JW Insider

Evidently, Fred Franz was NOT a "framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clear under scriptural bases." This was one of the more surprising points in "Crisis of Conscience." When the Aid Book was being researched and written, it became obvious that the congregations would have been able to utilize all the elders who met the qualifications. By now it probably surprises most Witnesses that there ever was a time when each congregations was "run" by an ONE autocratic "congregation servant" who could hold that position for decades. He reported to a circuit servant who reported to a district servant who reported to the service department in the US or a respective branch servant elsewhere. When R.Franz showed F.Franz the evidence that an elder arrangement was Biblical, he says that F.Franz appeared to have known this all along but had held off doing anything about it. (Of course, under Russell and Rutherford, there already had been an elder arrangement, but this is something that Rutherford stopped in favor of the autocratic arrangement he called "Theocratic.") Just another take on this, but I think that F.Franz was very unqualified to take on the same type of leadership role that Knorr took on. Milton Henschel, definitely, or even Ted Jaracz. I could see Sydlik probably capable but not in the running due to a condition that was rarely spoken about. In fact Max Larson would have been the most equivalent replacement for Knorr had he been anointed and on the Governing Body. F.Franz was very different, and so many of his early talks in public are forceful only in the sense that they were sometimes "shrill." He was more like a nerdy expert witness on a court stand that no one would speak against because everyone thought he was so much more qualified from the perspective of his intelligence. If you listen to his talks going back to 1950 and 1958 (some are recorded), you can see that several times he was given these very small talks that should have been called "Bible Greek Trivia," short snippets of linguistic expertise but on topics that would have seemed insignificant in the context of an international convention. Yet, I understand that when his office filing cabinets were opened after his death, it was obvious he had been the primary writer of all Bible-based articles in the Watchtower since Knorr's presidency (1942) and that he had even been the writer of many articles in Rutherford's lifetime. He wrote almost 100 percent of every prophecy book from 1942 through 1988. Articles that were written by others on these same topics merely copied his previously published material and reworded it. Jehovah no doubt blessed the decision to go back to an elder arrangement, and I think that F.Franz knew he could not stand in the way of this change, now that someone else had seen how clearly the Bible defines this arrangement. I sometimes think that Witnesses were protected from something quite chaotic and damaging that would have happened had F.Franz been the bureaucratic head and the unchecked spiritual head of the Society at the same time. The Governing Body arrangement was very timely. Jehovah provides. Of course that didn't stop F.Franz from writing an article that included some non-Biblical speculation when he accepted the elder arrangement, and a very limited Governing Body arrangement in 1971. In the infamous 'tail wagging the dog' article from December 15, 1971, he wrote: *** w71 12/15 p. 759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation *** From this, and from what historical evidence there is available, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated, just the same as the chairmanship of the presbytery or “body of elders” of each Christian congregation rotated among the coequal elders.—1 Tim. 4:14. This may be an excellent idea. But where in 1 Tim 4:14 is there any hint that there was a 'chairmanship' among the body of elders, or that this 'chairmanship' rotated among coequal elders? The argument had been built from the idea that Peter speaks in Acts 2, and then James in Acts 15. *** w71 12/15 pp. 758-759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation *** The governing body does not have officers such as the Society’s Board of Directors has, namely, president, vice-president, secretary-treasurer and assistant secretary-treasurer. It has merely a chairman, such as the governing body of the first century had. Apparently, the apostle Peter was the chairman of the governing body on the festival day of Pentecost of 33 C.E., and the disciple James, the half brother of Jesus Christ, was the chairman at a later date, according to the account in Acts of Apostles. F.Franz was fairly proficient in several European languages and had studied Biblical Greek. He did a lot of work translating Hebrew and Greek into English, but I'm pretty sure he was not involved in translating scripture into any other languages. I found him to be a very interesting man. I'd read it.

Moved a bunch of posts from another thread to here. This will effect posts by @Witness, @Srecko Sostar, @Anna, @JOHN BUTLER, @TrueTomHarley, @Shiwiii.

I can try to move the CSA centric posts here to there, but they will sort themselves by the time of the post and might cause some confusion there too as they "interleave" with the original posts, there. I'll look to see if it might improve things. OK. I moved them. This will effect posts by @Witness, @Srecko Sostar, @Anna, @JOHN BUTLER, @TrueTomHarley

Nonsensical non sequitur just to imply I might hate Fred Franz. I have never hated Fred Franz. I was always very impressed at his abilities. But I also felt badly for him, because he entered the Bible Students under Russell back at a time when the Watchtower freely admits that many of the Bible Students had turned it into a "cult." According to Rutherford it was a personality cult that worshiped Russell. Rutherford himself had apparently fallen victim for a time, if you listen to his eulogy at Russell's funeral. (And if you read the twisted logic he employed in order to defend Russell in the booklet "A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens.) Now that I have seen numerous additional examples of the same behaviors I saw in Fred Franz, I believe that he was a high-functioning autistic person. (Something akin to what many psychologists will now diagnose as "Asperger's Syndrome.") This does not belittle him as you might think. But it explains a lot of his anti-social behaviors, and it explains a lot of his talks and comments that were clearly intended to provoke, or push the envelope in terms of what he might get away with verbally. If you think I have expressed something like anger here, and I hope I haven't, it might be related to the same way that that Raymond Franz felt anger, but not about his uncle, at a funeral of R.Franz' nephew. This was the funeral where F.Franz gave the talk, and started out, very loudly: "Isn't it grand to be ALIVE!" [F.Franz] walked up to the podium, paused, and then in a very loud, almost stentorian, voice said: “Isn’t it grand to be ALIVE!” After that introductory exclamation, for several minutes he discussed, effectively and dramatically, the meaning of the words at Ecclesiastes 7:1-4. As yet my nephew had not been mentioned in any way. Then, after approximately ten minutes, in referring to the words about it being ‘better for us to go to the house of mourning,’ the speaker said, “And the reason why is that sooner or later we’re all going to end up like THIS!” and, without turning, he threw his hand backward in the direction of the coffin where my nephew’s body lay. The talk went on with further commentary on the Biblical section but with no other reference to the dead man until the close when the standard statements of the reason for the occasion and the names of the deceased’s survivors were given. I felt a sense of burning anger—not at my uncle, for I sincerely and honestly believe he thought this was the best way to deal with the situation, the best way to combat the natural sensations of grief and loss. What I felt incensed at was the organizational attitude that allowed a person to feel fully justified to speak in a way which essentially transformed the dead person’s body into a vehicle or platform on which to base a talk, a talk that expounded organizational doctrine, but which throughout simply made no mention of sadness at the loss of the person whose life had ended, as though by ignoring this the hurt would be lessened. I kept saying to myself, “James deserves something better than this—surely the text about a ‘name being better than good oil’ calls for talking about the name he made for himself in life. This is the kind of thing I remember most about F.Franz' comments in the morning, too. Fortunately, his assembly talks were rarely like this, although a couple of his Gilead talks seemed to test the limits. An nearly hour-long scriptural talk on "the Biblical meaning of the Liver," sounded like it could have been a F.Franz satire from "The Onion," in part, but was also intended to sound very serious by the Gilead Graduation audience. (Brother Schroeder implied to me that he took it as a satirical attack on a talk that he [Schroeder] had recently given.) Another example was his wearing of a T-shirt with the word "HELL" in its message, for nearly the entire week during his morning worship comments in response to Sydlik's call for a Kingdom Hall like dress code at Bethel breakfast. But I liked that his rants at breakfast were not about dressing down specific Bethelites that he wanted to belittle, the way that Rutherford and Knorr had used much of their 'morning worship' time. He railed against certain questions that had come up, and process changes, but mostly he always tied what he said to a Bible passage or topic, even if it was a rule he wanted to talk about. Some GB members rarely spoke on Bible topics, like Henschel and Jaracz, for example. (Sometimes MH & TJ would literally start out a talk with: "Jehovah is a God of order, therefore . . . . " or, "Our God is a God of rules, so let's talk about . . . .") However, I always appreciated something in what F.Franz said every day that he spoke. I think a lot of the things he said could be taken as funny and thought-provoking. But I don't think it was healthy for the organization that he carried on in such a socially immature manner for so many years. He seemed to have a bit of an obsession with the Russell and early Rutherford years, and more than once told the story of how Rutherford said he had made an "ass" of himself over his 1925 predictions. But he would always emphasize the word "ass" for dramatic effect. Some of his later talks highlighted Russell and Rutherford's Christmas celebrations, birthdays, pyramids, false expectations, dates, etc., but without a stated purpose except maybe just for effect. With F.Franz, there was a lot to like, and a lot to feel sorry for. I think he could be brilliant and foolish at the same time. Nothing to hate.

Anna gets told off for fault finding and criticism, too. So do I. It depends on what someone is criticizing, to what extent, and how, etc. Sometimes I think you (and probably me, too) will criticize with too broad a brush, or harp on something that belongs under a different topic. Everyone's a critic (of something). I just have one general rule. If someone signs out so @Foreigner can sign in and down-vote a post, then I know I must be doing something right. 😉

I do not wish to justify R.Franz' doctrines, per se. If some of his ideas seem worth looking into, I am only concerned with evaluating the evidence he offered for his perspective. I did not know that R.Franz thought that the 144,000 was a symbolic number until I read his book. I was not surprised however, because it was fairly common to hear brothers ask about why it had to be literal if the number 12,000 was symbolic, or the number 24 was symbolic (symbolic of the 144,000!?!, at that). And I knew that at least two other persons in the Writing department had been discussing this question. Personally, I do not know if the 144,000 is a literal number or not, so I cannot give a scriptural example. Before I left for Bethel, I moved to another city away from my home congregation, and pioneered almost exclusively with a group of 4 brothers, instead of the 3 sisters that I pioneered with previously. One brother in this group was a well respected elder who was the first person I ever heard wonder about the literalness of the 144,000 and he also wondered about the "other sheep" of John 10 as being the Gentiles who were soon to start flocking in after Jesus was finished going to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I tended to forget about this because even if the great crowd of other sheep were Gentiles, and the little flock of current sheep were the Jewish believers, it still could have been that they represented "spiritual Jews" and "spiritual Gentiles" in Revelation 7 and 14 and, of course, especially so in our modern times. After all: (Romans 2:29) . . .But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code.. . . Funny you say that, because just to be sure, I had to review what R.Franz said about the topic. I hadn't remembered anything too specific about his own view of this this in "Crisis of Conscience," and still have not read that much of "Christian Freedom." I knew that R.Franz had implied that there wasn't enough Bible evidence to prove that the number 144,000 had to be literal. But I didn't recall him stating his own belief. I assumed he didn't think it necessarily literal, and assumed that he would probably think it wasn't. I just don't think he had said for sure. I had no idea how he views the difference between those who aspire to an earthly hope and those who aspire to a heavenly hope. He seemed to have thought that no one should be "too extreme in their statements." (p.238) I know that R.Franz spoke about the problems that were ensuing due to the focus on 1935, and I think this is another issue for which R.Franz predicted a change would need to be made. I think R.Franz book provided the impetus for the Governing Body to make that correction after they saw the points he made. 1935 is no longer looked at as a strict date that closed the door for all but the replacements of anointed who had proved unfaithful. This may become even more important as the number of anointed claimants rises to about 30,000 then 40,000, etc., because it would otherwise indicate that ALL the original pre-1935 anointed might be suspected of having become unfaithful. At any rate, I think that R.Franz probably believes that the number 144,000 is not a literal number, based on the fact that it is built on a foundation of 12 non-literal numbers of 12,000 from each tribe. Based on some of what I remember from "Christian Freedom" he probably also believes that the "other sheep" and "great crowd" represent gentiles, and the 144,000 represent Jews. Without knowing anything about what R.Franz thinks about this, I already have presented my own view that this is my own opinion, too. It's based on Paul's description of the ONE olive tree that represents the Jews so that the a number of Jewish persons would be sealed, and that the grafting into the same tree from the gentiles would continue until even "jealousy" motivated the full number of Jews to fulfill their invitations. Since Paul says he was an apostle to the Gentiles/Greeks, just as Peter was to the Jews, this appears to be the symbolic reference to the two olive trees in Revelation also. (Romans 11:7-24) . . .What, then? The very thing Israel is earnestly seeking he did not obtain, but the ones chosen obtained it. . . . 11 So I ask, They did not stumble and fall completely, did they? Certainly not! But by their false step, there is salvation to people of the nations, to incite them to jealousy. 12 Now if their false step means riches to the world and their decrease means riches to people of the nations, how much more will their full number mean! 13 Now I speak to you who are people of the nations. Seeing that I am an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry 14 to see if I may in some way incite my own people to jealousy and save some from among them. 15 For if their being cast away means reconciliation for the world, what will the acceptance of them mean but life from the dead? 16 Further, if the part of the dough taken as firstfruits is holy, the entire batch is also holy; and if the root is holy, the branches are also. 17 However, if some of the branches were broken off and you, although being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the richness of the olive’s root, . . . 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree! (Revelation 11:1-4) 11 And a reed like a rod was given to me as he said: “Get up and measure the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshipping in it. . . . 3 I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy . . . .” 4 These are symbolized by the two olive trees . . . standing before the Lord of the earth. Whether the full number of Jews, means literal Jews or symbolic Jews, I couldn't say. Whether it means a literal 144,000 or a symbolic 144,000 I couldn't say. It's compared with a great crowd which no man can number, which is a fair reason to conclude that it might be a literal number, but that's not definitive. (And even then we don't want it to refer to literal Jews.) We already teach that the 12,000 cannot be a literal number in the exact same context, so I wouldn't insist. The illustration of the Gentile "wild olive tree" grafted into Israel's holy, "garden olive" tree and then growing together reminds me of Jesus saying that he has other sheep not of this fold but which must be brought in to be one flock. In "Christian Freedom," R.Franz sees the similarity in another scriptural passage: (Ephesians 2:11-19) 11 Therefore, remember that at one time you, people of the nations by fleshly descent, were the ones called “uncircumcision” by those called “circumcision,” which is made in the flesh by human hands. 12 At that time you were without Christ, alienated from the state of Israel, strangers to the covenants of the promise; you had no hope and were without God in the world. 13 But now in union with Christ Jesus, you who were once far off have come to be near by the blood of the Christ. 14 For he is our peace, the one who made the two groups one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. 15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, in order to make the two groups in union with himself into one new man and to make peace, 16 and to reconcile fully both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself. 17 And he came and declared the good news of peace to you who were far off, and peace to those near, 18 because through him we, both peoples, have free access to the Father by one spirit. 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, ... [cf. "one flock, one shepherd"] For reference, I would add: (Matthew 10:5, 6) . . .These 12 Jesus sent out, giving them these instructions: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; 6 but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Acts 15:1-11) . . .Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” . . . 3 So after being escorted partway by the congregation, these men continued on through both Phoe·niʹcia and Sa·marʹi·a, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations and bringing great joy to all the brothers. . . . 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also. 9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. . . . 11 On the contrary, we have faith that we are saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way that they are.” (Galatians 2:7-9) . . .On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations— 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. (Romans 1:16) . . .For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Romans 2:9-11) . . .on the Jew first and also on the Greek; 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who works what is good, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. (Romans 10:11, 12) 11 For the scripture says: “No one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. . . . (Compare, 'no more wall that fenced them off into a different pen.' (John 10:16 and Ephesians 2:14.)

Of course, it is. I will never claim otherwise. It's impossible to get into the mind of another person, no matter how many clues they give us, or how much we hear about them from others. A person can seem haughty and presumptuous and sarcastic, like F.Franz, but be motivated by good intentions. A person can seem always friendly, humble and spiritual, like R.Franz, but have murderous intentions that we might never know about. All we can do is try to evaluate their stated perspectives from evidence and experience.

I especially thought this was a truthful admission from page 202, 203: However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

You could be right about this one. Especially the part where I made a big deal about how F.Franz says we shouldn't be "toying with Jesus' words." Those words were in the August 15, 1968 Watchtower: *** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. But you pointed something out in the May 1, 1968 Watchtower that tells me I need to correct something I've said here. I still think it's wrong to write an article in such a way that so many points are ambiguous. But I don't think that the above highlighted words mean that F.Franz was saying not to think about and apply Jesus' words. I have never seen the Watchtower say to ignore a scripture. If the writer means to override the common meaning given to a scripture, it will provide another scripture or some logic that shows how it shouldn't be applied in every case, at least in the way we might think. So I don't think that F.Franz is saying that we should ignore Jesus words, or that we shouldn't invoke them as a caution to potential over-speculation. Someone might have thought I was saying that this was like F.Franz saying, "Don't try to use Jesus' words against me on this, because you would just be toying with them." Or, it could sound as if he was saying that no one else knows how to use Jesus' words, so don't toy with them: don't try to put a stop to all of this talk with your one little scripture." I do NOT think this is what F.Franz meant. And, of course, this scripture is usually used among ourselves to remind us that we should avoid speculation. That's the way it is used with almost identical sounding logic and very similar context in the May 1, 1968 issue that @FelixCA already quoted: *** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time *** 8 Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly. In this May 1st issue, its meaning is clearly to be cautious not to go overboard with speculation. Jesus had used it in the original context, not primarily about speculation, but primarily as a reason to avoid complacency, knowing that the end will come at any time as if a complete surprise; so be ready at all times.) But the meaning is slightly different from both of those prior meanings in the later August 15 issue. Here the most likely meaning is "Don't go making light of Jesus warning that no one could put a date on the end of the system, and therefore start thinking that it could therefore be far off in the future." If that's the meaning --"not to let Jesus' words make you complacent"-- and I think it very likely considering the following paragraph in that Watchtower, then it is not a wrong application at all. (It's also not wrong to use it in a way that tells us to avoid speculation.) What I still find wrong is how it's made to fit in the context of the entire article. It's as if it's saying the following, paraphrased: "It's absolutely certain that 6,000 years of man's existence will be up soon, yes, within this generation, and if you read carefully what we just said, it was pretty much proven that those 6,000 years will be up in 1975, and that the actual 7th day (after Eve's creation) must have begun at most a few weeks or months, but not years after the fall of 1975. So that final millennium of the 7th day is going to be here very close after 1975. So don't any of you go thinking that just because Jesus said no one knows the day or the hour that this means we shouldn't be looking into all this. Don't go thinking that those words of Jesus mean that it could still be a ways off just because after all "we don't know; no one knows." To the contrary, we do know something here that's very important and significant about how close that end must be." If that's the meaning in context, then it is used in a way that tends to supersede or outweigh the original meaning in Jesus' context: "No one knows so it MUST be close." This of course fits not just the context of the paragraph and article, but the entire context of all publications that year. (The Truth book with a half-a-dozen 1975 quotes from experts, later removed in the next version. Articles pushing urgency, from January through December: January Watchtower: "THE TIME IS SHORT" . . . December Watchtower: HOW WE KNOW IT IS GETTING NEAR") And as you say, I could be mistaken on this point especially, by reading too much into it. And this was August 15, only a few months after the May 1 issue, when the Watchtower had published nearly the same idea, but had used it with a meaning that was made perfectly clear by the context. The problem with the May article is that it had another problem/mistake in the context that was just ridiculous. Perhaps it's a mistake that the August 15 issue is trying to correct, but if it is, it doesn't correct it by much. This is the mistake. *** w68 5/1 p. 270 par. 2 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time *** With accurate knowledge of Jehovah and his purposes, the Christian rejects the speculations of men. Good so far. According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation. This is speculation of men about what time of year he was created, but that's not the problem. *** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 4 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time *** Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed. Now we have speculation but it is properly labeled as such by saying "it is logical that..." rather than "it is definite." There's a bit of speculation in the idea that God's 7th day, his "rest" day immediately followed Eve's creation. But the main point here is that we are speculating that Eve was created in 4026 BCE, within 12 months of Adam in a year that is counted from autumn to autumn. Now the next paragraph: *** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 5 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time *** To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. From the autumn of that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E., there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of 1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025 and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years from the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day. So this article is saying that we KNOW that the full end of the 6th day was 4026 B.C.E. and that we KNOW --no speculation-- that the autumn of 1975 is "fully 6,000 years into God's seventh day, his rest day." This article is basically rewritten in August, just a few months later. In this one we don't speculate about the time for Armageddon even though we KNOW that 1975 marks the last 1000 years of the 7th day, God's rest day. In the re-write we are back to looking an UNKNOWN gap between Adam and Eve and THIS is why we can't speculate as to the time when the millennium will most likely be timed. It puts a different flavor on the use of Jesus' cautionary words in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.

It's true that many ex-JWs, apostates and interested persons mistakenly believe that Russell predicted 1914 as the end of the world, when 1914 was NOT supposed to be the end of the world. It was only the final date for the "rapture" of the remnant of Christ's Bride, and the year when Gentile kingdoms would cease ruling, and all religious and political institutions would plunge into their final chaos, which could last until the end of 1915, perhaps even a few months beyond. At the same time, 1914 would also see a non-Gentile government in Jerusalem become established, which would begin to administer the earthly part of a one-world government for everyone on earth except Christians, who would all go to heaven (including the great crowd, also considered to be anointed.) Many ex-JWs, apostates, and interested persons also mistakenly believe that F.Franz and/or the Watchtower Society predicted that 1975 would be the end of the "world." But in this case absolutely nothing was predicted that would definitely happen in that particular year. It was always about how close 1975 must be to the time when Armageddon was expected because of the unscriptural significance given to the end of 6,000 years of man's existence. F.Franz must have sincerely thought that there was some scriptural significance to "the end of 6,000 years. And of course, this fit perfectly with the idea already being promoted that the end must come before the lifespan ended of those who were teenagers in 1914. In other words they would already be about 75 years old in 1975. And you are right that this was seen to fit a host of other "signs of the times."

His point was, basically, that the body of elders at the Jerusalem congregation, even though it included James and some of the apostles, could not constitute a "governing body" or "ecclesiastical body" of authority to make decisions incumbent on the rest of the the Christian congregations. There was an occasion when it did do that, but not because it was an authoritative body, but because that's who started the problem and it was important to get their problem fixed and announce how they resolved it, since it was detrimentally affecting other congregations. As evidence he used the example of Paul, who says he never got appointed from this body in Jerusalem. And how Philip and Barnabas and others were not appointed by a central body in Jerusalem. How, for some purposes, we might as well say that Antioch served the function of such a body. This was all given as evidence that there is no need for a first-century type Christian governing body of the type we imagine Jerusalem had. He derided that idea very sarcastically denying that anyone would have thought that they needed to check in with that body of elders in Jerusalem.

Who gets called "The Oracle"? Who realizes that the primary scripture that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'? Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"? Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned? Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not? Who would rant angrily that Jesus can't be the mediator of "every Tom Dick and Harry" but is only the mediator of the 144,000? Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking? Example: Here is how Franz put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205): Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says to those who are privileged to represent him upon the earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations" ... These expressions of God's will by his King and through his established agency constitute his law or rule of action for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill companions today... The Lord breaks down our organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field, the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord] says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175 hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as can be properly developed during that time. And for company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60 hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week for each publisher.' These directions come to us from the Lord through his established agency directing what is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name. These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals and as collective units called "companies". ... They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in that assignment. ... ... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six months." That becomes our organization instructions and has the same binding force on us that his statement to the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction and obey it. A similar attitude was shown in R.Franz experience after the GB had elicited input from various Branch Overseers in many countries where "alternative service" was an issue. In the book "In Search of Christian Freedom" page 268, R.Franz writes: Indicative of this, the Society’s president, Fred Franz, also expressed doubt as to the weight to be given to the expressions of the Branch Committee members. He reminded the Body that he had not voted in favor of the worldwide survey and then, sharply increasing the force of his tone, asked: “Where does all this information come from anyway? Does it come from the top down? Or from the bottom up?” He said that we should not build our decision around the situations found in different countries. As noted, this phrase regarding “top” and “bottom” was not new to me. As recently as 1971 in a Watchtower article, Fred Franz had used it, along with reference to the “rank and file” members of the organization. But the whole tone of the discussion was extremely upsetting to me, particularly such expressions as “If we allow the brothers this latitude.” When recognized by Chairman Klein, I reminded the members that it was the Governing Body’s decision to write the Branch Committee members, that those men were among the most respected elders in their respective countries, and if we could not give weight to their expressions then to whose expressions could we do so? I felt compelled to add that my understanding was that we considered ourselves as a brotherhood and had no reason to look on ourselves as the “top” of anything, that we should even find the concept personally repelling. Edited to add that the Watchtower article written by Fred Franz from 1971 referred to above is this one, an article stating that the Governing Body can't be voted in because they are appointed by Jesus Christ himself: *** w71 12/15 p. 760 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation *** They do not want to cause anything like a situation where the “administrative agency” controls and directs the user of that agency, which user is the governing body as representing the “faithful and discreet slave” class. No more so than to have the tail wag a dog instead of the dog’s wagging its tail. A legal religious instrument according to Caesar’s law should not attempt to direct and control its creator; rather, the creator of the legal religious instrument should control and direct it. . . . Rather, it governs such corporations as mere temporary instruments useful in the work of the great Theocrat. Hence it is patterned according to His design for it. It is a theocratic organization, ruled from the divine Top down, and not from the rank and file up.

@FelixCA, I had said that F.Franz in his Gilead talk, made it clear that, instead of some ecclesiastical body, he liked the idea of a single president wielding authority with the final say, and the ability to just ignore all those under him if he wished. To that you responded: I notice that you keep repeating this idea that Raymond Franz also aspired to an authoritative presidency. I'm not sure where you got this idea. Nothing in his books gives that impression, and he states the exact opposite. The impression he gave while at Bethel was also consistent with someone who wanted a quiet, unassuming, thoughtful, existence there. In all his comments he spoke with a quiet, soothing voice. (It was that same voice that read the book of John in the first set of Bible recordings on cassette.) The political aspirers would rant and raise their voice and talk about things they didn't like. You could tell that R.Franz wanted a more spiritual life than a political life at Bethel. On the idea that some here knew him on a more personal level, that's very possible. The now-infamous A.Smith said the same thing. I think F.Franz would have been very interesting and possibly even fun to know on a personal level. I was a friend with his long-time Bethel roommate, who left Bethel amid the scandalous kerfluffles of 1980. But did he act haughty, presumptuous and self-righteous? There was no question in the mind of anyone at Bethel. It was just his way -- and his way of talking.

I answered both questions already. You asked if F.Franz wasn't referring to the first century [Jewish] governing bodies. I already said he wasn't and that he referred to modern governing bodies of Christendom today. Then you asked me why he would have mentioned such an irrational thought about the first century governing bodies anyway. Remember, don't confuse the objective.

More emphasis on the power of prayer and even faith in setting the mental and heart attitude that should lead them to the right Scriptures, lead them to see through previous mistakes and resolve them with a consistent picture obtained from Scripture, and on the ability of each of them to bring further and additional scriptures to the table that each of them appreciate as being in consistent harmony with the spirit of the Bible and of an over-arching view of Christianity. There should be more emphasis on speaking in agreement with one another, seeing the value of these decisions in producing a more loving organization producing more love and other fruits of the spirit. Also emphasis on the evidence of Jehovah's blessing through the success of these decisions in how they are appreciated by the worldwide body of Witnesses as a whole. How problems are resolved. How lives are changed for the better.

Of course the account in Genesis is scriptural, and Psalms and Peter too, as you must specifically be referring to the "thousand years as one day with Jehovah." What was unscriptural was to say that just because we had a doctrine that said that all the 7 creative days were 7,000 years each (not scriptural) for a total of 49,000 years -- that a point that was 6,000 years into the 7th of those days should be significant as a time marker related to the end of this system. That would be building an unscriptural point on top of an unscriptural point which also happens to defy Jesus words that neither he nor the angels knew the day or the hour. After all, if that 6,000 year point really had been the significant time marker for Armageddon, if we only knew how long it was between Adam's and Eve's creation -- then surely the Son and the angels would have already known that time marker. Right?

No, he specifically ran through a listing of modern governing bodies of the major churches of Christendom today. What he did NOT mention was first century governing bodies who should have been sending out people. So if I had to guess, I'd say that at least that part of what you propose is false.

Exactly the same point I have often made. This is why I don't blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions I have made, and this is why I never complain that I lost out on anything. Edited to add: This is why I also have never expressed any kind of resentment, because I don't feel any. Someone on here who comments very little could testify that it was just early this morning when he asked me what I thought of my time at Bethel and my complete answer was: I enjoyed it. I learned a lot. Loved the work. I'm an artist and worked in the art department. Then I got a lot of research assignments, so I got to go to the library a lot.

That is correct. That is why I asked what you meant instead of correcting you. I don't want to degrade anyone, which is why my behavior did not poke fun at anyone. Also, you provided no evidence of anything, just more false and empty assertions.

I think there are only a couple examples of persons who were not anointed, about 13 men in all. Interestingly, Luke (as the writer of Acts), mentions that while not "anointed" Apollos was "aglow with the spirit." (Acts 18:24-19:7) . . .Now a Jew named A·polʹlos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephʹe·sus; he was an eloquent man who was well-versed in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of Jehovah, and aglow with the spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things about Jesus, but he was acquainted only with the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and when Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him. 27 Further, because he wanted to go across to A·chaʹia, the brothers wrote to the disciples, urging them to receive him kindly. So when he got there, he greatly helped those who through God’s undeserved kindness had become believers; 28 for publicly and with great intensity he thoroughly proved the Jews to be wrong, showing them from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. 19 In the course of events, while A·polʹlos was in Corinth, Paul went through the inland regions and came down to Ephʹe·sus. There he found some disciples 2 and said to them: “Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers?” They replied to him: “Why, we have never heard that there is a holy spirit.” 3 So he said: “In what, then, were you baptized?” They said: “In John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said: “John baptized with the baptism in symbol of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid his hands on them, the holy spirit came upon them, and they began speaking in foreign languages and prophesying. 7 There were about 12 men in all. Some scholars have assumed that, for many of the early years at least, Baptists were probably a larger group than the Christians. John had obviously baptized many persons before Jesus got there, and there were already crowds being baptized by John. The similarities of their beliefs might have allowed some to join with Christians and not realize that there was more to being a Christian than just verbal acceptance of a Christian message on top of a Baptist message. Some scholars also believe there is early documented evidence of an ongoing debate or even a competition between followers of John the Baptist and followers of Jesus the Christ. Interesting, too, is the story that explorers in the Middle East in the 1700's came across one or more Bedouin groups, who explained that they were not Christians but claimed to have been followers of John the Baptist for thousands of years. I'll have to look up the story again to get the exact details. It's possible they were followers of Mandaeism, who see John the Baptist as a more important person than Jesus. Some scholars, and I might be using the term loosely, have also thought that the Qumram community (the probable guardians of the Dead Sea Scroll "library") was related to John's preaching, and that most of John's followers would have been Essenes. Another aside, but Apollos, by some, is considered a prime candidate to have been the author of the book of Hebrews. Note that he was eloquent, and zealous in preaching to Hebrews about Christ. I think it is a minority of modern scholars who believe that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. We have no evidence one way or another in scripture itself except style and content, but Paul's "calling" or ministry was not to the Hebrews.

Of course, not everyone did, or could. I doubt they expected even such a high percentage as they got. The excitement shows it. *** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? *** Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end. The specific quote about a future in school is in the Awake! but not in the Watchtower Online Library, but you've probably seen it. Also, a circuit assembly in 1971 influenced me to quit school, but I have no notes on which talk it was. If the end had come in the mid-70s as expected, no one would have needed professionals. Up until 1975 Bethel HQ had used very few professionals, but in 1976, they accepted computer professionals to start a computer department (my roommate and another friend from St. Louis), electronics professionals (including my brother) to develop some programmable controllers, a second surgeon to live near Bethel to back up Doctor Dixon, etc. But professionals can always be recruited. Or we could rely on worldly people. Jehovah provides. Also, I don't think you or I can impute wrong motives of the GB claiming that they wanted dumb people to domineer. Higher education is considered "dangerous" to one's spirituality because, in practice, many Witnesses leave the organization when they go to college. A very high percentage. I understand that there are still some mixed feelings about higher education among the GB.

I sincerely doubt that, too. There seemed to be a time from 1912 through about 1936 when we find surprising links between some Bible Students and the occult, and various loose connections to spiritism and even claimed demonic influences. But I can never see F.Franz as the type. I don't know what years you are talking about here, but Klein was in and out of Writing for several years and would have known that everyone had to defer to F.Franz as the only one who could explain the various prophecies and parables and who the Jehu class or Jephthah class or Gideon class was. That kind of stuff has been tied to demonism since Russell's time.

No he didn't. Where do you get your information from? He continued to believe that Jesus was enthroned in 1878 until the day he died (dying in the latter part of 1916). The Watchtower continued to teach 1878 for another 10 years, and promote it in books for about 20 more years. But I would agree with you in the sense that they expected 1914 to be a milestone in the earthly, visible outworking of that same Kingdom. It would become visible to the earth in the form of a non-Gentile earthly rulership starting that year. As the Watchtower said in November 1914: This prophecy was fulfilled, as pointed out in the STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, in the year 1878; and ever since that time, the star of Judaism has been rising; the Jews have become more prosperous ever since, as they themselves realize. Nowhere have they been so prosperous as in these United States, where they have received their greatest blessing; while in Russia and Germany they have been persecuted to some extent, but not in the same degree as formerly. But this article was written after October 1914, when some adjustments were necessarily in order. When they saw the European war in 1914, they were confused, but assumed it would be the fight that would finish the gentile nations amidst the rise of the Jewish nation. They were now focused on 1915. And, although one could say that the conflict in 1914 was seen as another manifestation of the Kingdom, it was similar to how the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 had also been a manifestation of the Kingdom. The invisible Kingdom was expected to reverse the fortunes of the Jews in 70 and God's Kingdom would not be "established" on earth. So I agree there was a tenuous connection to the earthly visible part of that Kingdom in 1914, but not to Christ's enthronement. As Russell said in the same Watch Tower in November 1914: Many of us concluded that as far as we could see, October of this year would show the end of the Gentile lease of power; for when October comes we are getting down to the end of the Jewish year. The year 1914 actually ended Sept. 20, 1914, Jewish reckoning. Now the question comes, Have the Gentile Times ended or not? Some perhaps may be inclined to say, "No; they have not ended." Others would say, "When the Gentile Times shall have ended, we would expect that the Gentiles would be entirely ousted from all power and control, and that Christ's Kingdom would be established. Were there not a great many things that we expected would take place when the Gentile Times would end?" The time of chaos was expected to begin in this new year 1915 ("before 1916") but now they would be looser with the time expectations. Russell tried to say, in effect, relax, the timeline has slowed down. As one evidence in the same article he notes: Some think that just the next hour after midnight would see a great, grand change everywhere--evil blotted out in sixty minutes or in sixty seconds. But would it be a reasonable expectation that the Gentile kingdoms would be snuffed out inside of an hour or inside of a day? . . . Now look back and see what happened immediately after the expiration of different time periods. For instance, there are great day periods mentioned in the Bible, namely, the 1260 symbolic days, the 1290, the 1335 and also the 2300 days. . . . The 1260 years ended in 1799. From their beginning to their culmination, the power of persecution held sway. When the 1260 years ended, was anything done in an hour, in a day, or in a year to stop the persecution? Nay! . . . Only within the past few years have we reached a maximum of speed on railways and steamships. Apparently they have begun to slow down. Very few trains now go faster than twenty-four miles an hour; . . . We will not go into details further; we merely wish to impress the thought that these fulfilments of prophecy did not come suddenly, but gradually--that they had a particular time for beginning, and were sure of accomplishment. In view of these lessons from the past, what should we think about the future? We should not conclude that everything would be transformed inside of one minute, or one hour, or one day, but gradually. This leads us to expect that the remaining prophetic periods will have a similar fulfilment, and that September 20 of this year, 1914, probably marked the end of the Gentile Times. If so, what we are witnessing now amongst the nations is a conflict to their finish. This is exactly what we should expect. Evidently the Lord is behind the matter; the Lord's Kingdom will manifest itself more and more. . . . .Should we expect that the Lord would reveal Himself the very moment Gentile Times end? . . . Just how long after the Gentile Times close will be the revealment in "flaming fire" we do not know. Seemingly, following this great war will come the greatest "earthquake" that ever occurred--a revolution that will involve all the civilized nations. Then Socialism may loom up, but will be short-lived and develop into anarchy. That anarchy will be the "flaming fire" revealing the new Kingdom, taking vengeance, bringing retributive justice upon the world--preceding its blessing. We might expect it to be five, ten or twenty years. But there is something, on the other hand, that leads us to anticipate that it will not be very long. The Lord has told us that He will "make a short work of it." Just how short the work will be would be conjectural. Every one may have his own opinion. At one time the Lord speaks of it as being "in one hour;" another time, as "in one day;" and the Apostle speaks of it as coming like travail upon a woman with child--suddenly. We remember also that there is a certain parallel between the Jewish Age and the Gospel Age. The forty years' Harvest of the Jewish Age, which began with Jesus' ministry, 29 A.D., ended in the year 69 A.D.--just as we believe that the Harvest of this age began with 1874 and ended with this fall, 1914.

Each one will carry his own load. I don't feel any remorse or bad feeling toward the Watchtower for recommending that I quit school to pioneer. I have thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of full-time service and am very thankful for the experiences it afforded, too. My parents even sold their house just before 1975 so that my father could spend more time closer to a newly formed congregation and my mother could pioneer, too. By then I was living 100 miles away because I had just turned 18, so having two out of three kids out of the house might have influenced the decision as much or more than 1975, but it was on their mind. I do think that persons like R.Franz should have done more to curb the influence of F.Franz in what I think was his obsession with 1975. The way R.Franz tells it, it was several people who knew better, but didn't do much about it.

It's not a lesson to me, because I have always known this. I have never claimed to write any better than anyone else. I only asked about the meaning of a word that I assumed might have been used correctly, but which didn't make much sense in context. Anytime someone asks what someone meant, it's the same as asking about the meaning of word(s) used. No reason to get angry just because someone asks what you mean. I welcome it when someone asks me what I mean, and I welcome it when someone points out my mistakes. Also quite different from you, I don't consider bad spelling and grammar to be any kind of "fail" on your part, my part, or for anyone else. That's why you don't see me degrading others, or making fun of grammar or bad spelling. In this case I really wondered what actual meaning was intended in the several recent instances of that particular word I asked about. I also knew why you might seem sensitive about it, but I also really wanted to know what you meant. I know how important it might be to impute wrong motives to me. But if you think you know something different, why not share evidence instead of unsubstantiated accusations? It's another example of Fred Franz' obsession with 1975 and something akin to numerology. You're right. I did learn something from that. Curious too that, before I knew about that Canadian incident, I had already expressed concern that the recent videos being shown with the guns and hiding in rooms could have an unpredictable effect on some Witnesses. Interesting. Do you have evidence? I never saw "hysteria" anywhere. Just a lot of serious people who seriously believed that the period around 1975 was destined to be a very important date related to the time of the end. By serious, I mean they truly believed, but they were also happy about it. I was also both happy and serious about it too. My parents were different as to how they took the predictions about the 1970s, but circuit overseers were encouraging quitting school to pioneer, and I quit school at 15 (1973) to do just that. Naturally, I discussed that plan with my parents in 1972, but was asked to finish out my high school "sophomore" year. My mother liked the idea that it could be as early as 1974, because that would allow for a lot of growth from the increased activity, but it would still come at an hour we were not expecting it. My father was more like: 'It could come anytime between now (1972) and the end of the 80s, picking the 80s because he didn't see world conditions lasting much beyond that. (As the 80s approached he was quick to pick up on some of that "end of the century" talk, always tending to push the end out about 15 years.) My mother surprised me yesterday because she said I might want to wait until I'm 67 to collect Social Security instead of collecting when I turn 62. I didn't say anything, but thought: "Wow!! What a difference half-a-century makes!!" I have Penton's book, but must admit that I haven't read even a quarter of it yet. Is that where your evidence of Canadian hysteria comes from? I think you are referring to F.Franz Gilead talk. If you listened to it you would see that he said it was Knorr himself who came up with the idea of the School of Gilead to send out evangelizers, and it was Knorr himself who sent out these first missionaries under the direction of the Watchtower Society. He didn't need a committee to approve. He was, as F.Franz said in the talk, NOT just a figurehead, he was NOT a "do-nothing President." F.Franz considered a president getting direction from a committee, to be the equivalent of the "tail wagging the dog." (He didn't use that expression in the same Gilead talk, but it was implied.) I think you might be saying that just like Jesus sent out the 70 instead of the unapproved leaders, that the WTBTS or GB or FDS can just as easily represent the approved leaders who send out true missionaries as opposed to the unapproved leaders of Christendom. That might be a true statement, but it was not what F.Franz had in mind when he made it clear that no "ecclesiastical body" should have that responsibility. He made it clear that he liked the idea of a single president wielding authority with the final say, and the ability to just ignore all those under him if he wished. I don't think it was lost on some in the audience that F.Franz knew his time in that office of president would be just a few months away. Yes, you're right; he was correct in saying that. It was his rant against governing bodies (and committees) that seemed out of place, even though he used plenty of scriptures to back it up. He showed how even the apostolic body in Jerusalem was not a centralized body acting in the capacity to send out missionaries. No. It doesn't. In fact that was one of the most ambiguous passages in that May 1, 1968 Watchtower about 1975, when it said "1975! And Beyond." It stated that perhaps some can't see beyond 1975, but Witnesses should see ourselves continuing right on into a new system. These were very carefully crafted words. I recalled the date problem in the Russell story of his announcement of the "end of the Gentile Times" and it reminded me that F.Franz used this opportunity to also announce the "end of the 6th 1,000 year day in the 7th 7,000 year creative day. His, as I recall, also produces a date problem. But it was to show that he was still obsessed with the unscriptural doctrine of the 6,000 years being significant. It is against scripture in that it's based on the idea that either Jesus and the angels either can't count, or this scripture is false: Matthew 24:36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.