for no one. But I thought I’d give it a go, and I at last got under this fellow’s skin, the big baby.”

...

 

If it was up to me, there would be an ‘Opposer Servant’ in each circuit. He would say: ‘Look, follow Matthew 11 if you can. But if you can’t, if you simply must have a specific reply to the negative publicity that is becoming frequent fare for mainstream news outlets, here is training on how to deal with them.’

Regarding my book itself, I repeated the thought:

“The book is not recommended to all Witnesses. Read it if you want a specific reply to charges laid against the faith. For those able to focus upon forward motion only, the book is not recommended. For those not, it is. The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses is: “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?” The hard work and integrity of these ones is appreciated by all. So not everyone will feel the need to check out every derogatory report.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“The Witness organization cannot be expected to defend itself on social media, if on any media. It takes the scriptural view of Jesus at Matthew 11, noting that grumblers slam him no matter what he does, before finally saying, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ “wisdom is proved righteous by its works.” It is like David who kept mum as ‘all day long they muttered against him.’ ‘It is like the plowman who knows that if you look behind while plowing, the furrows get all flaky.’ They don’t do it. The common view of opposers is that the Witness headship is telling members what to do, while it cynically manipulates all from above. That view is wrong. They practice what they preach and they do it themselves. The organization headship cites Hebrews 13:7 about ‘imitating the faith of those who are taking the lead among you.’ They don’t go on social media at all. They prefer a less raucous channel, and content themselves with news releases at the website that inform but do not kick back at the critics.

“It is scriptural. It is proper. But there is a downside. By staying mum on specifics, essentially our enemies get to define us to the news media who refer to a cover statement about “abhorring child abuse” as “boiler-plate” and then go to former members who will eagerly fill their ears with accounts that we could counter by adding context but don’t. What’s a reporter to do? He goes to who fills his ears.

“It will fall upon the Witness journalist to do it, if it is to be done, and there aren’t many of them. If fourteen years of blogging, not shying from controversial things, does not qualify me to take a shot at it, what does? If you are in a spiritual paradise, or even a vacation paradise, you do not have to concern yourself with removing the trash. It may be even dangerous to do so, because there is broken glass and used syringes. It’s not for everyone, and maybe for no one. But I thought I’d give it a go, and I at last got under this fellow’s skin, the big baby.”

...

 

If it was up to me, there would be an ‘Opposer Servant’ in each circuit. He would say: ‘Look, follow Matthew 11 if you can. But if you can’t, if you simply must have a specific reply to the negative publicity that is becoming frequent fare for mainstream news outlets, here is training on how to deal with them.’

Regarding my book itself, I repeated the thought:

“The book is not recommended to all Witnesses. Read it if you want a specific reply to charges laid against the faith. For those able to focus upon forward motion only, the book is not recommended. For those not, it is. The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses is: “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?” The hard work and integrity of these ones is appreciated by all. So not everyone will feel the need to check out every derogatory report.”

 

@TrueTomHarley    I see you are pushing your book again. Well I suppose it saves on paying for advertising :) 

As for the line :-

The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses is: “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?”

Well when you are preaching to the converted / brainwashed, what would you expect.

I expect Hitler got the same amount of applause back in the day too :) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is at the point now where one must flip from one to another to follow the discussion.

I can try to move the CSA centric posts here to there, but they will sort themselves by the time of the post and might cause some confusion there too as they "interleave" with the original posts, there. I'll look to see if it might improve things.

OK. I moved them. This will effect posts by @Witness, @Srecko Sostar, @Anna, @JOHN BUTLER, @TrueTomHarley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 5:35 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

So he helped me. A lot. I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you.

Unfortunately, I don’t share your views and value about, bad association. I am not here for the association but rather show how Ex’JW’s distort Watchtower publications to benefit what is clearly a misapplication of them. The 1943 Watchtower that was posted by Anna comes to show, how vital it is to have good expectations rather than try to satisfy the status quo.

It also appears this is being done with the claim of being an active member whereas if these thoughts and outdrawn misguided conclusions were set before the congregation, they would have nothing to do with such ideology.

Therefore, this place has become a bully pulpit for misinformation, nothing more. I can understand your need to receive opposition input to frame your own books, however, that in itself is no excuse to malign, or distort the truth.

Another area of how the early brethren dealt with issues, was by being direct and frank. A characterization of Fred, seen as a hardnose can be applied to Raymond in private since he was hypocritical in public, but how the early Bible Students which Fred was baptized under and the Jehovah Witnesses that took a different direction.

This example on an exchange comes to mind.

Dear Brother Woodworth:-
Your editorial of July 8, 1931, entitled "Bible Students Radio Echo", has been read with much interest. Both you and I have often gloried in the privilege of scripturally refuting the audacious claims of the various Babylonian sects who boast that they constitute the only divine channel and repository of all truth. How often have you punctured the pompous pretensions of popes, priests, and ministers who have said that they possess God-given authority to judge and excommunicate all dissenters from their views, no matter how conscientious and devout such "heretics" might be!

We have both known and long taught that the Christian is called unto liberty, and that every child of God is divinely authorized to preach the Truth as he sees it. Is it possible that we are forgetting these past sound teachings and have come to ignore that precious heritage of Christian liberty that has long been ours? Are we now willing to adopt the "human ordination" arguments policies of the clergy whom we have so strenuously condemned?


Are we now ready to consign to everlasting destruction sincere Christians who have done no wrong greater than that of proclaiming Christ's Kingdom without first having been authorized by man or by a man-made organization? I cannot bring myself to believe, dear Brother Woodworth, that you and thousands of other Bible Students or Witnesses of Jehovah are giving your willing assent to such God-dishonoring theories and practices as your article implies. Hence, in the spirit of the Golden Rule, and with no thought whatsoever of retaliation, I write this letter in the hope that I may help you to arouse yourself from the spiritual stupor into which circumstances seem to have gradually forced you, manifestly against your better judgment.


In your attack against brethren who are preaching the Kingdom message without authority from the Society, you make no attempt to show that they are teaching error. Your argument is that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is the only instrument that the Lord would possibly use to proclaim Christ's Kingdom (although no scriptural reason for such a conclusion is given); and upon this premise you reason that any independent effort to proclaim the Truth is displeasing to the Lord, no matter how sincere or how effective such an effort may be, and that the Lord will vengefully visit upon such tellers of His Truth swift and lasting destruction.

You will agree, I am sure, that Jesus is the Head of His church, and that all laws governing that
body must come from Him. In spite of this, you have lent your name to a wholesale condemnation of consecrated Christians--your brethren--who are proclaiming the Kingdom message because they love it; and in support of your rash action you have not attempted to produce any authorization from the divinely-appointed Head of the church-evidently for the very obvious reason that no such authorization exists.

Haman Class seek to Monopolize
Both you and I well know that after the apostles fell asleep the early church departed from the faith and from the freedom in Christ which the Lord and His apostles had instituted. Priests and bishops then began to usurp authority; to claim a monopoly of the Truth, and to assert an autocratic control over believers. They claimed infallibility for the pope; all independent Bible study and teaching was banned; the priceless heritage of Christian liberty was taken away; and thus was brought about that dark, dismal period in the church's history during which thousands of Christians were burned at the stake or otherwise cruelly mistreated, when they tried to break away from that unauthorized, unchristian bondage of men and claim the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free.


Finally, a successful break for liberty was made and the Protestant Reformation was launched. But one after another of the Protestant sects soon fell away to the very same error against which they had protested; boastingly to assert that they had the power to open and shut the doors of heaven to whomsoever they would. Is history again repeating itself?

This is the kind of openness the Watchtower framers had. Did, it make these people less qualified for their openness, and direct approach? Perhaps, you yourself would suggest this can be seen as a bad association. If this is the case, it would be applied to justify the end means, not the truth. This type of OPED’s can be seen throughout the Watchtower history, including the Zion Tower.

Also, with this illustration, it should be able to give more clarity to other issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

Yes, Fred was the framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clean under scriptural bases. That didn't make him a hardnose, or an inhumane person to stick with the bylaws of scripture.

Evidently, Fred Franz was NOT a "framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clear under scriptural bases." This was one of the more surprising points in "Crisis of Conscience."

When the Aid Book was being researched and written, it became obvious that the congregations would have been able to utilize all the elders who met the qualifications. By now it probably surprises most Witnesses that there ever was a time when each congregations was "run" by an ONE autocratic "congregation servant" who could hold that position for decades. He reported to a circuit servant who reported to a district servant who reported to the service department in the US or a respective branch servant elsewhere.

When R.Franz showed F.Franz the evidence that an elder arrangement was Biblical, he says that F.Franz appeared to have known this all along but had held off doing anything about it.

(Of course, under Russell and Rutherford, there already had been an elder arrangement, but this is something that Rutherford stopped in favor of the autocratic arrangement he called "Theocratic.")

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

Fred was more qualified than anyone at that time.

Just another take on this, but I think that F.Franz was very unqualified to take on the same type of leadership role that Knorr took on. Milton Henschel, definitely, or even Ted Jaracz. I could see Sydlik probably capable but not in the running due to a condition that was rarely spoken about. In fact Max Larson would have been the most equivalent replacement for Knorr had he been anointed and on the Governing Body. F.Franz was very different, and so many of his early talks in public are forceful only in the sense that they were sometimes "shrill." He was more like a nerdy expert witness on a court stand that no one would speak against because everyone thought he was so much more qualified from the perspective of his intelligence. 

If you listen to his talks going back to 1950 and 1958 (some are recorded), you can see that several times he was given these very small talks that should have been called "Bible Greek Trivia," short snippets of linguistic expertise but on topics that would have seemed insignificant in the context of an international convention. Yet, I understand that when his office filing cabinets were opened after his death, it was obvious he had been the primary writer of all Bible-based articles in the Watchtower since Knorr's presidency (1942) and that he had even been the writer of many articles in Rutherford's lifetime. He wrote almost 100 percent of every prophecy book from 1942 through 1988. Articles that were written by others on these same topics merely copied his previously published material and reworded it. 

Jehovah no doubt blessed the decision to go back to an elder arrangement, and I think that F.Franz knew he could not stand in the way of this change, now that someone else had seen how clearly the Bible defines this arrangement. I sometimes think that Witnesses were protected from something quite chaotic and damaging that would have happened had F.Franz been the bureaucratic head and the unchecked spiritual head of the Society at the same time. The Governing Body arrangement was very timely. Jehovah provides.

Of course that didn't stop F.Franz from writing an article that included some non-Biblical speculation when he accepted the elder arrangement, and a very limited Governing Body arrangement in 1971. In the infamous 'tail wagging the dog' article from December 15, 1971, he wrote:

*** w71 12/15 p. 759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
From this, and from what historical evidence there is available, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated, just the same as the chairmanship of the presbytery or “body of elders” of each Christian congregation rotated among the coequal elders.—1 Tim. 4:14.

This may be an excellent idea. But where in 1 Tim 4:14 is there any hint that there was a 'chairmanship' among the body of elders, or that this 'chairmanship' rotated among coequal elders? The argument had been built from the idea that Peter speaks in Acts 2, and then James in Acts 15.

*** w71 12/15 pp. 758-759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
The governing body does not have officers such as the Society’s Board of Directors has, namely, president, vice-president, secretary-treasurer and assistant secretary-treasurer. It has merely a chairman, such as the governing body of the first century had. Apparently, the apostle Peter was the chairman of the governing body on the festival day of Pentecost of 33 C.E., and the disciple James, the half brother of Jesus Christ, was the chairman at a later date, according to the account in Acts of Apostles.

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

That's why he enjoyed translating scripture into different languages. 

F.Franz was fairly proficient in several European languages and had studied Biblical Greek. He did a lot of work translating Hebrew and Greek into English, but I'm pretty sure he was not involved in translating scripture into any other languages.

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

There is far more that can be said, it would take a book to yield such information.

I found him to be a very interesting man. I'd read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Since we all should know, 144,000 thousand saints is a literal number, my question to Raymond and Fred early on in my life, was, if some saints were still earthbound, would these saints be the ones to automatically be raptured into heaven to complete the cycle.

This is very interesting. It would also be interesting to know the time and place. I'm guessing you are not so young, having spoken about seeing the 1975 issues first hand, and speaking about attending college at around age 30. I'm guessing you are in your 60's, at least. And this question would have been before 1980, I assume, as Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped shortly after 1980. And he wasn't in the United States, as he was still in missionary work until the late 1960's. So this puts the question between about 1970 and 1980.

 But it's even more interesting that you would ask both of them the same question. Was it just because Fred Franz didn't give you a real answer? Why would you go to Raymond Franz to ask? Were these the only two persons you chose, or did you also ask others?

And your question itself is very good. Thinking about that exact question is what led the Watchtower to finally accept the basic concept of the "rapture." I think it had been at least 80 years since a rapture, of any sort, had been considered a valid doctrine in the Watchtower before this was finally written:

*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 par. 15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . .  So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

After all, everything would have to be complete and set in place in heaven so the heavenly kingdom would have full control of all the earthbound survivors.

Coincidentally, this was part of the same reasoning used in the 2015 Watchtower. The "marriage" of the Lamb wouldn't make sense if some of the "bride" were still spending their days waiting to die on earth. And the indication from Revelation is that the 144,000 share in the battle that will conquer the nations as "these" will all battle together with the Lamb.

So your question puts you at least 35 years ahead of the answer given in the Watchtower.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Now, I appreciated Fred’s answer even though it wasn’t an answer. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you, there is no question as to what scripture means. Perhaps I didn’t quite understand then because of my age, but it sunk in as I grew older.

This gives the impression that Fred Franz was aware that you were expressing a strong interest in the "anointing." He got questions about the anointing a lot. A young sister in my hometown Missouri congregation sought opportunities to question F.Franz about this issue. I can understand this especially of those who were born after 1935 and were looking for some kind of validation of their heavenly hope. After all, F.Franz was usually considered the one person, the primary example of someone whose anointing had been made "sure." Not saying it's necessarily true of you, I have no idea, but your additional words seem to fit this idea. After F.Franz says: "If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you there is no question as to what scripture means." And then you say that this "sunk in" as you grew older. 

And then you asked Raymond Franz the same question. And he has no idea how to treat a kid. This is actually believable of so many at Bethel, even persons in high positions. It's because they often never had a child, left home early, never got married (or had to remain childless if they did), and were sometimes raised up under Rutherford's presidency, whose children evidently grew to hate him. So I can believe, even though he was a missionary and had many wonderful experiences with children, that he could have been awkward around a young person with questions for him.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

On the other hand, when Raymond set me aside, he expressed an opinion with regard to rapture. This is when I asked him to elaborate since scripture clearly states the accounts of Enoch, Genesis 5:24 and Elijah, Second Kings 2:11. 

Interesting that you would tie Enoch and Elijah to a rapture doctrine, when the Society's publications of the time always made clear that they were still earthbound no matter what the implication.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

After his comment, this is why stupid children need to grow up to understand, I left it alone. I’m assuming here since he never had kids of his own he had no patience with children.

Wow! That's child abuse, plain and simple. You are saying that sometime between around 1970 and 1980, R.Franz told you: "This is why stupid children need to grow up to understand." That's incredible. Especially since there were so many children in the Spanish congregation he worked with, while at Bethel. Also, one of the first things that he and his wife Cynthia looked into after leaving Bethel in 1980 was whether it might be possible for them to still have children of their own.

If you are remembering this episode correctly, it would explain why you have expressed the kinds of feelings toward him that you have. And why you believe he must have been acting hypocritically as he gained such a reputation at Bethel for patience and kindness.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

This, however, would be a good argument for the final rapture of the saints “if” there are still some left. Now, not everyone who partakes will eventually be of the anointed class.

That is undoubtedly true that not everyone who partakes will be of the anointed class. I suppose we could expect some to feel disappointed if they survive Armageddon and are not "raptured" with the rest of Christ's bride. Of course, there are still a lot of things we don't know for sure. Also, for such a person who has partaken, and makes it through Armageddon, I'm sure they will be thrilled anyway to have made it thus far into their opportunity for eternal life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Therefore, this place has become a bully pulpit for misinformation, nothing more. 

When was it ever anything else?

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I can understand your need to receive opposition input to frame your own books,

From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. 

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

however, that in itself is no excuse to malign, or distort the truth.

Come, come, we must not squabble. We have the same goal, even if we go about it in different ways. I will allow that I am probably too flippant, and post in that spirit what you take seriously. For example, I did a quick & fictional snippet of Fred. That is my bad, and I apologize.

JWI deals with egghead stuff that I only skim. Things dealing with dates are not my thing. These are not the ‘motivating’ things that cause people to develop a bad heart. Rather, if some have already developed a bad heart, they latch onto the fact that people ‘at the top’ disagree (Duh) and make maximum hay out of it. Or they find that there has been much hashing out over what eventually comes out as a unified whole, and they bail on that account.

The one of good heart sees such disagreement & says ‘Ah, well, they’ll figure it out,’ and carries on without undo fuss. Since we have been wrong many times before, it seems a little foolish to insist that it will never happen again. ‘If they are on the wrong side of this or that bit of prophesy, they’ll figure it out and get on the right side,’ says the one of good heart.

No. I don’t care about such things. Why some do I’ll never know, but it’s a good thing that they do. Everyone has a gift. I like to focus on what I think is more relevant  - the qualities attributed to ‘apostates’ in Jude and 2Peter—an insistence on self-determination, and a disdain for authority. I am in my element when I get to kick back at those who would capitalize on genuine tragedies, such as CSA, to seek to destroy the ones preaching the good news.

With a major ‘reform,’ making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of our critics lose something huge to them - a little like ‘what is Tom Brady going to do with himself after he retires?’ Some face withering away like Roger Chillingsworth. They almost have no choice but to find some pissy little thing that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that to the cows come home.

Since I don’t care about the aspects of theocratic life that you do, I have probably overstepped in some places and drawn your reproof. I apologize. One of the prime things Jehovah hates is anyone spreading contentions among brothers. I won’t do it. When I once ‘liked’ a post of Captain Zipzeronada, a brother who was solid but rigid was stumbled. I apologized to him and didn’t do it again for the longest time - until the old pork chop said something to reveal that beneath his breathtaking pig-headedness, he was  likable in some respects and I couldn’t resist.

Our people do not typically do well online. They take shots at each other for not toeing the line in this or that aspect of service. Or they say: “This is what Jehovah has said:” to people who don’t necessarily care what he has said. They look ridiculous as they try to make the Internet behave like the congregation. As much as I appreciate your goal, if you told your circuit overseer that you were having a hard time purifying the Internet, what do you think he would say?

You have to cut brothers some slack online. If they shouldn’t be here to say it, you shouldn’t be here to hear it. You know very well that Bethel isn’t thrilled about any of us being here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    59,438
    Total Topics
    105,208
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    15,936
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    lisaagalvn
    Newest Member
    lisaagalvn
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.