FelixCA

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

I have several Bethel members at my hall that didn’t find the appeal on how Raymond coined the phrase the truth. Therefore, I don’t see any benefit for true Christians, maybe someone that poison the well like butler but that’s just hurting him.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

This would be a good view if it was given as a good cause. Unfortunately, Raymond actions became centered in not being genuine but self-serving.

People at Bethel can say whatever they wish as an opinion, but Raymond’s actions spoke for themselves. Sincerity was not an option for him. Blind rage was.

That type of action affected others to promote apostate understandings, not biblical ones. Those that accepted his kind of methodology did so with a willful mind to accept what men claimed as fact, rather than be reliant on the fact that we are guided by God’s Holy Spirit. That makes a world of difference in Bible understanding.

I remember the last time I confronted an apostate (who said he was a a Christian) and spoke of God, he said he'd kill me even though he was twice my age, even dared me to go to his town and that I'd be praying to wishing God was here in person when he is done with me. It didn't faze me that much because I was right about what I said because he was saying untrue things about God and about Moses and the Israelites. He was angry because he was corrected on the Old Testament. Even before that some of these apostates attacked the hall I was at, and caused someone who is connected to a sister to go to war against the apostates.
Always another day in the office it seems.

It is evident in Raymond's case, that he only wrote what the Societies' understanding of those dates were at the time. He added nothing of his own understanding or interpretation to these dates. He quotes nobody else but the Societies' literature concerning these dates. It had nothing to do with anyone else's perception but only of the perception of those who mentioned these dates in the first place ( Barbour, Russell, Rutherford, Franz...)
These dates are only a common theme for ex-JW books because most of them derived this information from Raymond's books
I think they understood these dates, but most of these dates failed in their expectations and had to be revised, several times. I think it is up to each individual person to asses whether this is meaningless for them or not.
I am not sure what you mean by this. But assuming I understand what you mean then again, I don't think this is a matter of personal opinion if you quote (in context) the other party. I think it became quite clear how certain things were supposed to be understood. Many times it was crystal clear.
I am assuming you mean that Raymond put too much faith in his own research of the society? If that's what you mean then it doesn't make any difference whether Raymond put faith in his research or not because research, or the evidence provided, should be able to stand on it's own, and it should be up to each individual to decide how much faith they will put in the evidence shown. It's what we do with our Bible studies, we show them evidence, and on the basis of that evidence the student decides whether they will accept it or not, or reach a different conclusion. It doesn't matter how much faith in that evidence we have ourselves.
If you mean that Raymond did separate parallel research on the same subject as the organization, then I do not see that in his first book (I didn't read his second book). From what I've seen, Raymond merely reports on beliefs already held, and how those beliefs had to change due to inaccuracies. I do not see him espousing his own ideas.
Well he 'only' quoted the organizations own literature and or/letters from branch offices.  So you decide by whose standards are they correct.
I don't think that this late in the stream of time it is difficult at all for anyone to see that the organization has had wrong expectations and understanding. Time itself has has proved this. No one has to try very hard at all.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-doctrine-changes/#?insight[search_id]=2d58f3a4-a39b-4bab-8385-d3b8065094d5&insight[search_result_index]=1
What Raymond does focus on though is how some of these misunderstandings have had detrimental results in the lives of some friends.
Distorted information has no benefit of course. Did you have something in mind in Raymond's book that would be considered distorted information? There are some things I remember that I did not agree on, but it has been a while since I read the book and I cannot remember what they were. Perhaps you can be quicker in giving an example.

So, the thoughts of men. Or it seems the thoughts of one man. 
To be sure God had no part in such reasoning. 
It seems homosexuality and probably sex with animals was enough for God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but not enough for divorce it seems  

I think you would willingly follow the GB over a cliff if you were told to. You'd think it was God's will.  
It's not dumb things the GB do, it's deliberate things it seems. 
If a religion does a hundred things they are bound to get a few of them right.
More people are turning to Islam but it doesn't make it right does it ? Lots of religions are 'still running', like an old car.

@Anna  Quote "those who have seen the ‘Truth’  transform lives for the better..."  Misuse of the word Truth. Truth is from God through Jesus Christ, NOT through the GB of JW Org. 
" and have experienced the liberation from Christendom’s false teachings (and other religions) and have seen the puzzle pieces of pure teachings of the Bible become a clear picture, .. "
You jest of course ? When teachings /doctrines change constantly. Twisting the meanings of scripture. Are you sooo blind. ? 
" and those who’s faith is grounded  in Jehovah and not mere man, "  It gets funnier. 
It seems to have been proved that no one should disagree with the GB now, and at that time one member of it . . 
@JW Insider " Fred Franz was always considered the only one who could come up with a change in scriptural doctrine, or "new truth" as we called it. Creating the Governing Body in about 1971 didn't change this. In fact, when a few people started speaking up with questions about doctrine, the GB was expanded with a lot more " F.Franz loyalists" who would never dare vote against F.Franz "
" faith in the Governing Body "  Your words Anna. 
And then you dare to compare the GB with Jesus. "..whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life” "
I know the GB think they are equal or even above Jesus but .... 
JESUS PROVED WHO HE WAS.  It was so clear to those alive there at that time. 
Why do you try to compare those times with now ?  There is no comparison on some things. 

I hope some of our thoughts are the same, but it doesn't matter. Each one stands on his own before the judgment seat of God. I appreciate especially his last thoughts about the topic, just above. I'm not trying to win any converts to my own conscience, though. And I think he (TTH) has made it clear that he disagrees with much of what I say. I think it's fine to disagree. We should be able to hash out our own concerns and issues on a forum such as this, without being disagreeable in person with brothers and sisters who have not subscribed to a discussion of issues as we have here. Hopefully, we can learn from our experiences, and learn from each other. Many things in this life won't matter in the long run.

@JW Insider  Quote " Fred Franz was always considered the only one who could come up with a change in scriptural doctrine, or "new truth" as we called it. Creating the Governing Body in about 1971 didn't change this. In fact, when a few people started speaking up with questions about doctrine, the GB was expanded with a lot more " F.Franz loyalists" "
Is this the truth or just your opinion ?  If it is truth then it is a big worry. 
So who rules the GB now then ? 
Each thing i read makes the JW Org seem worse and worse, hence i ask if this information above definitely true or just opinion ? 
Reminds me of when ONE Elder threatened to disfellowship me for slander. He thought he had that authority.  

@TrueTomHarley  Quote " Almost everything on every thread here (at least the ones I frequent) are advancing or defending against an attempt to undermine the earthly organization. The appeal of undermining it is irresistible. "
Sorry to hear you have such a pessimistic view of debate. 
How about considering that some of us are actually looking for truth. God's truth, not GB / JW org truth. 
And again some of us are giving a warning about certain things within the JW Org that may be a danger to others.
 

Quote " Within the Governing Body, he would vote against creating a new rule that married couples could be disfellowshipped for oral sex, for example. " 
Quote "The Watchtower claimed that a man could have homosexual relations with another man or an animal, and it was not "fornication" and thus did not constitute grounds for a scriptural divorce.. "
Oh dear it's gets funnier every day. I'm sorry but I'm sat here laughing.
It really does make the GB look like a group of perverts. 
@JW Insider   So can you please tell me the GB / JW Org views /rules on these two matter now ? 
If I had been asked about what my wife and I did in our sexual activities, I would have told the Elders it's none of their business. It is between Jesus Christ (who has been given the right to judge) and my wife and I. 
The threefold cord, does not include the GB or the Elders. 
Sorry I've just got to add a comment from my wife here, after I talked to her about all this, She said about the GB
" They're not the Messiah, they're very naughty boys " (A line from a film you may know) 

Well-said. I see your point. It's also true that we only have his side of the story. And I know there was some concern among at least one of his peers to take care of some of the issues he exposed as soon as possible.
But these issues he brings up, along with a review of our own organizational history from WT publications, all support the idea that someone in his situation could easily have had a crisis of conscience. I think he should have had one. I thought it should have led to him resigning from the Governing Body before he was asked to resign, rather than just take a leave of absence from the Governing Body during this time of crisis.
His crisis seems to be initially about whether he should have continued to work for more scriptural policies from the inside, or whether he should stand up more strongly for his own beliefs, or whether he should acquiesce. For years, apparently, he always acquiesced. Within the Governing Body, he would vote against creating a new rule that married couples could be disfellowshipped for oral sex, for example. But then when overruled by at least two-thirds of the rest of the Governing Body, who got the assignment to write it up?
He would be the one asked to write up the Watchtower article to provide the scriptural defense of something he conscientiously believed was not scriptural. Kind of like your point (in TTvTA) about how people are taught to debate by being assigned either side of an argument.
Now as a member of the Governing Body, he could remain and fight for what he thought was the scriptural position: that there was no explicit Bible rule stating that married couples must be dragged through a judicial hearing if, for some reason, the couple admitted to a friend, for example, that they had engaged in oral sex of some kind.
At the same time, the Watchtower claimed that a man could have homosexual relations with another man or an animal, and it was not "fornication" and thus did not constitute grounds for a scriptural divorce. R.Franz still believed, as did his colleagues, that these forms of sex were wrong, and not to be engaged in, and that the person could be disfellowshipped. But for some reason he did not stand up for his conscience and take a stand against what was clearly an unscriptural case of using the supposed "letter of the law" to kill the "spirit of the law."
Of course, he reports that he did fight for the change, from the inside, and sometimes it would take months of collecting letters to the Service Department, and sometimes it would take years. And patience. But in large part, apparently, these areas of conscience were resolved and the rest of the Governing Body finally acquiesced. We have the Watchtower articles that provide evidence to fit his claims.
This might sound self-aggrandizing for R.Franz, but it makes perfect sense considering the persons who made up the Governing Body.
Working as an artist for most of my 4 years at Bethel, I knew who was writing which articles and books. In fact, the initials of the writer and an additional series of initials of those who had seen and approved the article were always at the top of the first typewritten page. This also helped proofreaders and artists know who their department head might talk to if there was a question.
Listening to the Governing Body members rotate through their 15 minute talks every day, sometimes rambling unprepared, and sometimes well organized, it was easy to tell who deferred to whom, and which members were interested in Bible topics and which were interested in organizational rules, and rarely did the twain meet.
Between that experience of hearing them speak daily and knowing which Watchtower articles a GB member had written lets me know that everything R.Franz says in the book makes perfect sense with respect to those who spoke up and what they probably would have said during GB meetings. I should also add that I could sometimes hear L.Swingle and F.Rusk (non-GB) speaking to other writers from their offices. (Most GB members never wrote a Watchtower article, and most had almost nothing to do with Writing of any kind.) It also makes sense why, by way of explanation, R.Franz goes into the history of the creation of the Governing Body from the time it began in the early 70's.

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

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

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

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

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.
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. 
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.
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?

I don't think it makes the GB look like perverts. But it does support the claim that R.Franz made in his book, that there was too much concern over legalistic rules without as much concern about the overall "spirit" of Christianity.
First of all, the idea that consenting oral sex within marriage is a disfellowshipping offense comes from the Watchtower, 12/1/1972 p. 735, 2/15/1976 p.122, 11/15/1974 p.704. The idea that homosexuality and bestiality on the part of a spouse in marriage will not qualify a marriage mate for a scriptural divorce comes from the Watchtower,  1/1/1972 p. 32.
In both cases it was due to a definition that F.Franz gave to the Greek word "porneia." Since at least the time of Rutherford's death, Fred Franz was always considered the only one who could come up with a change in scriptural doctrine, or "new truth" as we called it. Creating the Governing Body in about 1971 didn't change this. In fact, when a few people started speaking up with questions about doctrine, the GB was expanded with a lot more " F.Franz loyalists" who would never dare vote against F.Franz. For a while Schroeder was about the only one who would dare to test this deference to F.Franz and try promoting new scriptural teachings on his own by putting them in assembly talks or Gilead lectures. But he got shot down on anything major. Many of his ideas really were crazy, but he had one major good idea that finally got approved, about a decade after he died. It was not an idea that could have been changed during F.Franz lifetime. (Brother Splane admits that Schroeder had been a source of the idea in one of the JW Broadcasts. I'll explain elsewhere.)
At any rate, these practices are considered wrong and one still could be disfellowshipped for oral sex within marriage, but it will be a much more rare occurrence, because elders are instructed not to go out of their way to investigate allegations or follow up even on confessions, except to give counsel. If the person had a title (elder, ms, pioneer) they would likely lose the title for a time, and only be disfellowshipped if they said they would defy the counsel and continue the practice. Also, bestiality and homosexuality are now included in the definition of the Greek word porneia and can now constitute scriptural grounds for divorce and remarriage. (A couple could always separate, although it was optional, but now they can remarry after a scriptural divorce.)

“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.
 

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.

Poor Felix like a baby throwing his toys out of the pram again. 
Quote Felix "How convenient to all of a sudden develop a conscience to justify his own actions.. "
Um, one can only develop a conscience over time as one put things together. Things build up over time as one gathers information. So one's conscience builds with the more information one has on a subject.
But then it seems Felix has suddenly been given power from 'above' to judge Raymond Franz. 
Quote "I’m not mentally challenged spiritually .". That makes no sense at all. Spiritual things give wisdom from God.. Whereas we think mentally of our own choice. 
And this silly word 'apostate' is so misused now it really has no meaning at all. 
Remember, an apostate is someone that turns away from a former religion. They do not necessarily turn away from God or Jesus Christ. 
So it seems that Raymond Franz chose to serve God and not serve the GB or JW org. Hence the GB got annoyed with him. 
And once again we see typical GB / JW org attitude whereby Felix thinks he has the right to tell someone where to post his comments. 
As for faithful followers of Christ. A lot of them are already out, out of JW Org that is  ....

So far scripture stipulates those that can take the lead. You seem to fail in wanting to acknowledge their needs to be a party responsible in any given organization as instructed by Jesus. A faithful servant, reputable men, shepherd of a flock. All these are found in scripture you seem to dismiss. The ancients had prophets as guides. Christianity was guided by Christ and instructed to do the same throughout the world. With responsible people in the lead. Why defy Jesus instructions and God’s laws. 2 Timothy 4:3-4
What part of Christ words in Acts 20:28-30 fails you. These are the inspired words of God through John 1:1
Then it is yourself that are altering Jesus teachings. Then you should consider placing yourself in the same category as the GB. It’s dishonest to claim scripture as a convenience. 1 John 4:1-6
Therefore, can you give me verification the Watchtower GB is NOT God’s coordinated helpers on earth as God's will is in heaven?
On the rest, it appears the interpretation you give on scripture is misguided. Can anyone listen to a corrupter of God's word? Once again, wouldn’t that put you in the same category as these “Pharisaical leaders” you hate? Matthew 16:11-12
It appears the same problem Raymond Franz had after confusing scripture with his own personal desire.
All that the GB is about is written in scripture. In effect, the Watchtower constitution. What, is your constitution and doctrine when having people understand scripture the incorrect way for personal gain. Therefore, no one is adding to Christ instructions aside from those that hate a fellow Christian Colossians 2:4

Apparently, you must not have known the Franz’s as well as you claim including other governing body members. However, having read Raymond books, I can unequivocally state I reject the claims about the organization. Therefore, your argument is incorrect. Here is a man that found confusion with cynicism. Who put him up to it?
One area which is true would be how the POPE saw itself. In the beginning, they saw themselves as equal to Christ, thus being incapable of doing wrong. This, of course, is ludicrous since no one made the pope perfect. It doesn’t take Raymond’s books to bring to light something that should be already known to Christians. Therefore, a poor example.

This proves the reach Satan has and the bad influence that affects the world. It would be like telling God it was his fault Adam and Eve became imperfect after being created perfect (sinless). So I don’t see where blaming an organization, a group, or society makes any sense. Where would free be, if implied after a single person’s decision was made that had a costly effect in our lives?
This would mean, an argument like this would be impossible to achieve if humanity thought the same. Can we then infer that generation X is to blame for our troubles today? Can we say, we share equal responsibility for every murder, assault, rape, etc. that is committed every second throughout the world? Why should those that abide by Gods and man’s laws need to accept the blame?
With that consent of thought, it would be the responsibility of each parent toward their OWN children. Understand what a child is into, whom they speak with, who they hang around with, at home and at church. So if we are to blame an organization for something, then make it equal across the board to blame everyone including members of that organization regardless if they themselves are critical of such organization enough to think their instructions don’t go far enough to please a few within the masses. Those critics would also bear the blame if we are to think without forethought.

So if Raymond was a proven liar, and his accounts were challenged within the organization members along with Fred Franz himself, we are to believe that the CoC book was never challenged because you say so? We are to trust your words and your words only?

So far scripture stipulates those that can take the lead. You seem to fail in wanting to acknowledge their needs to be a party responsible in any given organization as instructed by Jesus. A faithful servant, reputable men, shepherd of a flock. All these are found in scripture you seem to dismiss. The ancients had prophets as guides. Christianity was guided by Christ and instructed to do the same throughout the world. With responsible people in the lead. Why defy Jesus instructions and God’s laws. 2 Timothy 4:3-4
What part of Christ words in Acts 20:28-30 fails you. These are the inspired words of God through John 1:1
Then it is yourself that are altering Jesus teachings. Then you should consider placing yourself in the same category as the GB. It’s dishonest to claim scripture as a convenience. 1 John 4:1-6
Therefore, can you give me verification the Watchtower GB is NOT God’s coordinated helpers on earth as God's will is in heaven?
On the rest, it appears the interpretation you give on scripture is misguided. Can anyone listen to a corrupter of God's word? Once again, wouldn’t that put you in the same category as these “Pharisaical leaders” you hate? Matthew 16:11-12
It appears the same problem Raymond Franz had after confusing scripture with his own personal desire.
All that the GB is about is written in scripture. In effect, the Watchtower constitution. What, is your constitution and doctrine when having people understand scripture the incorrect way for personal gain. Therefore, no one is adding to Christ instructions aside from those that hate a fellow Christian Colossians 2:4

Your wrong, you are doing the same thing. Therefore, don't lie to yourself, no one else is listening.