Jump to content

JOHN BUTLER

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

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN BUTLER -
Space Merchant -
430
5152

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You should have already bee aware that R.Franz never made any such claim like this either.

I see you are going to use my words against me. I find that insulting.

I'm sorry about insulting you. I don't think I am. Perhaps you can explain how.

I wish I knew a better way to say it. But it's still true that you are presenting something as if it is a fact, when it is clearly untrue.

You indicated that R.Franz said that in 'Watchtower literature . . . [it states] unequivocally the world would end in 1975'

That's the claim I was responding to. It's a false statement because R.Franz never said that in either of his books. In fact, you appear to have known this, or at least you know it by now. And you even offered a quote that shows that R.Franz understood exactly what the Watchtower literature was stating about 1975.

Unfortunately, when you wish to show someone that their words are not true, it seems best to quote which words aren't true. It's not like everything you said is untrue, so I didn't wish to make a blanket statements and assumptions about your ideology as you have about mine.

In fact the portion you quote from the chapter called "1975: 'The Appropriate Time for God to Act'" is quickly followed up with these words proving that R.Franz was being very accurate:

Had the organization said “flat out” that 1975 would mark the start
of the millennium? No. But the above paragraph was the climax to
which all of the involved, carefully constructed argumentation of that
chapter had been building.
No outright, unqualified prediction was made about 1975. But
the writer had been willing to declare it to be “appropriate” and “most
fitting on God’s part” if God would start the millennium at that
particular time. It would seem reasonable that for an imperfect man
to say what is or what is not “fitting” for the Almighty God to do
would call for quite a measure of certainty, surely not the mere
‘expression of an opinion.’ Discretion would require, rather, would
demand that. Even stronger is the subsequent statement that “it would
be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign
of Jesus Christ, the ‘Lord of the sabbath,’ to run parallel with the
seventh millennium of man’s existence,” which seventh millennium
had already been stated as due to begin in 1975.

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

Your characterization of me is 100% speculation. This is why we all have different opinions.

I had noted that you listed 5 points supposedly about R.Franz, and you got all 5 of them completely wrong about R.Franz, so I speculated that you didn't really know as much as you thought about him. By the way, this matches what you said earlier in this same topic about me. I hope you didn't think you were insulting me. 😉 

At any rate, I agree that we all have different opinions, and I think I can manage to avoid further speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm sorry about insulting you. I don't think I am. Perhaps you can explain how.

I wish I knew a better way to say it. But it's still true that you are presenting something as if it is a fact, when it is clearly untrue.

You indicated that R.Franz said that in 'Watchtower literature . . . [it states] unequivocally the world would end in 1975'

That's the claim I was responding to. It's a false statement because R.Franz never said that in either of his books.

Try separating the 2. 1 by what opposers believe, and 1 by the innuendoes Raymond implied. Why would he found it a need to stipulate how witnesses would feel if 1975 wasn't going to be realized as indicated by the Watchtower publications. Your defense of Raymond is illogical. Perhaps to a weak heart, you will have success.

Is this why you told TrueTom you couldn’t find anything about Cynthia when there is plenty of ex-witnesses to applaud her for sticking by her man? A man that failed as an intellectual and spiritual person. Sorry. I don’t hold him, his research, or books in high regards as you do.

That means we have a difference of opinion with Raymond criticizing the year 1975, as though people thought it would become the end of the world just like any weak-minded witness.

Word salads are insulting. When I prove you wrong, it is not conjecture. This is why defending Raymond is wrong. And if you bother to read the remarks in the WordPress, His actions had a serious impact on others in a negative Christian way.

Who was this man to decide? This is a question he will have to answer for leading God’s children astray. A question that some here will have to answer for.

Share this post


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

You also follow the example of Space Merchant on here,. You start off talking to one person then you drag as many peoples names  into your rant as you can find. 

Thank you for proving my point on how you view the GB. JWinsider used you as a "fine" example. He was wrong to do so since it was a horrible example coming from a meaningless person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

Thank you for proving my point on how you view the GB. JWinsider used you as a "fine" example. He was wrong to do so since it was a horrible example coming from a meaningless person.

You are totally weird Felix. i have not proved your point on anything. 

And your comments are not worth looking into. So I'll go back to listening to music on Youtube.

Anyone that tries having a meaningful conversation with you is wasting their time.

GB = 8 men who dream they are important. Just as you dream the same Felix.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

Is this why you told TrueTom you couldn’t find anything about Cynthia when there is plenty of ex-witnesses to applaud her for sticking by her man? A man that failed as an intellectual and spiritual person. Sorry. I don’t hold him, his research, or books in high regards as you do.

Hermano, deja que el incrédulo tenga su día. No vale la pena el tiempo que se imprime. La mentalidad apóstata es lo que el diablo apoya.

Share this post


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

the 2/3 majority vote just like it is done now with the majority rule, is NOT applicable to the conscience but to a sign from the Holy Spirit.

Another interesting belief. What you state would normally mean that you believe that seeing a 2/3 majority vote, is the same as seeing a sign from the Holy Spirit.

Amazingly, that would mean that when Brother Lloyd Barry saw that the vote was a two-thirds majority in the vote on alternative service, he should have recognized it as a sign from the Holy Spirit. But, then why would he decide to change his vote. We know that he had just realized that only one vote would make this go against the vote of Fred Franz. Could that be why? Or, if you are right, then he deliberately fought against a sign given by the holy spirit.

You have Brother Barry thinking something like the following:

"Oh look, a sign from the Holy Spirit -- a two-thirds majority. I wonder if I should kick against the goads of the Holy Spirit and change my vote, or just accept the sign. Well, it doesn't have to be me does it? After all Fred Franz saw it, too, and we call him the 'Oracle.' So surely Fred will see that there was as sign from the Holy Spirit and he will change his vote accordingly. But then again, we all know that the voting goes pretty much like this (as taken from CoC, p.279) : 

If, for example, the hands of Milton Henschel, Fred Franz, Ted
Jaracz and Lloyd Barry went up, one could generally be sure that the
hands of Carey Barber, Martin Poetzinger, William Jackson, George
Gangas, Grant Suiter and Jack Barr would go up as well. If the hands
of the former stayed down, the hands of the latter would generally
stay down also. Some others would likely vote with these but their
vote was not as predictable. With rare exceptions, this pattern prevailed.
The pattern held particularly true if any traditional policy or
position was under discussion. One could know beforehand those
members who would almost certainly vote in favor of maintaining
that traditional policy and against any change therein. Even in the case
of the “alternative service” issue, already discussed in a previous chapter,
though here outnumbered, these members were still able to prevent
a two-thirds majority vote from altering the position on that issue.

But we know that Fred Franz almost never changes his vote, and Klein won't change unless Fred does. But we do have Jaracz going against his usual pattern and voting to change this thing, even though Franz is voting to leave it as it is. So really it should be be Jaracz who changes his vote. Maybe I can find some excuse, and then change my vote to be in line with Fred Franz again. I owe him after that GB vote where I begged him to join the rest of us to make it unanimous.

As it happened, Barry was able to find an excuse to change his vote. So he did. Then the vote had to come up again to see if it would still pass. This time Barry stepped away so as not to be included. The first time it was F.Franz, Henschel, Jackson and Klein who opposed the change. If one more had taken his place, it would have passed with the two-thirds majority. But this time Carey Barber switched sides, too. And Jaracz, who had voted for it the first time, abstained from voting.

 

Share this post


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

Another interesting belief. What you state would normally mean that you believe that seeing a 2/3 majority vote, is the same as seeing a sign from the Holy Spirit.

Wrong again. There is no such thing as having a vote from the Holy Spirit. Once again, try not to obscure, administrative with the gift of the Holy Spirit. To give people spiritual nourishment, the responsible body has to be in full accord when receiving the same gift from God. Don't quote me Raymond's books anymore, that's insulting too.

Share this post


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

There is no such thing as having a vote from the Holy Spirit.

I didn't say there was. And I never thought you were saying there was.

11 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Don't quote me Raymond's books anymore, that's insulting too.

I won't be quoting it for you. But why would you claim he said something in his book and then find it insulting when I show you that he said the opposite? Isn't it possible to simply acknowledge or even apologize for the error and move on without feeling insulted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I won't be quoting it for you. But why would you claim he said something in his book and then find it insulting when I show you that he said the opposite. Isn't it possible to simply acknowledge or even apologize for the error and move on without feeling insulted?

I figured you would use wordplay here. I had to swallow my pride to show your bias, with Raymond’s books. That doesn’t mean I will continue to indulge you in promoting a failed man’s ideals. 😉

The End: Eschatological Re-Enchantment 295

They 'seemed stunned but refused to admit that they and they alone were responsible for the cognitive dissonance that was now so common among Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide'.'07 Later, in 1976, Raymond Franz, who was to become President of the organization on 7 June 1977, conceded that there had been a prophecy, but explained its apparent failure to a large gathering in a way that distanced the leadership from blame: 'It was because you expected something to happen.' In other words, as Penton says, 'since Jesus had predicted that no one would know "the day or hour" of his coming to judge mankind, the Witnesses should not have believed that they could know that it would occur in 1975.'108 The leadership also provided an exegetical explanation for the failure: 'The answer has been to recognise that 6000 years since the creation of man may have properly begun, not with Adam, but only when creation was complete - when God made Adam and Eve.'109 Noting that prior to Eve's creation, Adam had been naming the animals for an unspecified amount of time, it was argued that this time should now be added and considered 'extra time' for evangelism prior to Armageddon. That said, although the prophetic failure of 1975 was explained, and while it did not lead to an overall collapse of belief, the growth rate of the…”

 

Why would such nonsense be written by others if Raymond believed on what he held as the truth? He was well aware the society was referring to the 6000 years of mankind, yet he conceded to a wide erroneous assumption that he ended admitting to. Once again, who was this man to decide to place the organization in such a bad light, if he knew full well what the writing department meant through the Watchtower publication? That means he was wrong to concede on an idea that wasn’t there, THE END OF THE WORLD IN 1975. That means you are wrong also. It’s clear you never really knew the man, just through his books.

Share this post


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

Is this why you told TrueTom you couldn’t find anything about Cynthia 

The reason I asked about her is that the brother who aided me into the truth later became an opposer. Along with his wife, they both left the congregation. They afterwards divorced. Years later his wife returned and she is an active Witness now in another state. So I wondered about Franz’s wife, not that I was in any way equating the two couples.

Share this post


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

The reason I asked about her is that the brother who aided me into the truth later became an opposer. Along with his wife, they both left the congregation. They afterwards divorced. Years later his wife returned and she is an active Witness now in another state. So I wondered about Franz’s wife, not that I was in any way equating the two couples. 

I didn’t mean to imply anything negative. I have no knowledge of your personal relationships. If I made you feel uncomfortable, my apologies.

Cynthia passed away supporting her husband to the very end. Any good wife would. Right or wrong.

This is why Raymond left a bad taste on some peoples mouth. Being conflicted when he shouldn’t have been.

ray.jpg

 

 

Share this post


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

I didn’t mean to imply anything negative. I have no knowledge of your personal relationships. If I made you feel uncomfortable, my apologies.

Not to worry. All is well.

Share this post


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

Now perhaps you would like to expand on what you mean by 1996 and the dishonest claim you have about the 16 years in prison? I don’t need to ask an Ex-JW with tainted information from apostate sites, I’m asking you . . .

I know you asked for a response, but you have sometimes indicated that you feel insulted by my responses, so this response is directed only to others who might have also wondered what I meant.

I was referring to the 16 years between late 1979, the last time when R.Franz was involved in the last vote on this issue, and 1996, when the Society finally was able to get a large enough majority for the second time, and the change was finally made. Many brothers who would not have gone to prison by being allowed to act upon their own conscience during those extra 16 years, actually did serve prison time during those years. 

Anyone who wishes can probably see that this is a point that R.Franz made in his book, here:

The twothirds
majority was gone. After further discussion, when another
vote was taken it read: Nine in favor, five against, one abstention.
Though still a definite majority it was no longer a two-thirds majority.
Though only a minority of the Governing Body favored the
continuance of the existing policy and the sanctions it applied toward
any who accepted alternative service (unless sentenced
thereto), that policy remained in effect. Year after year, hundreds
of men, submitting to that policy although neither understanding
it nor being convinced of its rightness, would continue to be arrested,
tried, and imprisoned—because one individual on a religious
council changed his mind. Witness men could exercise their
conscientious choice of accepting alternative service only at the
cost of being cut off from the congregations of which they were a
part, being viewed as unfaithful to God and Christ.
Surely such instances make clear why no Christian should ever
be expected to mortgage his conscience to any religious organization
or to any body of men exercising virtually unlimited authority
over people’s lives. I found the whole affair disheartening,
tragic. Yet I felt that I learned more clearly just to what ends the
very nature of an authority structure can lead men, how it can cause
them to take rigid positions they would not normally take. This case
illustrated the way in which the power of tradition, coupled with
a technical legalism and a mistrust of people’s motives, can prevent
one from taking a compassionate stand.
The matter came up on one other occasion and the vote was
evenly split. Thereafter it was dropped and for most members it
seemed to become a non-issue. The organization, following its
voting rules, had spoken. The Branch Committees’ arguments need
not be answered—they could simply be informed that “nothing had
changed” and they would proceed accordingly. The men in prison
would never know that the matter had even been discussed and that,
consistently, half or more of the Governing Body did not believe
they needed to be where they were.

...

If the published statements in the Watchtower and Awake!
magazines have any validity at all, then, when compared with the
statements of these Branch Committee members, they clearly identify
these young Witness men as either very vulnerable to brainwashing
or as already victims of indoctrination and mass persuasion.
In 1996, when the organization reversed its policy on alternative
service, many hundreds, even thousands, of these young
men were right then in prison, like thousands before them, but they
really did not know why the position they took, which led to their
imprisonment, should have been taken. They accepted a policy
without seeing a sound basis for it, they allowed their decisions to
be governed, not by solid evidence from God’s Word, but by
“group loyalty,” and “organizational loyalty.” These are the same
forces that give such potency to indoctrination on the part of what
Witnesses call “worldly” organizations. It is a case of doing what
one’s associates do and what the authority (the organization) says,
even though one finds the reasons given to be insubstantial, even
“artificial.” The view of alternative service these persons accepted
was clearly a “borrowed” one, not their own. Concern over what
others in their religious community would think, concern over reprisals
by the organization in the form of excommunication, certainly
must have weighed heavily in their thinking, causing them
to shut out any questions from their minds and simply submit.
These young Witness men stood before government tribunals and
declared themselves bound to an uncompromising position of rejecting
alternative service unless first arrested and tried and sentenced
to perform it by a judge, and they perhaps thought that such
was their own conviction. But their inability to explain the reason
for their stand shows that someone else has done their thinking for
them. Recall the Watchtower statements earlier quoted:

 

Share this post


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

These young Witness men stood before government tribunals and
declared themselves bound to an uncompromising position of rejecting
alternative service unless first arrested and tried and sentenced
to perform it by a judge, and they perhaps thought that such
was their own conviction. But their inability to explain the reason
for their stand shows that someone else has done their thinking for
them.

Just one moment for say something as general conversation :)))

In this part of world in that period of time (until 1988/89, with fall of Wall and democratic changes in East Europe and in Yugoslavia) there is no alternative service. After, with time, came optional services with this GB "philosophy". Who is in charge and order service? Nonsense of sort, for sure.

Today, looking on my period in prison, jail, and obligation on going to army, I came to conclusion how decision to reject army service is more decision of WT Corporation aka JW Church than my clear conscience stand on  matter. Perhaps i assured my self it is my conscience, but in fact it was about behavior according to group (JW congregation) i was belong in that time. It was expected to do it that way. 

Similar as to  expectations and obligation on JW brothers to not wearing beards :)))). If you want be ok for God, for congregation, do shave every day :))) Issue is not for comparison, but "principle" coming from same idea. To be different, to not to be "part of the world", "to be holy".

Levels of our obligations and obeys to man, is in gradation. You will obey something to certain level, until your "conscience" or belonging to particular group, or Bible verse (interpretation of that verse) said you to NOT doing or obey man, authority or so.

Similar is with army service. If young man wearing uniform, running whole day to get condition, cleaning, learning about weapons, shooting and so ... but not hurt anyone, then some will find such activity to be acceptable. When somebody order you to kill other people, that is situation in what you must have your stand and do as you think is right.

Some religious groups are very active in "proselytizing", preaching to other people. Some have unique "uniforms" and others are "civilians". But their "service" as "soldier of Christ" or "soldier" of their church, can bring also some good and some very bad results. This religious service in the name of god are called "spiritual battles". And all such "soldiers" are able, in spiritual sense, accidentally or purposely, to hurt and to "kill" other people with, sometimes,  persistent consequences. Religious teachings are the "bullets".

Parable...... Well, FDS aka GB are "Army officers" for 8 mil JW members. Would you as  an ordinary JW  rank and file "soldier" obey all commands coming from GB "superior authority"?? 

   

Share this post


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

They 'seemed stunned but refused to admit that they and they alone were responsible for the cognitive dissonance that was now so common among Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide'.'07 Later, in 1976, Raymond Franz, who was to become President of the organization on 7 June 1977, conceded that there had been a prophecy, but explained its apparent failure to a large gathering in a way that distanced the leadership from blame: 'It was because you expected something to happen.'

You are wrong, but it's easy to see where the mistake comes from. You apparently didn't realize that it was not Raymond Franz who became President on June 7 1977, but it was Frederick Franz, and that it was Frederick Franz, not Raymond Franz, who explained to a large gathering* that 1975 didn't happen because it was the fault of Witnesses in the audience for expecting it. You can still get the audio recording of Fred Franz making this outrageous accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses.

Your quote is from The Re-Enchantment of the West, Vol 2, p.295, by Christopher Partridge. Yes, it's true that Partridge claims that "Raymond Franz conceded that there had been a prophecy" and that it had failed. The book makes it appear that, as you said, Raymond Franz "conceded to a wide erroneous assumption that he ended admitting to." As you said:

9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

He was well aware the society was referring to the 6000 years of mankind, yet he conceded to a wide erroneous assumption that he ended admitting to. Once again, who was this man to decide to place the organization in such a bad light, if he knew full well what the writing department meant through the Watchtower publication?

The actual talk by F. W. Franz is one for which I have never heard a recording. It was at a new Assembly Hall in Canada. The talk has been described in several places. I just found the following from a Google search that pointed to a book by Edmund C. Gruss: 

image.png

10 hours ago, FelixCA said:

That means he was wrong to concede on an idea that wasn’t there, THE END OF THE WORLD IN 1975. That means you are wrong also. It’s clear you never really knew the man, just through his books.

I just listened again to the talk that F.W.Franz gave on February 10, 1975 in Los Angeles. I had heard it right after my grandmother recorded it. She was all excited about it. And I was too at the time. But I remember my father still downplaying the date, and saying to listen very closely to what he is NOT saying. I listened again this morning and got a slightly different opinion of it. I realize that Frederick W Franz was actually using deception, pure and simple, to get people to think he was saying one thing while not quite saying it, saying something only slightly different. And it was working very well. He had a good part of the audience "reading between the lines" as you can tell by their applause.

It's a little off topic, but I listened to it from this YouTube video that follows along in the same book that Franz is asking the audience to take note of.

The assembly lapel ID badge shown is not actually related directly to the same talk. It's just what was attached to the video. The actual context of the badge is from 1970 and early 1971. Note the Our Kingdom Ministry that year:

*** km 7/70 p. 3 Announcements ***
A new circuit assembly program is scheduled to begin in September. We believe you will find it most informative and upbuilding. The public talk will be “Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970’s?”

 

Share this post


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

I know you asked for a response, but you have sometimes indicated that you feel insulted by my responses, so this response is directed only to others who might have also wondered what I meant.

I was referring to the 16 years between late 1979, the last time when R.Franz was involved in the last vote on this issue, and 1996, when the Society finally was able to get a large enough majority for the second time, and the change was finally made. Many brothers who would not have gone to prison by being allowed to act upon their own conscience during those extra 16 years, actually did serve prison time during those years. 

Anyone who wishes can probably see that this is a point that R.Franz made in his book, here:

The twothirds
majority was gone. After further discussion, when another
vote was taken it read: Nine in favor, five against, one abstention.
Though still a definite majority it was no longer a two-thirds majority.
Though only a minority of the Governing Body favored the
continuance of the existing policy and the sanctions it applied toward
any who accepted alternative service (unless sentenced
thereto), that policy remained in effect. Year after year, hundreds
of men, submitting to that policy although neither understanding
it nor being convinced of its rightness, would continue to be arrested,
tried, and imprisoned—because one individual on a religious
council changed his mind. Witness men could exercise their
conscientious choice of accepting alternative service only at the
cost of being cut off from the congregations of which they were a
part, being viewed as unfaithful to God and Christ.
Surely such instances make clear why no Christian should ever
be expected to mortgage his conscience to any religious organization
or to any body of men exercising virtually unlimited authority
over people’s lives. I found the whole affair disheartening,
tragic. Yet I felt that I learned more clearly just to what ends the
very nature of an authority structure can lead men, how it can cause
them to take rigid positions they would not normally take. This case
illustrated the way in which the power of tradition, coupled with
a technical legalism and a mistrust of people’s motives, can prevent
one from taking a compassionate stand.
The matter came up on one other occasion and the vote was
evenly split. Thereafter it was dropped and for most members it
seemed to become a non-issue. The organization, following its
voting rules, had spoken. The Branch Committees’ arguments need
not be answered—they could simply be informed that “nothing had
changed” and they would proceed accordingly. The men in prison
would never know that the matter had even been discussed and that,
consistently, half or more of the Governing Body did not believe
they needed to be where they were.

...

If the published statements in the Watchtower and Awake!
magazines have any validity at all, then, when compared with the
statements of these Branch Committee members, they clearly identify
these young Witness men as either very vulnerable to brainwashing
or as already victims of indoctrination and mass persuasion.
In 1996, when the organization reversed its policy on alternative
service, many hundreds, even thousands, of these young
men were right then in prison, like thousands before them, but they
really did not know why the position they took, which led to their
imprisonment, should have been taken. They accepted a policy
without seeing a sound basis for it, they allowed their decisions to
be governed, not by solid evidence from God’s Word, but by
“group loyalty,” and “organizational loyalty.” These are the same
forces that give such potency to indoctrination on the part of what
Witnesses call “worldly” organizations. It is a case of doing what
one’s associates do and what the authority (the organization) says,
even though one finds the reasons given to be insubstantial, even
“artificial.” The view of alternative service these persons accepted
was clearly a “borrowed” one, not their own. Concern over what
others in their religious community would think, concern over reprisals
by the organization in the form of excommunication, certainly
must have weighed heavily in their thinking, causing them
to shut out any questions from their minds and simply submit.
These young Witness men stood before government tribunals and
declared themselves bound to an uncompromising position of rejecting
alternative service unless first arrested and tried and sentenced
to perform it by a judge, and they perhaps thought that such
was their own conviction. But their inability to explain the reason
for their stand shows that someone else has done their thinking for
them. Recall the Watchtower statements earlier quoted:

 

So let's be blunt. The Governing Body sat on their arses in some nice room and decided other men should go to prison. There was basically no scriptural reasons for it. The GB just had that power over people to do it.

Now that proves how much those people were serving the GB. The GB did not give them the choice to use their God given conscience. It proves dictatorship.

Felix is a GB worshiper so I'm not interested in his opinions on this. 

As you have posted  "But their inability to explain the reason for their stand shows that someone else has done their thinking for
them."  That says it all. Case proven. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Srecko Sostar  Quote " Today, looking on my period in prison, jail, and obligation on going to army, I came to conclusion how decision to reject army service is more decision of WT Corporation aka JW Church than my clear conscience stand on  matter. Perhaps i assured my self it is my conscience, but in fact it was about behavior according to group (JW congregation) i was belong in that time. It was expected to do it that way. "

Srecko, I have tears for you my friend. The GB have a lot of things to answer for. 

I hope God removes the GB from 'power' and replaces them with a true Anointed class. 

Share this post


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

@Srecko Sostar  Quote " Today, looking on my period in prison, jail, and obligation on going to army, I came to conclusion how decision to reject army service is more decision of WT Corporation aka JW Church than my clear conscience stand on  matter. Perhaps i assured my self it is my conscience, but in fact it was about behavior according to group (JW congregation) i was belong in that time. It was expected to do it that way. "

Srecko, I have tears for you my friend. The GB have a lot of things to answer for. 

I hope God removes the GB from 'power' and replaces them with a true Anointed class. 

Thanks John for emotions you put publicly.

All in all, my prison time went well, working, going to school inside prison walls, not have problems with other prisoners, after 2 years get my first vacation to visit home. I am kind of introvert, and to be alone is not so harsh punishment  in my case :))) i like more to be alone in 3x2,5 cell than in crowd. Perhaps .... or certainly/ obviously.... i have some unsolved psycho and early childhood issues :))))   

Share this post


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

You are wrong, but it's easy to see where the mistake comes from. You apparently didn't realize that it was not Raymond Franz who became President on June 7 1977, but it was Frederick Franz, and that it was Frederick Franz, not Raymond Franz, who explained to a large gathering* that 1975 didn't happen because it was the fault of Witnesses in the audience for expecting it. You can still get the audio recording of Fred Franz making this outrageous accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses.

As usual. Once again, you are wrong to think I have any input on what others were saying. So, don’t put words in my mouth to make an insulting conclusion.

What does selective service have to do with anything Raymond corrupted because of his action? It appears you continue to evade the issue on why the claim of apostasy was levied on him.

If he was an innocent man, why did he evade having to justify what he referred to about 3 simple principles?

1.       144,000 interpretation

2.       33AD interpretation

3.       1914 interpretation

Initially, he had the first meeting taped, even though he claimed he was wronged by not getting a copy. He wasn’t wronged as he stated since the first committee didn’t involve the allegation of GOSSIP, by many Bethel members.

He could have simply stated his position but instead evaded. This is when a member referenced he resign. An innocent man would not have resigned.

That just shows, either he was too proud, or the claims were true, not just on his position of rejecting those 3 claims, but also being involved in the Gossip of certain high ranking members teaching such a doctrine at the kingdom halls.

So, your attempts of proof to justify Raymond’s actions are meant to obscure what really went on at Bethel, just as you are attempting to sway the same ideology for him. Therefore, your submissions are inconsequential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





×
×
  • 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.