Jump to content

JOHN BUTLER

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

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN BUTLER -
Space Merchant -
414
5801

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It is understandable for me to see your disappoint about R.F. or similar characters inside JW. Yes, perhaps your view about him is correct. But for many of us is of less concern why he wrote a book about GB and WT. We can feel sorrow for him or we can say he is/was hypocrite. Nevertheless, information's we get from his inside insight about WT GB mechanism are more important then he alone. Because "The Truth" is in question, not he, not me, not you. 

what would be the difference from any other ExJW that writes a book with the same old storylines? I don't see how his book is more special than any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Wouldn’t that be the point for Raymond? Self-serving especially having to rely on people like Carl to make a comparison. Was this an ExJW’s dream come true?

I can't really tell what you are trying to say.

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I would imagine there were more members at Bethel that would disagree with the interest of Raymond’s book, possed.

I imagine that the vast majority of people at Bethel never read any of the books by R.Franz, at least not while at Bethel. But they certainly wanted to talk about it, and to talk about things they had heard from others about the book.

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I have several Bethel members at my hall that didn’t find the appeal on how Raymond coined the phrase the truth.

Don't know what you mean. Surely you don't think that R.Franz coined that phrase. And surely you don't think that R.Franz claimed to have coined that phrase.

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Therefore, I don’t see any benefit for true Christians, maybe someone that poison the well like butler but that’s just hurting him.

I don't really see that J.Butler would be benefited from reading the book. I think he already has his mind completely made up about the usefulness of the Organization long before any talk of this book. But if a person can understand from a book such as this that the leadership of the Organization has a human side, and can figure out why Jehovah could still work with (and bless the efforts of) such humans to accomplish something good, I don't see how the book should necessarily hurt. I have a feeling he would read it just for "ammunition."

One benefit I see for true Christians, however, is that it should make us more humble, less presumptuous, and it helps us understand the difficult position of leadership of a the Organization when their is no direct inspiration, no signs, and no miracles. As more members of the Governing Body have explained, they see their role as trying to devote themselves to a study of the scriptures in order to guard the doctrine. They pray over the scriptures, and the best decisions, and best course to take, but there is no "magic wand." It's still a matter of trying to distinguish right from wrong by being spiritually minded persons who know that everything they decide should have a Biblical basis.

For the most part, this produces excellent results. But certain traditions and strongly entrenched things will not necessarily be improved if you only see yourselves as "guardians" of existing doctrine. But in spite of this, a lot of good changes have also taken place. I have not seen a year go by, when improvements were not made. (Especially since about 2000 when the role of the GB became more focused on doctrinal matters and less on legal and bureaucratic matters.)

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

But just like anything, being critical of the Bible student era has always been an argument for those that apostasy.

And it's also quite possible to be critical of what we should be critical of, to learn from their mistakes. And it's also possible to be critical and come to a better appreciation of Jehovah's ways and his patience.

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

What other misbegotten did Raymond inherit by following others rather than trust in God what he accomplished for the Watchtower just to throw it away because of pride?

Again, you make no sense. If this is another reference to Carl Olaf Jonsson per the argument that Allen Smith invariably brought up in this context, it is still a false argument. R.Franz discovered the problems with our chronology way back before 1969, while writing the Chronology entry in the Aid Book that came out in 1969. Jonsson had not even started his questioning of the chronology back then, had he? Brothers that I knew in Writing would not touch the Jonsson manuscript precisely because they already questioned the chronology and realized that they might get an assignment to rebut COJ if they took an interest. This is why it sat on a shelf, and was called the "hot potato" for at least a year, and no one dared touch it.

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Everything that goes inside at Bethel is not always made public no matter how hard anyone thinks the GB is an open book. So, no, if someone would have been critical of Raymond, it wouldn’t be ritually exposed.

Unfortunately, this is very true that much of what goes on in Bethel, especially within the GB, is not made public.

Share this post


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

I don't see how his book is more special than any other.

Actually, you might have hit on the exact reason that many Witnesses have read it secretly when you said:

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Everything that goes inside at Bethel is not always made public no matter how hard anyone thinks the GB is an open book.

It's the fact that he purports to tell people what went on in the GB.

Share this post


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

Again, you make no sense. If this is another reference to Carl Olaf Jonsson per the argument that Allen Smith invariably brought up in this context, it is still a false argument. R.Franz discovered the problems with our chronology way back before 1969, while writing the Chronology entry in the Aid Book that came out in 1969. Jonsson had not even started his questioning of the chronology back then, had he? Brothers that I knew in Writing would not touch the Jonsson manuscript precisely because they already questioned the chronology and realized that they might get an assignment to rebut COJ if they took an interest. This is why it sat on a shelf, and was called the "hot potato" for at least a year, and no one dared touch it.

Oh! I think we can give Raymond credit for mentioning Carl in his book as though new light was thrust upon his eyes. Evil has the tendency to blind people to the truth. 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.

That kind of nonsense belongs in an Ex-JW pile. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Now when they heard these things, they acquiesced, and they glorified God, saying: “Well, then, God has granted repentance for the purpose of life to people of the nations also.”   (Acts 11:18)

“When he would not be dissuaded, we acquiesced with the words: “Let the will of Jehovah take place.”  (Acts 21:14)

Sometimes a guy just has to acquiesce. There’s not enough acquiescing goin on here.

When I wrote ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates’ I could have gone one of two ways: ‘apostates’ who remained believers and those who went atheistic. I went the latter - the only group I could get my head around. The former produces nothing more than ineffectual islands, so far as I can tell. 

It’s fine not to acquiesce if you want to give up on God. But you must if you don’t want to give up on him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might have been one group that was missed. The presumption of an active member that acquiesce to the tune of false and misleading information. It’s always the quiet ones that are overlooked, even though they are the most dangerous when it comes to wisdom. James 1:26

I have looked for this Allen Smith that is being mentioned here. Once by Witness and once by JWinsider. Is this a punchline or an inside joke?

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. This is indeed a new light, can we say it is with wisdom?

It is true that some Bethel members defy scripture with gossip, does this bring new light or just another way of saying it’s a personal opinion on how I see things. Exodus 23:1,  2 Corinthians 12:20

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,668
    Total Topics
    114,411
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,504
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Leander H. McNelly
    Newest Member
    Leander H. McNelly
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It is interesting how from time to time, from post to post some unanimous individuals falling from some unknown Planet, and start giving down-vote symbol to other people comments.   :)))))  This is funny, but also very good. Because their reaction are proof how they read comments and found it serious to such level that they (comments) in fact pressed right bottom in people's minds and feelings. 
    • True but not any of my ancestors claimed to be the “faithful and discreet slave personally “ and God’s mouthpiece to the congregation of God’s true followers.
    • Obviously God did not inspire those paragraphs. They read very badly in 2019. Nevertheless, you shouldn't judge dead people by the morals of today. You probably have an ancestor that believed something similar yourself.
    • Dear @Arauna , nothing in my comments are written because of hate. Just try to openly discussing about religious practice and reasons for such beliefs and practice. 
    • @Arauna  So you are saying God's standards on child baptism have changed? Because if OUR standards as humans have obviously changed then that means that we weren't or aren't following God's will at some point. Correct? One could always make the argument like Watchtower always has that we should follow how things were done back in the first century Christian congregation. = Jesus set the example = Men should be baptized at the age of Jesus.  
    • Well the older the kid gets the harder to get that kid to be baptized.  No underage should get baptized as the price of changing their mind later is too high. 
    • For your reading pleasure this fine Tuesday afternoon. Today’s Watchtower articles come from the pen of our former and only loving Pastor, Charles Taze Russell and one quote from the 1932 Year Book of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Let’s dig into this spiritual food that flowed from God’s mouthpiece to our tables. The Watchtower April 15th, 1900 p 122; “There are probably as many as a hundred colored brethren on the Watch Tower lists, some of them very clear in the truth, and very earnest in its service, financially and other-wise .. [but they are not allowed to participate in the "pioneer work" as] although we have received letters from several of these, who had intended engaging in the volunteer work, expressing surprise that in the call for volunteers in the March 1, 1900 issue we restricted the inquiry to white Protestant churches. .. The reason is that so far as we are able to judge, colored people have less education than whites - many of them quite insufficient to permit them to profit by such reading as we have to give forth. Our conclusion therefore is based upon the supposition that reading matter distributed to a colored congregation would more than half of it be utterly wasted, and a very small percentage indeed likely to yield good results. We advise, therefore, that where the Watch Tower literature is introduced to colored people it be not by promiscuous circulation, but only to those who give evidence of some ear for the truth. We avoid, so far as possible, putting the pearls of present truth into the hands of the vicious and depraved ..” The Watchtower July 15th, 1902 p216; “The Negro Not a Beast .. that Ham's characteristics which had led him to unseemly conduct disrespectful to his father, would be found cropping out later, inherited by his son, and prophetically he foretold that this degeneracy would mark the posterity of Canaan, degrading him, making him servile. We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other.. We are not to forget, either, that Africa is inhabited by various tribes or nations of negroes - some more and some less degraded than the average.. While it is true that the white race exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other, we are to remember that there are wide differences in the same Caucasian (Semitic and Aryan) family.. The secret of the greater intelligence and aptitude of the Caucasian undoubtedly in great measure is to be attributed to the commingling of blood amongst its various branches; and this was evidently forced in large measure by circumstances under divine control. It remains to be proven that the similar commingling of the various tribes of Chinese for several centuries would not equally brighten their intellects; and the same with the peoples of India and Africa.” The Watchtower April 1st, 1908 p99 “The negro and Latin races will probably always be inclined to superstition.” Year Book 1932, pp 63-64 Colored Branch When our colored brethren were made a separate branch there was considerable objection on the part of some, these have the thought that the Colored or Negro race was being pushed aside. This was not the case, however. It was thought best for the Colored brethren to work amongst their own people, and the results show that this conclusion was correct. This concludes our racist study course for today. Golden Age 1920-'Agriculture and Husbandry' This was an old article speaking against the dangers of crossbreeding crops and the unusable 'hybrids' that resulted. Then added: "Even in the case of the human family, if the father and mother are of different races the children are sometimes unfit for brain work. Wonderful are the fixed laws of God." I think there were writers of the literature that held views with varying levels of racism. There were articles (c.1914) that spoke about how great it was that the 'colored friends' wanted to watch the Photodrama of Creation (oh, but so as not to offend the white attendees, lets segregate them to the balcony.) And... Watchtower 1952. "Really, our colored brothers have great cause for rejoicing. Their race is meek and teachable, and from it comes a high percentage of the theocratic increase. What if the worldly wise and powerful and noble look down on them as foolish and weak and ignoble, not on an equality with self-exalted whites? It is to God’s ultimate honor, for he confounds the wise of this world by choosing those the world considers foolish and weak and ignoble. Let us boast in Jehovah and in our equality in his sight, rather than wanting to boast in equality in the world’s sight." Then... Awake! 1953 Oct 8 p.6 "South Africa's whole color policy is conditioned by this fact and this fear: 80 per cent of her population is black; if the color bar is breached, what new dike can stop a black flood from overflowing and destroying the civilisation with which white man have displaced the wilderness?"
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • 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.